a common herd of buffalo or bovine increase in numbers by 30% every year yet they say the chemicals released by our livestock are damaging the planet?? If we didn't kill them there would be millions more like in the past yet global warming didn't exist then or did it?I believe in global warming however we are not the cause that's why the polar ice caps on Jupiter's and Saturn's moons are melting how could we cause that? we cant it's a natural occurrence and has been recorded in the past. SCAM!!
a common herd of buffalo or bovine increase in numbers by 30% every year yet they say the chemicals released by our livestock are damaging the planet?? If we didn't kill them there would be millions more like in the past yet global warming didn't exist then or did it?I believe in global warming however we are not the cause thats why the polar ice caps on jupiters and saturns moons are melting how could we cause that? we cant it's a natural occurrence and has been recorded in the past. SCAM!!
If local temperatures behave the same way across multiple sample areas in different parts of the world, then it IS an accurate measure of global temperature change. Let's see if they do or do they behave differently.
It's amazing to me that people STILL believe in the global warming scam, but to actively support it! Despite what science says?!?!?!
Then the tired old discredit and insult Saul Alinsky tactics *yawn*
Climate Realists are termed "ignorant" because we know that CO2 follows warming. We are said to be crazy because we know that if you shut down 4500 of 6000 temp gathering stations, the data will favor the AGW scammers.
We are asked to ignore the hundreds of exposed Climatgegate emails.
Double standards abound in the world of environMENTALism. They pollute more than the average person. Al Gore still uses a Jet. O B A M A uses Air force 1. Nancy Pelosi and other democrats use jets too. All these jets put out thousands of tons of CO2 yet its okay for them cause they know better. We the sheep will pay for their standards of living cause we the sheep won't have a standard more than poor.
@feelzthelove Quote:"Double standards" That is a very odd way to see it. I mean, it seems to me that, you are unable to comprehend the simplest of notions and in this case it is a question of priority.
For example,it has to be clear that my personal vacation flights are far less important for society than the travels of diplomats and politicians.
This is also how our societies work now and have been for all history, with good reason by the way.
@JRBendixen It seems to me you are trying to argue that environMENTALists, mean NATO should go to war on bicycles. You can probably find some people whom think like that, but the fact remains 95% of people concerned with the environment are not so daft.
@GMBCATASTROPHE Yeah the video sux. The thing is though my critique is quite valid, but the message never gets through to the audience as I present my case in an extremely bad way.
@immortalPhoenix1986 I´m afraid you are right. If excuses have any relevance, well this was my first video. And I would argue I videos have gotten better. I am still thinking of redoing this but lack the time and impetus :)
they forgot to mention that CO2 respired by a living being has a significantly different chemical signature than that of a car of factory that produces CO2. one is benefit the other is well, poison.
@bbbleaver, haha what? CO2 is not "poison", whether its produced by a human, a car, a factory, or a beluga whale. It's the exact same chemical compound, you nitwit.
@ttowntom uhm... try sucking on the tail pipe of your car for even a few seconds and then see if you even type another uninformed comment... ever again. ya know, i may be a nitwit but science seems to think that emmissions from a car or factory are not the same and that's just empirical evidence u twit.
Well you certainly proved it with that post. Auto exhaust contains CO (carbon MONOxide), as well as VOCs, NOx, particulates, O3, and other toxic compounds. None of these are CO2...which is a gas not only **required** by all plant life on earth, but one so benign we intentionally add millions of tons of it each year to our soft drinks.
Learn a little Beaver. You'll embarrass yourself less that way.
@bbbleaver Sure is, but it really is a rather silly point, because there can be all the Co2 in the world, so to speak, but if there is going to be an increase in droughts the plants will wither away.
Your statement is even more ridiculous. Even assuming the IPCC is correct (which an increasing number of scientists rejects) the result is that some areas receive slightly *more* rainfall, some less.
There isn't a square inch on the planet that receives the ideal rainfall for all food plant species. What does man do? We irrigate, or we drain, or we pick the crop that grows best under the current conditions.
@ttowntom Quote:"We irrigate, or we drain, or we pick the crop that grows best under the current conditions"
The worlds fresh water reservoirs are under serious strain from over-usage so with less rainfall it might be difficult to just irrigate.
Nasa tells us that most places will either get a lot more heavy rain or dry out. Both scenarios are extremely bad for any food production, there is limits to how much water infrastructure the countries can afford to invest in.
Alarmist predictions by environmentalists about decreases in global food production are utter nonsense. They all assume that man does nothing whatsoever about changing weather conditions. If you're growing rice in an area that becomes less rainy, you either irrigate, or you switch to a crop that prefers dryer conditions. Similarly, a dry area that receives more rainfall could see drainage if necessary, or a shift to crops that do better under wetter conditions.
@ttowntom Way too simplistic. There are only so many crops that can yield the amount of food products we need. And there are a limits to where they can be produced, because such factors as amount of sunshine, earth quality and type ect.
If the corn fields of the Ukraine or the US fails because of drought, you cannot simply begin to grow rice on those same fields. Logic 101.
Try using a little of that logic yourself. First of all, the vast majority of variance will be in the range of a 3-10% change in rainfall. (again, this even assumes the IPCC is correct-- a big if). Changes that small don't even need crop shifts...and statistically, exactly half those areas will now be *better* from growing food than they were before.
In fact, your entire argument is based on the fallacy that every spot on the planet is already at optimum conditions for growing food. The reality is we grow crops in areas that receive 3 inches of rain per year, and areas that receive 300 inches. We grow food everywhere from deserts to rain forests to near-arctic boreal tundra. And with the technology available to us in the year 2100, we'll grow twice the food we do today, on less land area.
@ttowntom Quote:"In fact, your entire argument is based on the fallacy that every spot on the planet is already at optimum conditions for growing food." Sure ennough but the yields and food type are quite different. And there are only so many types of plant that make the amount Carbohydrates needed to sustain humanity.
@ttowntom To name some of the few important crops there exist: Corn, Rice, Wheat. From there the yields get drastically smaller.
Try decimating 20 % of those crop fields and go look at map and try to figure out where to make new fields. Almost impossible and there are no grantees the future environmental will even allow agriculture.
The "increased storm activity" myth has already been debunked. According to COAPS, global hurricane/storm activity is at a 33-year low. Activity in the Pacific is at the lowest point since record-keeping began.
The ONLY atmospheric scientist to claim GW was increasing storm activity was Kerry Emanuel. For that, Time Magazine made him "man of the year" in 2005. Problem is, Emanuel changed his mind in 2008, saying his earlier research was wrong.
Use the published scholarly papers. No reputable hurricanologist or atmospheric scientist predicts an increase in hurricane/storm activity due to GW. Even the most alarmist predict a substantial decrease in activity.
"Tropical cyclones and climate change", pub. Nature Geosciences, by T. Knutson, for instance, predicts up to a 34% decrease in storm activity by 2100, only partially countered by a 2-11% increase in intensity. Other researchers claim even larger decreases.
And, according to the COAPS Hurricane Research Center, tropical storm activity globally is at the lowest point in 33 years. Pacific hurricane activity is at the lowest point since record keeping began .. and still decreasing.
This is actual scientific data, not a newspaper article.
You're getting more and more ridiculous. We grow food everywhere from desert to rain forest to arctic boreal biome. We grow it with rainfall levels from 3 to 300 inches per year.
Please explain how a 2-10% change in rainfall is going to "make agriculture impossible". Half the areas that see a rainfall change will grow MORE food, not less.
The third fallacy in these assumptions is the worst of all...that man won't choose to adjust *where* he farms based on climate change. For instance, Canada's grain fields are projected to increase in productivity by up to 15% due to climate change. But the childishly simplistic models assume that, if that happens, Canada won't choose to cultivate more land - land that previously had been submarginal - and boost its crop production further. Silliness.
@ttowntom Quote:"For instance, Canada's grain fields are projected to increase in productivity by up to 15% due to climate change"
If you think the worlds largest lentil producer is going to makeup for the estimated decrease of food production for the fields in Ukraine and US, then you are sadly wrong.
The fourth fallacy is that agricultural technology will just "stand still" over the next 100 years. Over the last century, crop yields per acre in the US have increased by over 600%. Most analysts predict at least another doubling of productivity by the year 2100.
Just expanding 20th century agriculture to the Third World would nearly double global food output. Assuming even moderate technological advances, and food production will likely triple by the year 2100.
@ttowntom Quote:" Crop yields per acre in the US have increased by over 600" Mostly because of the invention of pesticides and Inorganic fertilizers. These major inventions have revolutionized agriculture.
Quote:"Assuming even moderate technological advances, and food production will likely triple by the year 2100." No, you need major discoveries or inventions, see above.
And you still need water, not too much and not too little. This is the core problem in the future.
You believe in past agricultural innovations, but not in future ones? Further, you don't need "major" discoveries. By far the largest factor in agricultural increase over the last 500 years has been due to husbandry - the development of more productive plant and animal strains.
Today, the seed return on wheat is more than 100X. In Medieval times, it was 3X. That meant farmers needed to withhold fully 1/3 of their entire crop- just to plant next year.
@ttowntom Quote:"Simply extending first-world farming techniques to the third world will more than double global food output"
Past inventions where based partly on chance discoveries. As a matter of fact, the amount of major single event discoveries in chemistry are far between and there are no future guarantees such things will happen again. Let me remind you that 50 years have passed with not a single major agricultural revolution like that of artificial fertilizer.
Let me remind you that by far the largest increase in agriculture output is due to the development of higher-yield crop strains. That process continues to this day. New strains are increasing crop yields at more than 1% per decade, with some species increasing more than twice that rate.
Are you intentionally being obtuse? Your statement that "50% of crops use inorganic fertilizer" doesn't contradict my statement at all. In fact, it _supports_ it. If we do nothing but simply extend modern fertilizers to the other half of the world, we will more than double agricultural output.
But fertilizers aren't the largest reason for increased output. It's high-yield strains. Modern fertilizers can increase output by more than 3X. But high yield strains have increased grain returns by more than 25X. And we're developing higher-yield strains faster and faster as genetic science improves.
In 100 years, new strains alone are expected to increase food production by 15-25%. Extending modern agriculture to the Third World will mean more than a 100% increase.
Finally, I have to outright laugh at the notion that a mild warming and rainfall increase -- both of which are actually GOOD for plant growth, is somehow going to create a world where plants won't grow.
In fact, periods in the earth's past where such warming has occurred have invariably resulted in a more lush, fertile planet. The Carboniferous Era, for instance, had the highest biodiversity of any period in earth's history...and it had CO2 levels 20 TIMES higher than what we have today.
That process will continue in the future. We're still seeing increases of ~1% per decade due to the development of higher yield species.
Also-- 70% of the world's food is grown without pesticides, mechanization, or inorganic fertilizers. Simply extending first-world farming techniques to the third world will more than double global food output .. without even assuming a single advance in future agricultural science.
@ttowntom Quote:"hat process will continue in the future. We're still seeing increases of ~1% per decade due to the development of higher yield species." Useless if there is no environment to grow them in. Water amounts and how it is delivered is the key here.
Quote:"Simply extending first-world farming techniques to the third world will more than double global food output"
The third world is estimated to be hit the hardest with droughts and storms in the future.
Your last statement is an outright lie. Nasa does not tell us "places will either get a lot more rain or dry out". Nasa (actually, that's GISS, a semi-affiliated arm of NASA which is part of Columbia University, founded by James Hansen, the "father" of global warming) says most areas will receive changes in rainfall varying from 2-10%.
Today we grow food in areas that receive 3 inches rain/year, and areas that receive 300 inches/yr. Small rainfall change are not a catastrophe.
In fact statistically, half of those rainfall changes are likely to make the land _more_ suitable for farming than less. Most areas we farm today do not receive the exact ideal amount of rainfall.
Couple that with the increased growth rate due to elevated CO2 levels, the longer growing season due to a warmer climate, and the increased technology available to us in the next 100 years, and agricultural production will vastly escalate over the next 100 years.
The source is the Gaussian distribution. Randomly select any area we grow food today. That area will *already* receive too much or too little rainfall (over 98% of all US croplands are either irrigated or drained).
Climate change means that area will receive either 2-10% more rainfall, or 2-10% less. Statistically, there's an exactly 50-50 chance that change will result in a more optimal growing environment. QED.
A longer growing season, warmer climate, and increased atmospheric CO2, however, mean a 100% chance of a more optimal growing environment. I've already posted several scholarly papers verifying increases ranging from 5 to 30% just from CO2 alone.
Today, we lose over 25X as much food from frost damage as we do heat stress. Even on a world 2C warmer, frost damage is still going to be the major loss factor...but it will be significantly smaller.
Lol, do you actually not realize that both the US and Canada are expected to see agricultural output rises due to GW? Even ignoring all the various factors such as increased technology, adaptation due to changing rainfall levels, etc?
Try actually *reading* one of those reports sometime...rather than some reporter's 10-cent version of it.
Besides the no-adaption by man fallacies in these alarmist predictions of reduced food production, there an even more telling argument. The real world. Despite 150 years of CO2 emissions and climate change, global agricultural output has increased EVERY YEAR for the last century. Today, our largest problem is eating too much, not starvation ... despite the fact we have *less* cropland under cultivation today than we did in 1900. Output has increased that much.
Look you blithering little ignorant twerp, it's not "a myth". Rather than learning from your alarmist AGW blogs, look on Google scholar for for several **thousand** research papers verifying the increased plant growth due to higher CO2 levels. Or Google "CO2 enrichment equipment" to see that commercial greenhouses *already* artificially increase CO2 levels by up to 1200 ppm.
This is undisputed scientific fact, verified countless times. Not a "model prediction".
Here's just one paper: "Effects of atmospheric CO2 enrichment on plant growth"
"Comprehensive reviews of the plant science literature indicate that a 300 part per million (ppm) increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration generally increases plant growth by approximately 30%. "
Here's another: "Elevated atmospheric partial pressure of CO2 and plant growth"
"Thirty-five days after planting, the total dry weights of high CO2-grown plants were 2- to 3.5-fold greater than plants grown in normal ambient CO2 partial pressure"
Isn't your top pseudo scientist al gore? The very rich al gore who claims the earth's core is millions of degrees? I don't see where Cassiopeia project has a conservative agenda. They promote evolution.
This was hilarious. Your NASA GISS temperature chart is now out of date. The new one includes 2009 with an open box for the end of the year denoting it is an 11 month period. :)
Sure thing, and the video actually sux. But be real would you update such a video every time some new data comes to hand. It happens every day ffs and it was my first video, so give me a break. And maybe you should ask the cassiopeiaproject why they havent updated their video, as it is the one being commented.
Hey, you are contemplating a remake. You could update the information and improve the presentation simultaneously. There is no shame in that. Greenman3610 is doing it to his videos.
Seriously, if you have the time and other stuff, be creative and make it. You have to have list of things you want add, delete or change.
I have been contemplating remaking the videos as they really suck big time.If only to get rid of the spelling errors. But it would have to be with a voice over and I get quite fekked up by listening to my own voice. So it may be a while if ever :)
All that said you should notice that all my links in the video description are still live and well, which is far more than can be said by the cassiopeiaproject´s.
Hoax is to avoid paying the polution people with big company. I have seen that when plane are flying in winter day they use chemical that will hold the exteme cold but what happened when summer comes it goes to the soil that also may end up to the food that farmer harvesting every year.
Hoax? The "" is in the title for a reason. So I´m guessing you did not actually watch the video. I´m afraid it sucks, but I would reason my points are quite valid. But contaminated earth is one of the least of our problems.
The German magazine Der Spiegel published an article on Nov. 16th 2009, indicating the world temperature hasn't increase in the last 10 years. And how about the manipulation of data discovery in the e-mails hacked last month of East Anglia University, to indicate a global warming that really doesn't exist at all? This year the hurricane season ended being the more benign year for hurricanes. And finally there are some consensus among scientist that think we are bound to a little Ice age.
Climate change is measure over daces not one decade and weather has as much to do with climate as cheese has to do with burgers. Cheese works with burgers but it is far from a burger on it´s own.
It is true that the last 10 years temperature has had a sort of a stalemate. And the hurricanes are residing.
The hurricanes are getting weaker,exactly because of the minuscule decrease in temperature, which is a prediction of climate science.
Further more, yes there is an consensus that an ice age is coming, but in about a 1000 years ffs.
I´m sorry for my spelling errors, but this is christmas night and I´m sort of pissed from all the partying.Last but not least I senserely thing you should Tieck out The Royal societies webpage: "Climate change controversies: a simple guide". Just google it.
Consider that most of the rise in temperature has been since 1980s, the same decade of clean air acts that severely reduced particulate matter in the atmosphere. This particulate matter reflected heat away from the earth, like clouds do. China and Mexico have very few clean acts, and their climates are cooling !?
You are talking out of your ass. To be true I´m amazed how much you actually got wrong in those few words. You just selected an arbitrary time line that suited your point about rice in temp. And clouds not only reflect radiation they also absorb it. And for your ridicules last point, you really should look into the differences of global climate and local weather. And yea the entire weather system over Mexico, is actually local.
You point was like saying that the weather on the top of mount everest is different and more cloudy than that in the Sahara desert. And yes mount everest is clouded most of the year and the Sahara is not. So your argument is extremely pointless and devious. Further the area and weather of Mexico amounts to 0.2% of the earths total area. So are you really convinced that such a small local area´ weather system can tell us anything about the earths climate? Wiki the areas and do the math ffs.
Why has the climate been warming on Mars from 1980 through 2005? Martian space craft burning fossil fuels, or cyclical sun cycles? I guess indoctrinated folks would say the earth is so hot that it is radiating heat to Mars?
reading.. thinking.. reading.. thinking.. i read like 80% of the comments here and it seems u al did ur homeworks.. tough now a qeustion comes in mind and not generaly about this topic.. considdering all the consperracy theory's these days the war in iraq and binladen beeing "lost" for quite some time.. it's like they want us to look an otherway.. if peaple are beeing mind f*ckd and a war is beeing justified to hide something.. what the heck is worth hiding it?
But if you would like to hear about a real conspiracy, well it was the official doctrine of the catholic church that the jews murdered their god. This doctrine alone was responsible for the persecution of the jews since the doctrine was fist in effect many hundreds of years ago. I´m a atheist so you can very simply guess that I find all religions to be pure fantasy. In short, by my reasoning the jews got persecuted because of another popular fantasy. Why, well study the ingroup out group thing.
Can you give me a source for the .0024 figure. I googled it and should have gotten a bunch of hits if it's true, I only got unrelated info and something about carbon dating.
MarwanShah So, what you are saying is that somehow scientists have shown that earth was even hotter way before industries took hold? Even before man had any effect on the earth? Well yes I finally agree that man made global warming is a hoax, of course global warming exists, but it has nothing to do with man activity, but rather with normal cycles
Pollution is bad but not CO2, we need it, plants use it up fast too. I've wondered why the new trees on the sides of the road grow so much faster than the ones I put in my yard. Is it from all the CO2 they get from the cars going by? Even if there is some warming, why think it's bad? More rain, and warmth, more food we could grow. They show the worse pics of normal floods and ice melting in the Summer too to suck you in. Foolish to me to follow such a thing as this fear mongering GW thing.
Sea rise should be a global observation, is it? Seriously, I haven't checked it out. But I have read where some people are saying the sea is rising "in places" ..how could that be?, while the case is that the surrounding land is actually sinking a bit in those places. Also, I don't trust NASA data or any other organization associated with government funding anymore on this issue. From what I've heard, the rise in CO2 follows warming, not the other way around. ..Gore and his graph, pfff.
MarwanShah So what you are saying is that somehow scientists have shown that earth was even hotter way before industries took hold? Even before man had any effect on the earth? Well yes I finally agree that man made global warming is a hoax, of course global warming exists, but it has nothing to do with man activity, but rather with normal cycles
The ice is melting on Mars, and the moons of Jupiter and Saturn too, Marwan. This is because the SUN goes through cycles. Earth's naturally occuring CO2 (Volcanoes, Plants, Bacteria, Animals, the Ocean, etc...) exceed those from fossil fueled motors, power plants and factories by many fold. When Mt. St. Helen erupted, it belched forth more CO2 than all of north america does in a decade! And yet, the Ozone and Global Temps were NOT affected. Curious, eh?
@DSD1, I agree with cleaning up pollution too, cleaning up the trash, cleaner fuels. I don't like the idea of that being done based on a false premise though(if GW is a lie). CO2 isn't a pollutant, not related to the problem of drilling in Africa. The way they are drilling in areas of Africa is the problem, not GW if GW a lie. I sure like the idea of cleaner fuels though so we wouldn't have to drill anymore.
MarwanShahAs the matter of fact, yes they are lies, or did you not hear the news of a person leaking GW Scientists e-mails? They explicitly talk about hiding truth in them, the truth which absolutely disproves man made GW. As far as your first comment about coats. Which part of scientists observing for the past 20 years is hard to grasp? Oh BTW, we do get heat externally not just internally
You can't rely on Wikipedia for everything. Anybody that thinks they know can edit Wiki. People that want to push GW can make lies sound very convincing on Wiki. It seems many people have "made up their minds" on the issue and fight on the team they chose to the end maybe to save their own ego instead of keeping an open to better info. So much conflicting info and fact hiding, it seems anyway. I keep an open mind but to me, so far, GW looks like a massive tax fraud.
I'm with you that we should not implement taxation, but I would , get the oil companies out of Africa, where their killing Africans (watch documentary- Killing and drilling) and forced them to switch to better fuels.
If we can go to the moon and back I think we can obtain new renewable fuels.
MarwanShah There is a scientist who researched the very claim that CO2 traps heat in the atmosphere, he has done this for the past 20 years, he was observing it, the conclusion is - No heat is being trapped, quit BSing please, relax and live your life free of this GW paranoia. So much science coming out disputing manmade GW, those who believe are in a tiny minority now. So take a deep breath and relax, mother earth is fine
All these deniers have to do is open up Google, type in "Global warming" and open the Wikipedia page on it. There is a graph showing the temperature changes since the medieval warm period. THAT IS ALL THEY HAVE TO DO!!!!
these videos are stupid,i wanna see the real evidence and these wanna be refuters do not show the evidence.all they do is talk crap.shame on you for wasting your sorry time in this.u agnostics claim to be people of evidence and yet do not provide good evidence. kent hovinds of science??hahah my friend ,no one has been able to shut hovind up in a debate.hovind is a God fearing christian and has no intentions to lie
The wordl has been cooling naturally since 2005, as teh CO2 emisisons of man have gone up: GW was PR ficiton from nuclear power, for the stupid to believe.
tbh i don't beleive in global warming - weather varies it always have it always will a couple of factories won't kill a 'planet' plus if you look at most unalterd graphs comparing Co2 to tempreture Co2 follows the tempreture in other words tempreture dictates C02. - if any one wants to try and convert me im an open thinker so send me a message prefrable not hate mail :P
My little sister in school was told by her teacher that the ice is melting because the planet is heating up and coastal cities will be flooded because of increased sea levels. She replied by saying "if it is hot enough to melt it, it is hot enough to evaporate it, and therefore coastal cities will be left unharmed", she got in trouble for that.
I presume you did not watch the video. By the by, I would fail any kid who does not understand the difference between melting temperature and evaporation temp. As you apparently do not understand the difference I hereby flunk you.
Further more I will suggest that you go back to school, as you know shit.
I wish you would correct some of the embarrassing spelling errors. It's hard to be taken seriously when you use phrases like "in doo time" (due) and "Who new" (knew).
The video at Cassiopeia Project really needs to be exposed for the right-wing corporate propaganda that it is but it will take a better effort than this. :/
If you are calling AAAS, NAS and the Royal society, three of the largest and most prestigious science organizations for lairs and you are right, then I will agree with you.
So, you are welcome to point out what they are lying about, so we can be illuminated by your scientific wisdom and insight, though I doubt it will happen anytime soon, if ever.
The burden of proof is on the politicians trying to convince people mmgw exists oh wait it's climate change now....WHAT IS CLIMATE CHANGE??? IT"S PROOF GLOBAL WARMING WAS A LIE!!!
This is not a very convincing video. Actually, it almost convinces me that this video is wrong and cassiopeia's video is right. I am not saying global warming does not exist, but this video does a terrible job of exposing cassiopia's "hoax".
I don't think the sun will rice tomorrow, but if Apolloa does his job it will rise. Why are you even arguing? I thought jesus already said that global warming was a myth.
Anyways, thanks for exposing the hoax for what it is. If only you would show your comments for longer than a fraction of a second. Not everyone can read as fast as you :)
Word of advice. The fact that you haven't won over many friends with your overwhelming sarcasm in the video, some uncalled for, kind of derails your original intent of making this video. Which is to educate, and to help people see things for the way they truly are. At least, in your point of view.
By the way, poor spelling and grammatical mistakes generally put people off too.
Too many interruptions, many of them juvenile, that make me not want to finish watching. Could have cut the video down to 5 minutes if all the stupid sarcastic remarks were taken out.
98% of climate change if from WATER VAPOR........that's the science.....................want proof that is NOT man made.....easy!! Ever heard of the ICE AGE.......Global Cooling then the ice receded.....Global Warming!!! Man was not even on the planet.....................enough said!
Hey yeseyephaco, I´m guessing you are christian, you really did not get the video or what. You are talking about a conveniently chosen time frame which has absolutely nothing to with current climate events.
Quote:"Man was not even on the planet..."= the bible is true and yeseyephaco is an idiot!
They are a firm making video productions. Other than that, it hard to tell. Though it seems like they have some sort of connection to some very extreme climate change deniers.
I´m afraid the above comment is spam. I have personally observed the exact same message by "CreationistsWON!" on countless of channels. He will as of this time be banned from this channel.
As for all you that come here to comment or otherwise discuss I am sry for the inconvinience.
I was actually interested on what you have to say about the subject, but I was very disappointed by it.
You didn't get any of the points on the video you responded, you misinterpret some of them ( for example he DID mention CO2 is a greenhouse gas later in the video ).
You didn't presented any evidence for your position. You only added some childish comments on the original video, many of them proving you just didn't understood.
I admit that the video is kind of crappy..That said, I never intended to present my own opinion on the subject. the purpose of the video was to show that whatever "the cassiopeiaproject" had to say on the subject is based on old and wrong data.
And year some of the comments are lame. Especially when written...I actually plan to remake the videos at some unknown point in the future..Your criticism is accepted!
I see that "JRBendixon" is nothing but a FUCKING COWARD !!!!!!. He BLOCKS legitimate scientific comment responses on his pathetic video in which he "supposedly" disproves work of 32,000 scientists.
That said, the video "global warning", is not made by 32,00 scientists, it´ is not even based on any scientific study with 32.000 supporters.
The video is full of old and outdated data and they did not cite their sources, which I did, I even sourced their data, that alone should make you think.
I hope you will go look at the sources in the infobox, so you can judge for yourself...thx. :)
The big problem I have with this video is editorial rather than informational. The text flies by at supersonic speed. Small paragraphs are supposed to be read in less than three seconds. I could pause it on every bit of text, but that shouldn't be necessary. Also, the interruptions are too frequent. When the bullshit is laid thick, let it pile up and then shovel it away, rather than going in 5sec bursts of refutation. Comments like "ZZZ" aren't necessary.
Al Gore was promoting his scam before congress just last week.
He even lied and said we only have temperature records going back 150 years, when the record is in the ice cores and goes back more than 10,000 years, and it shows that we're NOT in an unusual warming period, and in fact, may be entering a cooling period.
He then tried to say if we didn't believe his lies and buy his carbon credits, the earth would heat up like Venus and we'd all die, lol.
Selecting 150 years out of the earth's history to try to determine a temperature trend is like seeing measuring the trend to higher temperatures in the spring and going "OMG, if this warming trend continues, the earth will be 200 degrees warmer by this time next year!"
Sorry I wasn't clear JR--I was talking about Al Gore's testimony before the senate last week, not your video--it should have been tagged onto my Al Gore comment.
why do ppl make the mistake of thinking that a correlation is a causality. I can find all sorts of data, and then look for correlations and make all sorts of wacky charts.
"Not only is it false that human activity has any significant effect on global warming or the weather in general, but for the record, global warming is over," retired Navy meteorologist Dr. Martin Hertzberg wrote. The physical chemist and self-described "scientist and life-long liberal Democrat" added: "The average temperature of Earth's atmosphere has declined over the last 10 years.
Oh, you got a point. But that was not my intend to show. Only that they know nothing about the subject.
It was 1880 not 1980
As for why I choose 1880 - present period, is because that it is the only period where truly reliable measurements has been taken. Further more it is the period where human influence should start.
Let's avoid blindly supporting a political eco-fraud movement without gathering all data free of an agenda to enrich one group of researchers over another. Sunspot cycles are intimately linked with the rise and fall of global temperatures; global warming has been shown not to be driven by CO2, but rather by solar activity. There is no need for adversarial confrontation on an issue that effects us all.
These eco-fraud claims have already been flatly exposed as pseudoscientific. The intimate relationship between Solar activity and the global climate changes has been established and exposed the "Global Warming" hysteria for what it is. Let's avoid blindly supporting a political eco-fraud movement without gathering all data free of an agenda to enrich one group of researchers over another.
Greenhouse gases and solar activity are both influencing the earth.
Fx...Without the greenhouse gases, the Earth surface would have approximately the same temperature as the moon. And without "Solar" activity well earth would have a even lower temperature :)
wtf double post doesn't matter I just wanted to say I wonder if the sun will rice tomorrow too
MaximumKahnage 8 months ago
a common herd of buffalo or bovine increase in numbers by 30% every year yet they say the chemicals released by our livestock are damaging the planet?? If we didn't kill them there would be millions more like in the past yet global warming didn't exist then or did it?I believe in global warming however we are not the cause that's why the polar ice caps on Jupiter's and Saturn's moons are melting how could we cause that? we cant it's a natural occurrence and has been recorded in the past. SCAM!!
MaximumKahnage 8 months ago
a common herd of buffalo or bovine increase in numbers by 30% every year yet they say the chemicals released by our livestock are damaging the planet?? If we didn't kill them there would be millions more like in the past yet global warming didn't exist then or did it?I believe in global warming however we are not the cause thats why the polar ice caps on jupiters and saturns moons are melting how could we cause that? we cant it's a natural occurrence and has been recorded in the past. SCAM!!
MaximumKahnage 8 months ago
If local temperatures behave the same way across multiple sample areas in different parts of the world, then it IS an accurate measure of global temperature change. Let's see if they do or do they behave differently.
Shepherd1OFH 8 months ago
It's amazing to me that people STILL believe in the global warming scam, but to actively support it! Despite what science says?!?!?!
Then the tired old discredit and insult Saul Alinsky tactics *yawn*
Climate Realists are termed "ignorant" because we know that CO2 follows warming. We are said to be crazy because we know that if you shut down 4500 of 6000 temp gathering stations, the data will favor the AGW scammers.
We are asked to ignore the hundreds of exposed Climatgegate emails.
AGW is dead
co2isgoodal 1 year ago
Double standards abound in the world of environMENTALism. They pollute more than the average person. Al Gore still uses a Jet. O B A M A uses Air force 1. Nancy Pelosi and other democrats use jets too. All these jets put out thousands of tons of CO2 yet its okay for them cause they know better. We the sheep will pay for their standards of living cause we the sheep won't have a standard more than poor.
feelzthelove 1 year ago
@feelzthelove Quote:"Double standards" That is a very odd way to see it. I mean, it seems to me that, you are unable to comprehend the simplest of notions and in this case it is a question of priority.
For example,it has to be clear that my personal vacation flights are far less important for society than the travels of diplomats and politicians.
This is also how our societies work now and have been for all history, with good reason by the way.
JRBendixen 1 year ago
@JRBendixen It seems to me you are trying to argue that environMENTALists, mean NATO should go to war on bicycles. You can probably find some people whom think like that, but the fact remains 95% of people concerned with the environment are not so daft.
JRBendixen 1 year ago
My God you are a moron. You keep interupting a perfectly good video with your mindless ignorant gibber.
GMBCATASTROPHE 1 year ago
@GMBCATASTROPHE Yeah the video sux. The thing is though my critique is quite valid, but the message never gets through to the audience as I present my case in an extremely bad way.
JRBendixen 1 year ago
what hoax? are you fkin stupid? /watch?v=Kambs1N7nIM
dumbnetworks 1 year ago
@dumbnetworks I guess you did not view the video then. No matter it sort of sux.
JRBendixen 1 year ago
this vid sucks with you fucking constant pauses to comment every 2 fucking seconds how the fuck am i meant to watch this?
immortalPhoenix1986 1 year ago
@immortalPhoenix1986 I´m afraid you are right. If excuses have any relevance, well this was my first video. And I would argue I videos have gotten better. I am still thinking of redoing this but lack the time and impetus :)
JRBendixen 1 year ago
they forgot to mention that CO2 respired by a living being has a significantly different chemical signature than that of a car of factory that produces CO2. one is benefit the other is well, poison.
bbbleaver 1 year ago
@bbbleaver, haha what? CO2 is not "poison", whether its produced by a human, a car, a factory, or a beluga whale. It's the exact same chemical compound, you nitwit.
ttowntom 1 year ago
@ttowntom uhm... try sucking on the tail pipe of your car for even a few seconds and then see if you even type another uninformed comment... ever again. ya know, i may be a nitwit but science seems to think that emmissions from a car or factory are not the same and that's just empirical evidence u twit.
bbbleaver 1 year ago
@bbbleaver says: "I may be a nitwit..."
Well you certainly proved it with that post. Auto exhaust contains CO (carbon MONOxide), as well as VOCs, NOx, particulates, O3, and other toxic compounds. None of these are CO2...which is a gas not only **required** by all plant life on earth, but one so benign we intentionally add millions of tons of it each year to our soft drinks.
Learn a little Beaver. You'll embarrass yourself less that way.
ttowntom 1 year ago
@ttowntom
i could make shit up like that too but what's the point?
Climate myths: Higher CO2 levels will boost plant growth and food production
google that
bbbleaver 1 year ago
@bbbleaver Sure is, but it really is a rather silly point, because there can be all the Co2 in the world, so to speak, but if there is going to be an increase in droughts the plants will wither away.
JRBendixen 1 year ago
@JRBendixen,
Your statement is even more ridiculous. Even assuming the IPCC is correct (which an increasing number of scientists rejects) the result is that some areas receive slightly *more* rainfall, some less.
There isn't a square inch on the planet that receives the ideal rainfall for all food plant species. What does man do? We irrigate, or we drain, or we pick the crop that grows best under the current conditions.
(cont)
ttowntom 1 year ago
@ttowntom Quote:"We irrigate, or we drain, or we pick the crop that grows best under the current conditions"
The worlds fresh water reservoirs are under serious strain from over-usage so with less rainfall it might be difficult to just irrigate.
Nasa tells us that most places will either get a lot more heavy rain or dry out. Both scenarios are extremely bad for any food production, there is limits to how much water infrastructure the countries can afford to invest in.
JRBendixen 1 year ago
Alarmist predictions by environmentalists about decreases in global food production are utter nonsense. They all assume that man does nothing whatsoever about changing weather conditions. If you're growing rice in an area that becomes less rainy, you either irrigate, or you switch to a crop that prefers dryer conditions. Similarly, a dry area that receives more rainfall could see drainage if necessary, or a shift to crops that do better under wetter conditions.
(cont).
ttowntom 1 year ago
@ttowntom Way too simplistic. There are only so many crops that can yield the amount of food products we need. And there are a limits to where they can be produced, because such factors as amount of sunshine, earth quality and type ect.
If the corn fields of the Ukraine or the US fails because of drought, you cannot simply begin to grow rice on those same fields. Logic 101.
JRBendixen 1 year ago
Try using a little of that logic yourself. First of all, the vast majority of variance will be in the range of a 3-10% change in rainfall. (again, this even assumes the IPCC is correct-- a big if). Changes that small don't even need crop shifts...and statistically, exactly half those areas will now be *better* from growing food than they were before.
(cont).
ttowntom 1 year ago
In fact, your entire argument is based on the fallacy that every spot on the planet is already at optimum conditions for growing food. The reality is we grow crops in areas that receive 3 inches of rain per year, and areas that receive 300 inches. We grow food everywhere from deserts to rain forests to near-arctic boreal tundra. And with the technology available to us in the year 2100, we'll grow twice the food we do today, on less land area.
ttowntom 1 year ago
@ttowntom Quote:"In fact, your entire argument is based on the fallacy that every spot on the planet is already at optimum conditions for growing food." Sure ennough but the yields and food type are quite different. And there are only so many types of plant that make the amount Carbohydrates needed to sustain humanity.
JRBendixen 1 year ago
@ttowntom To name some of the few important crops there exist: Corn, Rice, Wheat. From there the yields get drastically smaller.
Try decimating 20 % of those crop fields and go look at map and try to figure out where to make new fields. Almost impossible and there are no grantees the future environmental will even allow agriculture.
JRBendixen 1 year ago
The "increased storm activity" myth has already been debunked. According to COAPS, global hurricane/storm activity is at a 33-year low. Activity in the Pacific is at the lowest point since record-keeping began.
The ONLY atmospheric scientist to claim GW was increasing storm activity was Kerry Emanuel. For that, Time Magazine made him "man of the year" in 2005. Problem is, Emanuel changed his mind in 2008, saying his earlier research was wrong.
Time Magazine failed to cover THAT story.
ttowntom 1 year ago
@ttowntom The current storm activity says nothing about the future storm activity. And I care next to nothing about Time magazine, why should I.
JRBendixen 1 year ago
@ttowntom It is the morons at the cassiopia project that uses ridiculous newspaper articles. I used NASA and NOAA ect. as sources.
JRBendixen 1 year ago
@JR,
Use the published scholarly papers. No reputable hurricanologist or atmospheric scientist predicts an increase in hurricane/storm activity due to GW. Even the most alarmist predict a substantial decrease in activity.
"Tropical cyclones and climate change", pub. Nature Geosciences, by T. Knutson, for instance, predicts up to a 34% decrease in storm activity by 2100, only partially countered by a 2-11% increase in intensity. Other researchers claim even larger decreases.
ttowntom 1 year ago
And, according to the COAPS Hurricane Research Center, tropical storm activity globally is at the lowest point in 33 years. Pacific hurricane activity is at the lowest point since record keeping began .. and still decreasing.
This is actual scientific data, not a newspaper article.
ttowntom 1 year ago
@JR,
You're getting more and more ridiculous. We grow food everywhere from desert to rain forest to arctic boreal biome. We grow it with rainfall levels from 3 to 300 inches per year.
Please explain how a 2-10% change in rainfall is going to "make agriculture impossible". Half the areas that see a rainfall change will grow MORE food, not less.
The sky isn't falling, Chicken Little.
ttowntom 1 year ago
The third fallacy in these assumptions is the worst of all...that man won't choose to adjust *where* he farms based on climate change. For instance, Canada's grain fields are projected to increase in productivity by up to 15% due to climate change. But the childishly simplistic models assume that, if that happens, Canada won't choose to cultivate more land - land that previously had been submarginal - and boost its crop production further. Silliness.
ttowntom 1 year ago
@ttowntom Quote:"For instance, Canada's grain fields are projected to increase in productivity by up to 15% due to climate change"
If you think the worlds largest lentil producer is going to makeup for the estimated decrease of food production for the fields in Ukraine and US, then you are sadly wrong.
JRBendixen 1 year ago
The fourth fallacy is that agricultural technology will just "stand still" over the next 100 years. Over the last century, crop yields per acre in the US have increased by over 600%. Most analysts predict at least another doubling of productivity by the year 2100.
Just expanding 20th century agriculture to the Third World would nearly double global food output. Assuming even moderate technological advances, and food production will likely triple by the year 2100.
ttowntom 1 year ago
@ttowntom Quote:" Crop yields per acre in the US have increased by over 600" Mostly because of the invention of pesticides and Inorganic fertilizers. These major inventions have revolutionized agriculture.
Quote:"Assuming even moderate technological advances, and food production will likely triple by the year 2100." No, you need major discoveries or inventions, see above.
And you still need water, not too much and not too little. This is the core problem in the future.
JRBendixen 1 year ago
You believe in past agricultural innovations, but not in future ones? Further, you don't need "major" discoveries. By far the largest factor in agricultural increase over the last 500 years has been due to husbandry - the development of more productive plant and animal strains.
Today, the seed return on wheat is more than 100X. In Medieval times, it was 3X. That meant farmers needed to withhold fully 1/3 of their entire crop- just to plant next year.
(cont).
ttowntom 1 year ago
@ttowntom Quote:"Simply extending first-world farming techniques to the third world will more than double global food output"
Past inventions where based partly on chance discoveries. As a matter of fact, the amount of major single event discoveries in chemistry are far between and there are no future guarantees such things will happen again. Let me remind you that 50 years have passed with not a single major agricultural revolution like that of artificial fertilizer.
JRBendixen 1 year ago
Let me remind you that by far the largest increase in agriculture output is due to the development of higher-yield crop strains. That process continues to this day. New strains are increasing crop yields at more than 1% per decade, with some species increasing more than twice that rate.
ttowntom 1 year ago
@ttowntom Quote:"Let me remind you that by far the largest increase in agriculture output is due to the development of higher-yield crop strains"
Absolutely no, about 50% of the worlds population is entirely fed with with crops totally dependent on artificial fertilizer.
JRBendixen 1 year ago
@JR,
Are you intentionally being obtuse? Your statement that "50% of crops use inorganic fertilizer" doesn't contradict my statement at all. In fact, it _supports_ it. If we do nothing but simply extend modern fertilizers to the other half of the world, we will more than double agricultural output.
(cont)
ttowntom 1 year ago
But fertilizers aren't the largest reason for increased output. It's high-yield strains. Modern fertilizers can increase output by more than 3X. But high yield strains have increased grain returns by more than 25X. And we're developing higher-yield strains faster and faster as genetic science improves.
In 100 years, new strains alone are expected to increase food production by 15-25%. Extending modern agriculture to the Third World will mean more than a 100% increase.
ttowntom 1 year ago
Finally, I have to outright laugh at the notion that a mild warming and rainfall increase -- both of which are actually GOOD for plant growth, is somehow going to create a world where plants won't grow.
In fact, periods in the earth's past where such warming has occurred have invariably resulted in a more lush, fertile planet. The Carboniferous Era, for instance, had the highest biodiversity of any period in earth's history...and it had CO2 levels 20 TIMES higher than what we have today.
ttowntom 1 year ago
That process will continue in the future. We're still seeing increases of ~1% per decade due to the development of higher yield species.
Also-- 70% of the world's food is grown without pesticides, mechanization, or inorganic fertilizers. Simply extending first-world farming techniques to the third world will more than double global food output .. without even assuming a single advance in future agricultural science.
ttowntom 1 year ago
@ttowntom Quote:"hat process will continue in the future. We're still seeing increases of ~1% per decade due to the development of higher yield species." Useless if there is no environment to grow them in. Water amounts and how it is delivered is the key here.
Quote:"Simply extending first-world farming techniques to the third world will more than double global food output"
The third world is estimated to be hit the hardest with droughts and storms in the future.
JRBendixen 1 year ago
Your last statement is an outright lie. Nasa does not tell us "places will either get a lot more rain or dry out". Nasa (actually, that's GISS, a semi-affiliated arm of NASA which is part of Columbia University, founded by James Hansen, the "father" of global warming) says most areas will receive changes in rainfall varying from 2-10%.
Today we grow food in areas that receive 3 inches rain/year, and areas that receive 300 inches/yr. Small rainfall change are not a catastrophe.
ttowntom 1 year ago
In fact statistically, half of those rainfall changes are likely to make the land _more_ suitable for farming than less. Most areas we farm today do not receive the exact ideal amount of rainfall.
Couple that with the increased growth rate due to elevated CO2 levels, the longer growing season due to a warmer climate, and the increased technology available to us in the next 100 years, and agricultural production will vastly escalate over the next 100 years.
ttowntom 1 year ago
@ttowntom Source?
JRBendixen 1 year ago
@JR,
The source is the Gaussian distribution. Randomly select any area we grow food today. That area will *already* receive too much or too little rainfall (over 98% of all US croplands are either irrigated or drained).
Climate change means that area will receive either 2-10% more rainfall, or 2-10% less. Statistically, there's an exactly 50-50 chance that change will result in a more optimal growing environment. QED.
ttowntom 1 year ago
A longer growing season, warmer climate, and increased atmospheric CO2, however, mean a 100% chance of a more optimal growing environment. I've already posted several scholarly papers verifying increases ranging from 5 to 30% just from CO2 alone.
Today, we lose over 25X as much food from frost damage as we do heat stress. Even on a world 2C warmer, frost damage is still going to be the major loss factor...but it will be significantly smaller.
ttowntom 1 year ago
@JR,
Lol, do you actually not realize that both the US and Canada are expected to see agricultural output rises due to GW? Even ignoring all the various factors such as increased technology, adaptation due to changing rainfall levels, etc?
Try actually *reading* one of those reports sometime...rather than some reporter's 10-cent version of it.
ttowntom 1 year ago
@bbbleaver
nasa (dot) gov/topics/earth/features/plant-decline (dot) html
JRBendixen 1 year ago
Besides the no-adaption by man fallacies in these alarmist predictions of reduced food production, there an even more telling argument. The real world. Despite 150 years of CO2 emissions and climate change, global agricultural output has increased EVERY YEAR for the last century. Today, our largest problem is eating too much, not starvation ... despite the fact we have *less* cropland under cultivation today than we did in 1900. Output has increased that much.
ttowntom 1 year ago
@ttowntom I agree we have a problem with the world total of carbohydrate, but is kinda hard to forbid people to get fat, individual freedom and all.
And yes starvation is on a all time low. And I think we should keep it that way.
JRBendixen 1 year ago
@bbbleaver,
Look you blithering little ignorant twerp, it's not "a myth". Rather than learning from your alarmist AGW blogs, look on Google scholar for for several **thousand** research papers verifying the increased plant growth due to higher CO2 levels. Or Google "CO2 enrichment equipment" to see that commercial greenhouses *already* artificially increase CO2 levels by up to 1200 ppm.
This is undisputed scientific fact, verified countless times. Not a "model prediction".
ttowntom 1 year ago
Here's just one paper: "Effects of atmospheric CO2 enrichment on plant growth"
"Comprehensive reviews of the plant science literature indicate that a 300 part per million (ppm) increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration generally increases plant growth by approximately 30%. "
ttowntom 1 year ago
Here's another: "Elevated atmospheric partial pressure of CO2 and plant growth"
"Thirty-five days after planting, the total dry weights of high CO2-grown plants were 2- to 3.5-fold greater than plants grown in normal ambient CO2 partial pressure"
ttowntom 1 year ago
The AGW hoax is going down in flames no amount of insipid leftard banter is going to save it so don't bother.
azul93gt 2 years ago
Isn't your top pseudo scientist al gore? The very rich al gore who claims the earth's core is millions of degrees? I don't see where Cassiopeia project has a conservative agenda. They promote evolution.
1965ace 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Global Warming is a pseudo-science like they had in the Soviet Union
The head of the Global warming Cult is a flake
The chief quack of the quacks at the IPCC is a railroad conductor
The head of the CUEI is an economist with ties to the IMF
The GW magical cure does not address the #1 factor for environmental degradation, wildlife declines, & GHG production
Yeah Global Warming is a pseudo-science
1984 Choo Choo!
THX 1138
Thisawareness 2 years ago
GW was PR lies by nuclear power - the agents of toxic death
JonThm 2 years ago
This was hilarious. Your NASA GISS temperature chart is now out of date. The new one includes 2009 with an open box for the end of the year denoting it is an 11 month period. :)
TRUMPHENT 2 years ago
Sure thing, and the video actually sux. But be real would you update such a video every time some new data comes to hand. It happens every day ffs and it was my first video, so give me a break. And maybe you should ask the cassiopeiaproject why they havent updated their video, as it is the one being commented.
Still you are right though.
JRBendixen 2 years ago
My criticism was still right, even if my data is old, as the cassiopeiaproject´s so called fact´ are just pure made up bullshit.
JRBendixen 2 years ago
Hey, you are contemplating a remake. You could update the information and improve the presentation simultaneously. There is no shame in that. Greenman3610 is doing it to his videos.
Seriously, if you have the time and other stuff, be creative and make it. You have to have list of things you want add, delete or change.
TRUMPHENT 2 years ago
I have been contemplating remaking the videos as they really suck big time.If only to get rid of the spelling errors. But it would have to be with a voice over and I get quite fekked up by listening to my own voice. So it may be a while if ever :)
All that said you should notice that all my links in the video description are still live and well, which is far more than can be said by the cassiopeiaproject´s.
JRBendixen 2 years ago
Hoax is to avoid paying the polution people with big company. I have seen that when plane are flying in winter day they use chemical that will hold the exteme cold but what happened when summer comes it goes to the soil that also may end up to the food that farmer harvesting every year.
Sonyoooo3 2 years ago
Hoax? The "" is in the title for a reason. So I´m guessing you did not actually watch the video. I´m afraid it sucks, but I would reason my points are quite valid. But contaminated earth is one of the least of our problems.
JRBendixen 2 years ago
The German magazine Der Spiegel published an article on Nov. 16th 2009, indicating the world temperature hasn't increase in the last 10 years. And how about the manipulation of data discovery in the e-mails hacked last month of East Anglia University, to indicate a global warming that really doesn't exist at all? This year the hurricane season ended being the more benign year for hurricanes. And finally there are some consensus among scientist that think we are bound to a little Ice age.
lvarelaa 2 years ago
Rubbish I´m afraid.
Climate change is measure over daces not one decade and weather has as much to do with climate as cheese has to do with burgers. Cheese works with burgers but it is far from a burger on it´s own.
It is true that the last 10 years temperature has had a sort of a stalemate. And the hurricanes are residing.
JRBendixen 2 years ago
The hurricanes are getting weaker,exactly because of the minuscule decrease in temperature, which is a prediction of climate science.
Further more, yes there is an consensus that an ice age is coming, but in about a 1000 years ffs.
I´m sorry for my spelling errors, but this is christmas night and I´m sort of pissed from all the partying.Last but not least I senserely thing you should Tieck out The Royal societies webpage: "Climate change controversies: a simple guide". Just google it.
JRBendixen 2 years ago
If you are interested in some further answers to your questions, well feel free to send me a PM. It might just be the basis for another video.
JRBendixen 2 years ago
Der Speigel isn't a science journal.
TRUMPHENT 2 years ago
Wha? I´m almost 100% certain I have never stated such nonsense. Please explain.
JRBendixen 2 years ago
That was intended for Ivarelaa referring to an article in the magazine "Der Speigel". YT has done it again. :)
TRUMPHENT 2 years ago
Consider that most of the rise in temperature has been since 1980s, the same decade of clean air acts that severely reduced particulate matter in the atmosphere. This particulate matter reflected heat away from the earth, like clouds do. China and Mexico have very few clean acts, and their climates are cooling !?
ericso333 2 years ago
You are talking out of your ass. To be true I´m amazed how much you actually got wrong in those few words. You just selected an arbitrary time line that suited your point about rice in temp. And clouds not only reflect radiation they also absorb it. And for your ridicules last point, you really should look into the differences of global climate and local weather. And yea the entire weather system over Mexico, is actually local.
JRBendixen 2 years ago
You point was like saying that the weather on the top of mount everest is different and more cloudy than that in the Sahara desert. And yes mount everest is clouded most of the year and the Sahara is not. So your argument is extremely pointless and devious. Further the area and weather of Mexico amounts to 0.2% of the earths total area. So are you really convinced that such a small local area´ weather system can tell us anything about the earths climate? Wiki the areas and do the math ffs.
JRBendixen 2 years ago
Why has the climate been warming on Mars from 1980 through 2005? Martian space craft burning fossil fuels, or cyclical sun cycles? I guess indoctrinated folks would say the earth is so hot that it is radiating heat to Mars?
ericso333 2 years ago
reading.. thinking.. reading.. thinking.. i read like 80% of the comments here and it seems u al did ur homeworks.. tough now a qeustion comes in mind and not generaly about this topic.. considdering all the consperracy theory's these days the war in iraq and binladen beeing "lost" for quite some time.. it's like they want us to look an otherway.. if peaple are beeing mind f*ckd and a war is beeing justified to hide something.. what the heck is worth hiding it?
XxFoyaxX 2 years ago
Resources.
JRBendixen 2 years ago
But if you would like to hear about a real conspiracy, well it was the official doctrine of the catholic church that the jews murdered their god. This doctrine alone was responsible for the persecution of the jews since the doctrine was fist in effect many hundreds of years ago. I´m a atheist so you can very simply guess that I find all religions to be pure fantasy. In short, by my reasoning the jews got persecuted because of another popular fantasy. Why, well study the ingroup out group thing.
JRBendixen 2 years ago
Can you give me a source for the .0024 figure. I googled it and should have gotten a bunch of hits if it's true, I only got unrelated info and something about carbon dating.
scolopede 2 years ago
MarwanShah So, what you are saying is that somehow scientists have shown that earth was even hotter way before industries took hold? Even before man had any effect on the earth? Well yes I finally agree that man made global warming is a hoax, of course global warming exists, but it has nothing to do with man activity, but rather with normal cycles
samuils 2 years ago
Pollution is bad but not CO2, we need it, plants use it up fast too. I've wondered why the new trees on the sides of the road grow so much faster than the ones I put in my yard. Is it from all the CO2 they get from the cars going by? Even if there is some warming, why think it's bad? More rain, and warmth, more food we could grow. They show the worse pics of normal floods and ice melting in the Summer too to suck you in. Foolish to me to follow such a thing as this fear mongering GW thing.
scolopede 2 years ago
Sea rise should be a global observation, is it? Seriously, I haven't checked it out. But I have read where some people are saying the sea is rising "in places" ..how could that be?, while the case is that the surrounding land is actually sinking a bit in those places. Also, I don't trust NASA data or any other organization associated with government funding anymore on this issue. From what I've heard, the rise in CO2 follows warming, not the other way around. ..Gore and his graph, pfff.
scolopede 2 years ago
MarwanShah So what you are saying is that somehow scientists have shown that earth was even hotter way before industries took hold? Even before man had any effect on the earth? Well yes I finally agree that man made global warming is a hoax, of course global warming exists, but it has nothing to do with man activity, but rather with normal cycles
samuils 2 years ago
MarwanShah At 23 degrees there would be no ice to show for, it would have melted, so you cant have a sample showing that
samuils 2 years ago
The ice is melting on Mars, and the moons of Jupiter and Saturn too, Marwan. This is because the SUN goes through cycles. Earth's naturally occuring CO2 (Volcanoes, Plants, Bacteria, Animals, the Ocean, etc...) exceed those from fossil fueled motors, power plants and factories by many fold. When Mt. St. Helen erupted, it belched forth more CO2 than all of north america does in a decade! And yet, the Ozone and Global Temps were NOT affected. Curious, eh?
Joosejpr 2 years ago
MarwanShah At small amounts, and not dangerous, but a normal cycle
samuils 2 years ago
@DSD1, I agree with cleaning up pollution too, cleaning up the trash, cleaner fuels. I don't like the idea of that being done based on a false premise though(if GW is a lie). CO2 isn't a pollutant, not related to the problem of drilling in Africa. The way they are drilling in areas of Africa is the problem, not GW if GW a lie. I sure like the idea of cleaner fuels though so we wouldn't have to drill anymore.
scolopede 2 years ago
MarwanShahAs the matter of fact, yes they are lies, or did you not hear the news of a person leaking GW Scientists e-mails? They explicitly talk about hiding truth in them, the truth which absolutely disproves man made GW. As far as your first comment about coats. Which part of scientists observing for the past 20 years is hard to grasp? Oh BTW, we do get heat externally not just internally
samuils 2 years ago
You can't rely on Wikipedia for everything. Anybody that thinks they know can edit Wiki. People that want to push GW can make lies sound very convincing on Wiki. It seems many people have "made up their minds" on the issue and fight on the team they chose to the end maybe to save their own ego instead of keeping an open to better info. So much conflicting info and fact hiding, it seems anyway. I keep an open mind but to me, so far, GW looks like a massive tax fraud.
scolopede 2 years ago
My sources are in the info box to the right.
JRBendixen 2 years ago
you do know that guy is funded by corperations.
DSD1v57BG32 2 years ago
You have got to be joking, if it is me you are talking about. Just look at the video production I have made. It is very amateurish :)
JRBendixen 2 years ago
I mean the guy that made the video your showing here.
DSD1v57BG32 2 years ago
I made the commentary to the video.
JRBendixen 2 years ago
WHy are you guys so afraid of being taxed?
I'm with you that we should not implement taxation, but I would , get the oil companies out of Africa, where their killing Africans (watch documentary- Killing and drilling) and forced them to switch to better fuels.
If we can go to the moon and back I think we can obtain new renewable fuels.
DSD1v57BG32 2 years ago
MarwanShah There is a scientist who researched the very claim that CO2 traps heat in the atmosphere, he has done this for the past 20 years, he was observing it, the conclusion is - No heat is being trapped, quit BSing please, relax and live your life free of this GW paranoia. So much science coming out disputing manmade GW, those who believe are in a tiny minority now. So take a deep breath and relax, mother earth is fine
samuils 2 years ago
Comment removed
fevzl 2 years ago
All these deniers have to do is open up Google, type in "Global warming" and open the Wikipedia page on it. There is a graph showing the temperature changes since the medieval warm period. THAT IS ALL THEY HAVE TO DO!!!!
But obviously they will ignore it.
YaMumYaNanYaGran 2 years ago
Comment removed
maribasque 2 years ago
these videos are stupid,i wanna see the real evidence and these wanna be refuters do not show the evidence.all they do is talk crap.shame on you for wasting your sorry time in this.u agnostics claim to be people of evidence and yet do not provide good evidence. kent hovinds of science??hahah my friend ,no one has been able to shut hovind up in a debate.hovind is a God fearing christian and has no intentions to lie
turi73 2 years ago
I don't beleive in global warming. I think the goverment made this hoax to scare people just to get money.
MrCaliforniaguy 2 years ago
The wordl has been cooling naturally since 2005, as teh CO2 emisisons of man have gone up: GW was PR ficiton from nuclear power, for the stupid to believe.
JonThm 2 years ago
tbh i don't beleive in global warming - weather varies it always have it always will a couple of factories won't kill a 'planet' plus if you look at most unalterd graphs comparing Co2 to tempreture Co2 follows the tempreture in other words tempreture dictates C02. - if any one wants to try and convert me im an open thinker so send me a message prefrable not hate mail :P
pcslugjjyo 2 years ago
My little sister in school was told by her teacher that the ice is melting because the planet is heating up and coastal cities will be flooded because of increased sea levels. She replied by saying "if it is hot enough to melt it, it is hot enough to evaporate it, and therefore coastal cities will be left unharmed", she got in trouble for that.
supadapag1 2 years ago
I presume you did not watch the video. By the by, I would fail any kid who does not understand the difference between melting temperature and evaporation temp. As you apparently do not understand the difference I hereby flunk you.
Further more I will suggest that you go back to school, as you know shit.
JRBendixen 2 years ago
This video just shows that global warming cult followers are stupid and cannot follow logic.
crutmauler 2 years ago
I wish you would correct some of the embarrassing spelling errors. It's hard to be taken seriously when you use phrases like "in doo time" (due) and "Who new" (knew).
The video at Cassiopeia Project really needs to be exposed for the right-wing corporate propaganda that it is but it will take a better effort than this. :/
Retardigion 2 years ago
Sure thing
JRBendixen 2 years ago
This is absolutely brilliant. Well done mate. Global warming is just a load of bollocks that governments have made up to justify an increase in tax.
RazLDNTV 2 years ago
Did you watch the video?
JRBendixen 2 years ago
LOL!
MaxorZoo 2 years ago
Man comments are retard and as expected from someone who supports global warming meaning less.
For me global warming supports are just like creationist who talk with no proof.
Greeniemaxx 2 years ago
If you are calling AAAS, NAS and the Royal society, three of the largest and most prestigious science organizations for lairs and you are right, then I will agree with you.
So, you are welcome to point out what they are lying about, so we can be illuminated by your scientific wisdom and insight, though I doubt it will happen anytime soon, if ever.
JRBendixen 2 years ago
The burden of proof is on the politicians trying to convince people mmgw exists oh wait it's climate change now....WHAT IS CLIMATE CHANGE??? IT"S PROOF GLOBAL WARMING WAS A LIE!!!
1965ace 2 years ago
Two points.
Firstly, awg. is not something the politicians decide exist or not, rather it is the scientists.
Secondly, excessive use of capital letters does not make a case. It actually makes the writer look like an child begging for attention, which you got.
I suggest you turn the caps lock off :)
JRBendixen 2 years ago
This is not a very convincing video. Actually, it almost convinces me that this video is wrong and cassiopeia's video is right. I am not saying global warming does not exist, but this video does a terrible job of exposing cassiopia's "hoax".
reason285 2 years ago
reason285 what is so unconvincing about this video.
What aspects are you complaining about?
Would love to hear your reasoning
citizenschallengeYT 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
re: JRBendixen
Well here's my response on the Cassiopeia project video
greyfalcon. net/ casio
greyflcn 2 years ago
Very nice. You should make it into a video. It would probably be way better than my lame attempt :)
JRBendixen 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I don't think the sun will rice tomorrow, but if Apolloa does his job it will rise. Why are you even arguing? I thought jesus already said that global warming was a myth.
Good vid!
mtlsoul 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"due" time, not "doo".
Anyways, thanks for exposing the hoax for what it is. If only you would show your comments for longer than a fraction of a second. Not everyone can read as fast as you :)
Glargl 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
You need to present your evidence on the world being flat too . . . and that airplanes don't really fly, it's just a hoax.
What an idiot.
ClarkDonn 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Word of advice. The fact that you haven't won over many friends with your overwhelming sarcasm in the video, some uncalled for, kind of derails your original intent of making this video. Which is to educate, and to help people see things for the way they truly are. At least, in your point of view.
By the way, poor spelling and grammatical mistakes generally put people off too.
jnutse 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Too many interruptions, many of them juvenile, that make me not want to finish watching. Could have cut the video down to 5 minutes if all the stupid sarcastic remarks were taken out.
lilcoons1995 2 years ago
sure, the video sux :)
JRBendixen 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
98% of climate change if from WATER VAPOR........that's the science.....................want proof that is NOT man made.....easy!! Ever heard of the ICE AGE.......Global Cooling then the ice receded.....Global Warming!!! Man was not even on the planet.....................enough said!
yeseyephaco 2 years ago
Hey yeseyephaco, I´m guessing you are christian, you really did not get the video or what. You are talking about a conveniently chosen time frame which has absolutely nothing to with current climate events.
Quote:"Man was not even on the planet..."= the bible is true and yeseyephaco is an idiot!
JRBendixen 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
this is weak
wheresthebody 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
What exactly is the Cassiopeia project?
pienipaha 2 years ago
They are a firm making video productions. Other than that, it hard to tell. Though it seems like they have some sort of connection to some very extreme climate change deniers.
JRBendixen 2 years ago
Hi all
JRBendixen 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
CREATIONISTS WON !!!!!!! The debate is over ! ?Congratulations creationists workdwide ! GOD BLESS YOU ALL !
CreationistsWON 2 years ago
I´m afraid the above comment is spam. I have personally observed the exact same message by "CreationistsWON!" on countless of channels. He will as of this time be banned from this channel.
As for all you that come here to comment or otherwise discuss I am sry for the inconvinience.
JRBendixen 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I was actually interested on what you have to say about the subject, but I was very disappointed by it.
You didn't get any of the points on the video you responded, you misinterpret some of them ( for example he DID mention CO2 is a greenhouse gas later in the video ).
You didn't presented any evidence for your position. You only added some childish comments on the original video, many of them proving you just didn't understood.
alexdobrinbv 3 years ago
I admit that the video is kind of crappy..That said, I never intended to present my own opinion on the subject. the purpose of the video was to show that whatever "the cassiopeiaproject" had to say on the subject is based on old and wrong data.
And year some of the comments are lame. Especially when written...I actually plan to remake the videos at some unknown point in the future..Your criticism is accepted!
JRBendixen 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I see that "JRBendixon" is nothing but a FUCKING COWARD !!!!!!. He BLOCKS legitimate scientific comment responses on his pathetic video in which he "supposedly" disproves work of 32,000 scientists.
albertphoton 3 years ago
Cool it.
Actually I am supporting more studies because of the uncertainties about global warming and the extremely complicated dynamics.
JRBendixen 3 years ago
That said, the video "global warning", is not made by 32,00 scientists, it´ is not even based on any scientific study with 32.000 supporters.
The video is full of old and outdated data and they did not cite their sources, which I did, I even sourced their data, that alone should make you think.
I hope you will go look at the sources in the infobox, so you can judge for yourself...thx. :)
JRBendixen 3 years ago
retard
XiNiX00 3 years ago
The big problem I have with this video is editorial rather than informational. The text flies by at supersonic speed. Small paragraphs are supposed to be read in less than three seconds. I could pause it on every bit of text, but that shouldn't be necessary. Also, the interruptions are too frequent. When the bullshit is laid thick, let it pile up and then shovel it away, rather than going in 5sec bursts of refutation. Comments like "ZZZ" aren't necessary.
JETZcorp 3 years ago
Yearh you are right.
I am contemplating a remake with a voice over or something.
Cheers :)
JRBendixen 3 years ago
Al Gore was promoting his scam before congress just last week.
He even lied and said we only have temperature records going back 150 years, when the record is in the ice cores and goes back more than 10,000 years, and it shows that we're NOT in an unusual warming period, and in fact, may be entering a cooling period.
He then tried to say if we didn't believe his lies and buy his carbon credits, the earth would heat up like Venus and we'd all die, lol.
EchelonMonitor 3 years ago
Selecting 150 years out of the earth's history to try to determine a temperature trend is like seeing measuring the trend to higher temperatures in the spring and going "OMG, if this warming trend continues, the earth will be 200 degrees warmer by this time next year!"
EchelonMonitor 3 years ago
The temperature at the poles is not the temperature of the intire globe.
The 150 years refres to the years there has been reliable global temperature readings. I thought my video made that point quite clear :)
JRBendixen 3 years ago
Sorry I wasn't clear JR--I was talking about Al Gore's testimony before the senate last week, not your video--it should have been tagged onto my Al Gore comment.
EchelonMonitor 3 years ago
why do ppl make the mistake of thinking that a correlation is a causality. I can find all sorts of data, and then look for correlations and make all sorts of wacky charts.
Geschichtefuridioten 3 years ago
"Not only is it false that human activity has any significant effect on global warming or the weather in general, but for the record, global warming is over," retired Navy meteorologist Dr. Martin Hertzberg wrote. The physical chemist and self-described "scientist and life-long liberal Democrat" added: "The average temperature of Earth's atmosphere has declined over the last 10 years.
RussianPunch 3 years ago
Who the hell cares about small and periods of time. You really did not get the point of the video did you.
JRBendixen 3 years ago
it was a small period of time used to "prove" the climb in temperature in the ~1980's to ~2000 too.
there isn't nearly enough evidence to suggest CO2 did it.
aaaaaFuck 3 years ago
Oh, you got a point. But that was not my intend to show. Only that they know nothing about the subject.
It was 1880 not 1980
As for why I choose 1880 - present period, is because that it is the only period where truly reliable measurements has been taken. Further more it is the period where human influence should start.
JRBendixen 3 years ago
Let's avoid blindly supporting a political eco-fraud movement without gathering all data free of an agenda to enrich one group of researchers over another. Sunspot cycles are intimately linked with the rise and fall of global temperatures; global warming has been shown not to be driven by CO2, but rather by solar activity. There is no need for adversarial confrontation on an issue that effects us all.
RussianPunch 3 years ago
The solar activity has before been shown to drive Earths climate. Though I´m afraid this is not the case with the current rice in temperature.
Your assumption is based on a faulty study by 2 Danes.
JRBendixen 3 years ago
These eco-fraud claims have already been flatly exposed as pseudoscientific. The intimate relationship between Solar activity and the global climate changes has been established and exposed the "Global Warming" hysteria for what it is. Let's avoid blindly supporting a political eco-fraud movement without gathering all data free of an agenda to enrich one group of researchers over another.
RussianPunch 3 years ago
Greenhouse gases and solar activity are both influencing the earth.
Fx...Without the greenhouse gases, the Earth surface would have approximately the same temperature as the moon. And without "Solar" activity well earth would have a even lower temperature :)
JRBendixen 3 years ago
Truth is available to us all: we just have to be willing to swallow our pride to admit we were wrong sometimes. /watch?v=VgVDugSuPOo
RussianPunch 3 years ago
Yearh, fascinating stuff, though it is built on old data and therefore kinda last century's ideas :)
JRBendixen 3 years ago
I must say your use of the word prove is a little suggestive.
And yearh, you are right, there is no proof that CO2 did it alone. I will elaborate further on this i the next video.
JRBendixen 3 years ago
A little more you may dwell on.
Humans have been poring, CO2 into the atmosphere. The concentration in the atmosphere is climbing. CO2 is an greenhouse gas.
Ergo: CO2 has warmed the globe....how much, well nobody knows exactly. But there has been made some guesses and they are getting better all the time.
JRBendixen 3 years ago
I think there are way too many circumstances that affect global temperature for us to just point to one (in this case, CO2)
aaaaaFuck 3 years ago