So one of the very journals that is involved in the peer-review bullying does an investigation and that somehow proves that there was not bullying? Wow, solid logic there. By that logic we should simply let criminals investigate their own crimes. If they don't prove they committed the crime, then they are innocent. Fantastic, it will save us a fortune in legal spats.
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...
@snowboarderforlyfe: Life may have survived okay then, that is true, but we humans, as smart as we may be, aren't quite able to all cope with rather sudden environmental changes; natural climate changes happened over centuries & millenia...........whereas now, it's only a matter of decades.
So wow, they didn't actually do anything to stop those junk papers from being published? Doesn't that verge on being irresponsible? And to the dumbfucks that tried to charge them with obstruction of science, really trying to be thought police now?
Journal of Geophysical Research, paper: "Reconstruction of regional mean sea level anomalies from tide gauges" - Aug 2010.
"The global mean sea level for the period January 1900 to December 2006 is estimated to rise at a rate of 1.56 ± 0.25 mm/yr which is reasonably consistent with earlier estimates, but we do not find significant acceleration"
Six inches of sea level rise per CENTURY, and no acceleration of that trend.
Thanks a bunch for these videos, greenman! all that shit for "NWO", AIDS/climate change denialism and other anti-science crap... i'm not buying it,, makes me sick...
It's sad that the voice of pseudo science and crackpot denialism is so much louder to the general public than anything of actual scientific merit. Hell, many of those scientific papers don't have a lot of pictures or scratch and sniff pages, so many people, especially conservatives, don't even take the time to look at them. It's a good thing we've got universities to educate people and prevent wackos like the deniers from pissing in the science pool.
British lawmakers say science sound, but want transparency
The House of Commons' Science and Technology Committee said they had seen no evidence to support charges that the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit or its director, Phil Jones, had tampered with data or perverted the peer review process to exaggerate the threat of global warming — two of the most serious criticisms levied against the climatologist and his colleagues.
AGW deniers like to refer to CO2 as a "plant food" that is necessarily better at higher concentrations. But research at Biosphere-2 with experimental coral reefs refuted that hypothesis:
dx. doi. org/10.1029/2002GB001941
Global Biogeochemical Cycles
22 January 2003
Vol. 17 | no. 1 | pp. 1011-1024
Effect of Elevated CO2 on the Community Metabolism of an Experimental Coral Reef
by Chris Langdon (Columbia University) and 8 others
ABSTRACT:
"We conclude that under natural, undisturbed, ..."
"... nutrient-limited conditions, elevated CO2 depresses calcification, stimulates the rate of turnover of organic carbon, particularly in the light, but has no effect on net organic production. The hypothesis that an increase pCO2 would produce an increase in net production that would counterbalance the effect of decreasing saturation state on calcification is not supported by these data."
"I havent checked the original reference for its interpretation, but I checked our [computer program] and we did use [the data] in the orientation that [McIntyre] stated. Hes also right that flipping [the data to the correct orientation] doesnt affect any of the conclusions. Actually, flipping it makes it fit in better with the 1900-year trend."
Thats why I added the Email number for anyone to check it out for themselves... In fact they continue to talk about this 'discrepancy' in their model...
They later say that they need to publish and update and fix their model...
@funky... Do you understand what the term statistical significance means? Do you understand who crafted those particular questions regarding the dates? Did you READ the transcript of the interview?
@funky... No. Take the same data set they are referring to and apply a different decade. Say, 1970 to now. You will then find a statistically VERY significant increase in temp.
The point here is, again if you'll read the transcript, a number of the questions were posed from the denial community. Those questions are designed to force Jones to make the statements he made. Again, cherry picked data. Jones in only answering honestly as a good scientist should.
they made sure to ask him about shorter time periods because the longer the period the more significant the warming. when asked about '95 to now he said it was not significant, "but just" in other words borderline. do you still think the giss or ncdc trends are insignificant?
@funky... Yes, you can go through the entire record and create virtually any conclusion you like based on shorter data sets. Going out to 400k years means nothing in relation to current warming.
Try this. Draw as many short term trend lines as you like. Place them together and you will get a moving average for the past 100 years. In that moving average you will see statistically significant warming.
We need to get it up about 5 more degrees to the past temperatures...
tiny , cc/3I3w6
But lets assume that warming is bad (that is according to the IPCC), if we stop all human emissions of CO2 for 60 years, we will stop 1 degree C of warming...
In the early 20th century Svante Arrhenius did the science showing that doubling atmospheric CO2 would result in a 4-5C increase in global temps. With a ~1C increase this century and a 32% increase in CO2 we are showing Arrhenius' calcs to be spot on.
It was also around the same time that is was postulated that warming would be more pronounced at the poles, which is also showing to be accurate.
To be clear, it was 1896 when Arrhenius made that calculation... At that time he did not have the basic equations needed to calculate the radiative transfers in the atmosphere...
In 1906 he made new calculations, and it came out to about 1.6 degrees C... CO2 does not have the forcing you assume it to have.
The IPCC has made similar calculations in their 2007 report, 3.26 degrees C. (Which they now admit to be too high).
@funky... But YOU are adding the bit about "stopping the world for 60 years." It's NOT the ONLY way to deal with the issue. And NO ONE is claiming that would be a rational solution.
In fact, just look at greenman's latest video. It's exactly about one aspect of this very topic.
In order to prevent 1 degree C of Warming, you need to mitigate 2 Trillion tons of co2 emission... That is about 60 years of all man made co2 emissions world-wide.
You are still dodging the question. If 1995 to now is a reliable data set then that means 1992 to now would be more reliable. Right? And 1970 to now would be even more reliable. And 1900 to today would be more reliable.
Run each of these and tell me if you see statistically significant warming.
We agree that CO2 enhances temperature. According to the IPCC's numbers its about 1C per 140 ppm.
I also use the 'shutdown the world example' to show the effects of an extreme. So what if no one is advocating it? If we *did* stop all CO2 emissions world-wide for 60 years, it will only stop 1 degree C of warming.
If that assertion is wrong, then the IPCC is wrong because that is based on their data...
Personally, when I look at the current situation with CO2 and global warming, as a businessman, I see incredible opportunity. I mean, how would you like to be J.D. Rockefeller in the mid-1800's when oil was just starting into broad use?
We are going to enter a period where we fundamentally change how we generate and consume energy. If you are lucky enough to be born at the right time you can get crazy rich doing the right thing!!
@funky... That's pretty humorous. So, before the oil economy we had the "whale oil economy." Is that what you're claiming?
Whale oil was primarily used for illumination. Candles, oil lamps, etc. It was not used as the primary energy source for humanity, as oil has been used for the past century.
You distorted the widespread claim that society must make a rapid transition to virtually zero CO2 emissions, and you fabricated this instead: "We'd need to shut down the entire world for 60 years."
Your neglect to "disprove" your own distortion does not absolve you from the fallacy, because the distortion is absurd on its face.
@funky... Are you taking into account natural carbon sinks for your off the cuff equations?
And, heck, if you really think this is a viable analysis, find a scientist to work with, collect the relevant data, write up a paper and see if you can get it published.
It does not consider natural emissions of CO2, it is focused on man made emissions. (we cannot control natural emissions / sinks)
Yearly man made emissions are around 26.2 gigatonnes per year. It is actually more than that, it would push the calculations to around 75 years to stop 1C degree warming.
I looked at your conservative argument, if we 'capped' co2 emissions, and mitigated 5 billion tons per year. It would take 1360 years to stop 1C degree of warming.
@funky... I believe the whole point is to just keep us from the tipping point where we set off too many natural feedbacks that we then can't control. Latest I read is that is estimated to be around 500 ppm.
It doesn't have to be an all or nothing scenario if we start instituting mitigation efforts now. That is the whole point to cap and trade.
Do you understand the feedbacks I'm talking about? When we get into higher CO2 concentrations additional feedbacks kick into place, potentially doubling CO2 levels again. That would push us to 1000+ ppm.
Taxing air? How is that any different than any other tax? Sales tax is taxing a "transaction" which is even less tangible than air.
There's a really great lecture on paleoclimate science that greenman posted a while back. It's explains how CO2 levels came down but I can't remember the exact process. It's well worth watching...
CO2 declines thru a process called carbonate weathering, where the co2 dissolved in rain water as carbonic acid reacts with rocks in the crust, particularly new, developing mountain ranges, and becomes carbonate, washing into the ocean.
from there it is taken up into living creatures, which die and sink to the bottom, and out of the system till continental drift bulldozes them up again.
Nature Co2 is one thing, but Humans are continueing to release Co2 at a rate at which nature cannot handle to filter the air, not just that but the deforestation is also destroying our natural air filters. No one is asking you to change anything in your life only that we use alternative sources its that bad at all even if Global warming was a scam?
what really killed them was our dumping cheap subsidised agricultural products, for the past half century putting their farmers out of work. then we decide we would rather make ethanol with our land. too bad for them
I actually know quite a lot about China. I speak Chinese (Cantonese), my wife is Chinese and I travel to China about 8 times a year. I've been going to China for the past 10 years.
China has invested I belief it's 10X what we have on their new smart grid. As per greenman's video the Chinese are starting to produce a wide range of electric vehicles. They are actually going to kick our butts technologically if we don't get on the ball.
If we aren't careful we'll have to buy tech from them.
@Funkyflorist Yes, I agree! Sequestering Carbon is extremely hazardous to water tables. That is why most of the naturally sequestered "Carbon" is found far below the fresh water aquifers.
All the proposed sequestering of CO2 is into deep "Brine Reservoirs" topped with a layer of tasty caprock. This has already been done for decades.
Yeah, change a few light bulbs, especially the low watt filament between your ears.
Actually it makes the groundwater more acidic and makes it UN-USABLE for either irrigation or drinking... USGS has learned about this from the "decades of use" you cited...
It is also very energy intensive to 'inject' that carbon in the ground.
Make sure your new bulb doesn't break, it will release mercury...
VERY SCIENTIFIC THAT. A REAL SCIENTIST WOULD NEVER DESTROY DATA UNLESS HE NEEDED TO PROTECT HIS REPUTATION FROM ALLEGATIONS OF FRAUD. CLIMATE DATA DOES NOT EXIST. HE HAS LOST THE PLOT AND IS CONSIDERING SUICIDE.
You can tell a troll by their handle. This is nothing other than crass psy-ops type character assault against GW scientists. Meanwhile GW is happening out there as they deny it while using this all-too-predictable crap.
greenie, seems like your dismissal of the significance of climategate was a little premature. Jones admits there has been no statistically significant global warming since 1995, and admits non statistically significant global cooling since 2002.And he straight up admitted to deleting emails to avoid a FOIA request
"Greenie"? It's almost like a Nazi sneer, like 'juden'. So I guess we can ignore all the symptoms of Global Warming, the multi-year ice crash in the Arctic, rainfall pattern changes in India, the glacier crash, record highs smashed in Australia, the southern hemisphere heat record, and other thundering signs of GW like extremes in weather because some deniers want to crawl into a nutshell of their own contrived science in order to hide? We can see your butts sticking out.
How ironic you should make the nazi link? The word denier was chosen to stereotype sceptics into the same box as holocaust deniers.
Secondly, GW is part of a natural cycle, just like G cooling. The climate is changing, just like it always has and always will. The arctic has recovered just fine since 2007, and the weeklong heat wave in south Australia is more than offset by the icy winter endured in the N hemisphere.
Thirdly, contrived science comes from your side of the argument.
Almost daily new reports of fraud, corruption and misrepresentation arise from the camp of Al Gore, the luurve guru Pachauri and many IPCC fudgers (read climategate, glaciergate, amazongate, africagate, coralgate, aussie droughtgate etc etc.)
And lastly, please explain exactly how carbon taxes will fix the problem? The UN have failed in just about every task they were given, and you want them to take control, and get taxes for it??
the word denier was chosen as a shortened version of anthropogenic greenhouse gas induced global warming denier. personally i prefer "idiot"
secondly there is no way of explaining the current warming with natural forcings, and january is still the warmest on record, so the northeast winter does not offset heat elsewhere.
Yeah, and the word Greenie is short for greenman3610 , and I will refrain from ad hominem remarks, because I DO actually have other cards to play. In a recent interview with the BBC, Prof. Phil Jones unwittingly(?) reveals that the global warming emperor is, if not naked, scantily clad, vindicating key skeptic arguments.
Key points include:
1) Neither the rate nor magnitude of recent warming is exceptional.
2) There was no significant warming from 1998-2009. According to the IPCC we should have seen a global temperature increase of at least 0.2°C per decade.
3) The IPCC models may have overestimated the climate sensitivity for greenhouse gases, underestimated natural variability, or both.
4) This also suggests that there is a systematic upward bias in the impacts estimates based on these models just from this factor alone.
1) The science is clear that rising co2 causes warming.
2) humans are raising co2 levels, today co2 levels are the highest they've been in at least 1 million years.
3) There are multiple lines of evidence that climate sensitivity is hi
4) Phil Jone's BBC interview was mis-presented by the daily mail and telegraph newspapers. He made it clear that there was warming since 1995 with about 90% confidence, but they painted that as him saying there had been no warming. Go figure.
nomad is a just a Marshall Institute disinformationist. Honest people would admit that heat records couldn't be smashed in the southern hemisphere if we were in any kind of genuine "cooling period". This trend is just a world climate "snap-back" of macro climate equilibrium. The reason there are heat records being set during this correction is because the dominating, guiding harmonic is warming (and don't think these deniers don't know this). Vostok shows the firm CO2 relationship not deniers.
If deniers were honest, which they are not, they would admit that the juxtaposition of record heat in the antipodal summer along with freakishly cold weather and record snows in the northern hemisphere was a pure sign of Global Warming and the expected result of Amplitude. (They know this) If they were honest they would admit the extreme winter weather was accompanied by abnormal warm pockets swung up into Greenland and other places like Vancouver because of these strengthened weather snaps.
These are not speciuous denier chungs. I am a real scientist and am writing an article for publication. What don't you understand about increasing solar acitivty, increasing volcanism and rapidly escalating earthquakes in the second half of the 20th century, just when CO2 also starts to increase. Only 3%-10% of CO2 is man made anyway. Wikipedia supports this.
You can't argue with denier nuts. The 3-10% claim is a silly denier canard. The correct citation is the Vostok CO2 level and corresponding temperatures.
perhaps you lack the understanding that global temps are an average of all regional temps. consequently it is a no-brainer that if some regions have extremes in one direction, other regions have extremes in the opposite direction, as the global average temp drifts are fractions of degrees over decades of time. So why emphasize heat records in Aus, yet dismiss extreme cold in europe, asia and parts of US? I'm still waiting for your answer about how carbon taxes will fix "global warming"
@treeplanter99, if you re-read the comments, it was Exiles800 who pointed out the high temp in Aus FIRST. And in case you hadnt noticed, he/she is a denier, but of the COOLING variety.
You said: carbon taxes will raise the price of fossil fuels, forcing people to find alternatives or cut down.
Already 60% of the worlds population live below the poverty line. Removing an affordable energy source will result in them cutting down trees for fuel resulting in --->
nomad; if you've been following the news. it was fox that first started screaming agw is dead because of the snowstorms. it got a little more pub than these vids.
60% of people living below the poverty line are not causing global warming and will be less affected by higher gas prices than by a warming world. this is why some of the loudest voices to try to fight agw are coming from the third world.
them cutting down trees for fuel resulting in de-forestation and escalated pollution, as their fires will not be half as efficient as a power station, not to mention the hyper-inflation and unemployment that will follow your poorly thought out solution.
Don't patronize me denier troll boy. You're not answering the question. There can't be any "cooling period" in which multi-year ice crashes and extreme heat and cold records are set simultaneously in the northern and southern hemispheres. Like most politically-motivated denier Swiftboaters, I suspect you don't even understand what Global Warming "Amplitude" is.
Now all of a sudden rapacious Republican deniers suddenly care about the world's poor. (Only when they can march them in front of their evil agenda like a human shield) (This is the same group that just put more Americans into poverty than any other group in our history. While blaming 'liberals')
are you trying to play yourself up as some sort of authority figure, huh? all you are capable of here is to make blanket statements (and feeble ones at that). I do not represent the republican party, not any cable news networks. You are clutching at straws, and you know it. But at least I understand your frustration, becoz even the very scientists on whom your entire case of alarmism and taxes rest, are forced to admit that they have misrepresented the entire fairytale.
you have quite a cheek to tell me that i never cared for the poor? I would advise you to do get an education or something, before coming here in an attempt to insult anyone who dares to disagree with you. you are one disgusting desperate, disgruntled and bitter fool!
if you're so concerned about the poor, what have you to say about our putting their farmers in the poorhouse by dumping our cheap, subsidised agricultural products on them.
or why is it that people in the third world are some of the loudest voices against global warming.
Your pissing contest isn't working and you've more than failed to account for Amplitude or give anything other than the classic Swiftboat dummy response of politically-motivated Global Warming deniers. Deniers have very low standards and a very low bar to clear. That's why they don't have any problems offering the crap they offer while pretending credibility.
As everyone knows, an inquiry into this affair has been launched in the UK. Given that the charges laid against the CRU are clearly based on distortions and deceit, it has always been likely that an impartial inquiry would reveal this and exonerate the scientists that have been slandered. Knowing this, the sceptics will soon start crying "whitewash!", even before the report is in. That way they can discredit it, as they do with all information that undermines their case. Watch out for it, folks!
Yep, already heard quite a few mumbles about it. I asked one of them to actually give me the name of the guys leading the investigation and got no reply. The fact is, very few of them have even heard of Muir Russel, yet because they know there's no real substance in the CRU emails and data, they have to shout whitewash from day one.
Muir Russel is know as a weak leader of enquiries. He led the enquiry in the overspend on the Scottish parliament (a national scandal) and it was a whitewash.
He is a member of the Royal Society - an organisation that is fully signed up to the Global Warming Religion.
If you have doubts about what was going on at CRU and the incompetence and chaos there, just read the emails for yourself (google <anglia emails searchable.). Read the Fortran code where they produce false warming results.
Err, he didn't lead the enquiry. He was at the centre of it. The Royal Society is fully signed up to scientific evidence. If the evidence showed no global warming, that would be their stance.
I'm pretty familiar with the allegations being made over the emails, but I'm afraid there's very little solid evidence in there. I'm sure you're aware that Michael Mann has been more or less cleared, and produced all those emails he supposedly deleted?
talking about distortions and deceit, Phil Jones agreed that the debate had not been settled over whether the Medieval Warm Period was warmer than the current period. Tht destroys Manns Hockey stick by admitting there was a MWP! This is huge! First time an alarmist has admitted that anything about AGW is not settled! Did anyone else just hear the bump-bump of the Jones bus running right over the Hockey Stick?
You can usually tell Global Warming denial trolls by their attempt to reduce the whole argument to right-wing think tank propaganda slogans. Despite doing it right under a video that shows what liars they are. Reducing the issue to a pissing contest of one opinion being as good as another is their strategy. That way they can effectively eliminate any scientific or factual discussion in their Swiftboat approach. The knee-jerk denial content of their entries is more than obvious.
This sounds like the tecnique used by Al Gore in his movie. Looks like the propaganda used so long by the left is being turned around on them. Now you cry about it.
Texas has already had its turn at destroying the intelligence of our country. None of these dummies ever stop to think how they make America look by standing up for ignorance in a serious world situation. That's the definition of arrogance. You can only avoid so much fact and science by left-baiting. I'm not really sure what you are trying to say there if anything?
I am no more a Texan than you are an Exile. Its a name. Your hatred for Texas show the bias you carry. As for Science and Truth, the Left are Masters of Deception. Gore, Michel Moore, mostly non scientific propagandists in their education. Change terms from Global Warming to Climate Change is but one example. My comment simply means the Right is finally using propaganda tecniques used by the Left for so long & you are crying about it. Like you Swiftboat reference, certain key phrases.
Coleman's from Texas. As is typical of aggressive cons are you sure the hatred is towards Texas or from it? 1st) You sound like you are admitting your input and tactics are bogus (which you are). 2nd) You are forgetting the simple fact Global Warming is happening and your side is denying it. Making it a left/right issue is the tactic of those who are not interested in the facts being driven to political methods by their inability to answer those same facts (as you yourself display).
I see you slander & name call in your posts then accuse the other person of not using facts. This is to throw attention off the subject & put them on the defense. You state Global Warming is happening like you have some authority but do not back it up with the facts you claim to have. These Saul Alinsky tactics are obvious & the people are seeing this. The Left made this a Left/Right issue in their campaign so lets place the blame in the proper place.
no tex, george bush, rupert murdoch, rush limbaugh et al. are the ones who have made this a left-right issue. there is so much evidence on the side of agw, that deniers keep tripping on themselves trying to change tactics.
first they deny it is warming, then deny man's involvement, then deny it will have a negative impact, then attack every little misstatement that the scientists make.
Climategate's Phil Jones Confesses to Climate Fraud. I guess Limbaugh held a gun to this guy. Perhaps now his fellow scientists will have enough guts to tell the truth about what is happening. You guys pretty much have egg on your face with this one. You are simply one of the " Useful Idiots" who parrot the slogans of the Warmers. Please read Jones admissions before you respond so you do not make a further ass of yourself.
Well I am sure you will use you Propaganda skills to turn it into something that the "usefull Idiots" can view. They only need to read the words Phil Jones has said. They do not your or anyone elses interpretation. Your just trying to cover it up
Hey Tex, did you read the actual interview? Did you cross check the decades that were being asked about against the temp records? Obviously not.
If you did you would see that they were cherry picked decades that show little or no warming. But you look at the overall data and it shows significant warming.
what is writen by others to interpret what he said.
•The logic behind attribution of current warming to well-mixed man-made greenhouse gases is faulty. Well hell if this is true what is the argument??
•There is a tendency in the IPCC reports to leave out inconvenient findings, especially in the part(s) most likely to be read by policy makers. This means they LIE. This is like when a group demonstrated they creating crop circles & the believers said they were liers.
The complaint about the researchers being paid by oil and gas companies is worrying. The very same effect is happening with those supporting man-made global warming. Under the current political climate, which is likely to get more funding. A study on the feeding habits of squirrels, or a study on the effects of climate change on the feeding habits of squirrels? This introduces a very real bias in science.
@bjornredtail it does'nt introduce a bias in the past science. and you must have a little more faith in the peer review system than the conspiracy people.
grant funding does not cause ice shelves to collapse, animals to change their range or migration times, or the great lakes to become ice free in winter.
If someone has a legitimate research angle that would debunk AGW, then they would have no problem getting funding. Even if Exxon funds it, at the end of the day, *scientists* will accept or reject research on its merits.
Not so in the public arena. Myths repeat themselves for decades, long after being debunked. Arguments are emotional, and it sucks.
The problem is not exxon funding research, but that they produce rubbish deliberately to affect public policy in their favour.
Right. The five degrees warming was responsible for the end of the Last Glacial Maximum. If five degrees in the negative gives you an ice age (which would be equivalent to a mile of ice above my head here in the Netherlands) what do you think 5 degrees in the positive might mean?
Hint: intercontinental droughts, sea-level rise, crop-failure, severe water-scarcity, severe damage to ecosystems, huge methane releases from tundras and the oceans...
(which is what happened during the permian-trias), more extreme weather, severe regional effects, dangerous tipping points and feedbacks, ocean acidification, the list goes on.
The good news is, we can prevent it. How? Reinvent our energy-system, which is entirely possible today: solar, wind, tidal, geo-energy, and for the long-term the potentially perfect energy source fusion. Fossil fuels belong in a museum.
@vanderbilt887 vandy, are you replying to your own posts. anyway as for good news there is none. all our actions will be to stop at the catastrophic and not go to the catclysmic.
To my knowledge the temperature rose 5 degrees in a few decades around 11.500 years ago. When the iceage ended because of a polar shift (saw it on TV the other night - "Egypt Decoded").
In my view spending trillions (that we have to borrow) on fighting GW will make us "slaves" of whoever loans us that money. And we all know what happens to money we send to corrupt countries. It's such a waste of hard earned taxpayer money.
Global warming will lead to rapid global changes in climate, which is a huge problem for ecosystems that have adapted over a long time to those relatively stable climates. True, the planet is changing constantly, but not at this rate, plus, paleoclimate actually provides evidence why AGW is a big problem. Dramatic increases in temperature have been associated with severe mass-extinctions (see the P-Tr boundary).
Besides that, there are a lot more dire consequences, see:
So one of the very journals that is involved in the peer-review bullying does an investigation and that somehow proves that there was not bullying? Wow, solid logic there. By that logic we should simply let criminals investigate their own crimes. If they don't prove they committed the crime, then they are innocent. Fantastic, it will save us a fortune in legal spats.
MewCat100 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Carbon tax is a disgusting crime against Humanity. CO2 whether man-made or otherwise doesn't drive global climate, it never has, it never will, the Sun does...
The Great Global Warming Swindle [Full Film]
watch?v=T8KgbUvsC_o
Galv140577 5 months ago
Hi Greenman,
your "Go here for Part 3" button seems to be slipping below the control bar in the new Youtube format.
regards
TheEclipsenow 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Fox News is not.
friedie1jeff 8 months ago
Millions of years ago the carbon level was 50 times higher than today.
So why are we freaking out? It's going to take a long time to get back to that level.
Are you really that terrified of plant life?
snowboarderforlyfe 1 year ago
@snowboarderforlyfe
the "more carbon millions of years ago so what's the big deal" crock
watch?v=uE6at2IEUOU
greenman3610 1 year ago
@snowboarderforlyfe: Life may have survived okay then, that is true, but we humans, as smart as we may be, aren't quite able to all cope with rather sudden environmental changes; natural climate changes happened over centuries & millenia...........whereas now, it's only a matter of decades.
MiracleMile90 8 months ago
lol Palin
Dahvood 1 year ago
So wow, they didn't actually do anything to stop those junk papers from being published? Doesn't that verge on being irresponsible? And to the dumbfucks that tried to charge them with obstruction of science, really trying to be thought police now?
inademv 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Journal of Geophysical Research, paper: "Reconstruction of regional mean sea level anomalies from tide gauges" - Aug 2010.
"The global mean sea level for the period January 1900 to December 2006 is estimated to rise at a rate of 1.56 ± 0.25 mm/yr which is reasonably consistent with earlier estimates, but we do not find significant acceleration"
Six inches of sea level rise per CENTURY, and no acceleration of that trend.
ttowntom 1 year ago
Can you do a video on the climate bill and how it will help us........and how many people it's going to kill.
thedevos1981 1 year ago
@thedevos1981
Don't you have a militia meeting you're late for?
greenman3610 1 year ago
Thanks a bunch for these videos, greenman! all that shit for "NWO", AIDS/climate change denialism and other anti-science crap... i'm not buying it,, makes me sick...
GO SCIENCE (REAL not junk pseudoscience)!!
SaiyaMel 1 year ago
It's sad that the voice of pseudo science and crackpot denialism is so much louder to the general public than anything of actual scientific merit. Hell, many of those scientific papers don't have a lot of pictures or scratch and sniff pages, so many people, especially conservatives, don't even take the time to look at them. It's a good thing we've got universities to educate people and prevent wackos like the deniers from pissing in the science pool.
NashvilleKildCountry 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
WEAK VIDEO GREENMAN
OurVoice123 1 year ago
Did you just REALLY say "leading right wing intellectuals" while showing a picture of Sarah Palin?
Moirera 1 year ago
@Moirera Obviously that was meant to be humorously sarcastic. I got the gag right away.
CristinaFernandez 1 year ago
@Moirera
For right wingers, she's an intellectual heavyweight -
right up there with Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, and George Bush.
greenman3610 1 year ago
@Moirera Yeah...They didn't just hire Palin for fox news as a pair of legs. She's supposed to be a real smart cookie, that one...Oh wait...
TheInfernalSpark 1 year ago
@Moirera Ha ha ha! It's called sarcasm.
TheEclipsenow 6 months ago
CATO are tools.
totoroben 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Climategate
Cook:
So, at this stage I would argue that the Medieval Warm Period was probably
a global extra-tropical event, at the very least, with warmth that was
persistent and probably comparable to much of what we have experienced in
the 20th century. This being said, I do
find the dismissal of the Medieval Warm Period as a meaningful global
event to be grossly premature and probably wrong. ww w.eastangliaemails. com/emails. php?eid=228&filename=988831541 .txt
Thisawareness 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Climategate
Christy:
Some of the story lines used to generate
high temperature changes are simply ridiculous.
ww w. anelegantchaos . org/cru/emails . php?eid=230&filename=990718382 .txt
Thisawareness 1 year ago
NEWS, 3/30/10
CLIMATE DATA NOT MANIPULATED
British lawmakers say science sound, but want transparency
The House of Commons' Science and Technology Committee said they had seen no evidence to support charges that the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit or its director, Phil Jones, had tampered with data or perverted the peer review process to exaggerate the threat of global warming — two of the most serious criticisms levied against the climatologist and his colleagues.
LOL!!!
goog2k 1 year ago
"Leading Republican intellectuals" - love the snap shot!
MovemberY 1 year ago
AGW deniers like to refer to CO2 as a "plant food" that is necessarily better at higher concentrations. But research at Biosphere-2 with experimental coral reefs refuted that hypothesis:
dx. doi. org/10.1029/2002GB001941
Global Biogeochemical Cycles
22 January 2003
Vol. 17 | no. 1 | pp. 1011-1024
Effect of Elevated CO2 on the Community Metabolism of an Experimental Coral Reef
by Chris Langdon (Columbia University) and 8 others
ABSTRACT:
"We conclude that under natural, undisturbed, ..."
substanti8 1 year ago
"... nutrient-limited conditions, elevated CO2 depresses calcification, stimulates the rate of turnover of organic carbon, particularly in the light, but has no effect on net organic production. The hypothesis that an increase pCO2 would produce an increase in net production that would counterbalance the effect of decreasing saturation state on calcification is not supported by these data."
substanti8 1 year ago
September 3, 2009: email 1252154659
"I havent checked the original reference for its interpretation, but I checked our [computer program] and we did use [the data] in the orientation that [McIntyre] stated. Hes also right that flipping [the data to the correct orientation] doesnt affect any of the conclusions. Actually, flipping it makes it fit in better with the 1900-year trend."
(Basically they admit the program is fishy)
Funkyflorist 1 year ago
funky; that's nice and easy taking an email out of context when you don't even know what the author is talking about.
now that's dishonest
treeplanter99 1 year ago
Thats why I added the Email number for anyone to check it out for themselves... In fact they continue to talk about this 'discrepancy' in their model...
They later say that they need to publish and update and fix their model...
"now that's ignorant"
Funkyflorist 1 year ago
you do know that hadcrut is only one of three major databases for temperatures. it cover's 80% of the earth's surface.
nasa-giss covers 100% of the earth's surface and shows more warming.
yet you deniers try to cancel out agw by discrediting one database.
and it's a pretty poor job of discrediting it at that
treeplanter99 1 year ago
Nope, their data sets are just find.
The major data sets held by the NOAA and the CRU show that there's been no statistically significant warming since 1998...
This is also confirmed by Phil Jones (but he puts it at 1995)...
You need to study more.
Funkyflorist 1 year ago
@funky... You obviously have also not read the actual interview transcript.
robhoneycutt 1 year ago
Negative, Phil clearly states that there has been no statistically significant increase in temperature since 1995...
Try again...
Funkyflorist 1 year ago
@funky... Do you understand what the term statistical significance means? Do you understand who crafted those particular questions regarding the dates? Did you READ the transcript of the interview?
READ the interview. Don't just read headlines.
robhoneycutt 1 year ago
OH, you mean that temperature fluctuates from relative highs and lows, and the trend needs to be within a certain range?
To quote Phil in the interview which I have read; "This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. "
What next? You'll say I'm cherry picking? Or use some other baseless insult?
Try again...
Funkyflorist 1 year ago
@funky... No. Take the same data set they are referring to and apply a different decade. Say, 1970 to now. You will then find a statistically VERY significant increase in temp.
The point here is, again if you'll read the transcript, a number of the questions were posed from the denial community. Those questions are designed to force Jones to make the statements he made. Again, cherry picked data. Jones in only answering honestly as a good scientist should.
robhoneycutt 1 year ago
The very first question on the linked interview concerns the rates of warming in different periods.
This has been a skeptic question because;
"If CO2 increases cause temperature increases, then why do the trends in these segments run parallel to each other?"
Then in the second question he states, POINT BLANK that from 1995 - Present there has been no **statistically significant** warming.
Ironically I have preserved his statement, you have convoluted it to include 1970...
Try again...
Funkyflorist 1 year ago
they made sure to ask him about shorter time periods because the longer the period the more significant the warming. when asked about '95 to now he said it was not significant, "but just" in other words borderline. do you still think the giss or ncdc trends are insignificant?
treeplanter99 1 year ago
wrong
who told you noaa-ncdc was not statistically significant? citations please.
both giss and ncdc show more warming than cru because cru leaves out the polar regions, where the warming is most severe
treeplanter99 1 year ago
Sorry, but I never said the data sets themselves were not significant.
I said; "The major data sets held by the NOAA and the CRU *show* that there's been no statistically significant warming since 1998..."
Further I've never called into question the data sets. Do you want to look at them?
Data Sets
tiny , cc/FtIbJ
Data Sets + Utilities to view them
tiny , cc/j8eM7
Funkyflorist 1 year ago
We can even make it shorter. Tell me what you get when you look at 1992 to today.
robhoneycutt 1 year ago
That's called the start-point / end-point fallacy.
You can take ANY set of data and pick any piece and make it show whatever you want... I'll choose 400,000 years...
tiny , cc/oVTo2
Keep Trying...
Funkyflorist 1 year ago
@funky... Your ignorance of statistics is dumfounding.
robhoneycutt 1 year ago
Person A asserts that looking at 8 years of data shows warming
Person B asserts that choosing start points and end points can be deceptive; he then refers to a larger and longer data set.
Person A calls Person B ignorant. Therefore choosing start points and end points is ok?
You misspelled 'dumb' btw...
Funkyflorist 1 year ago
Both spellings are accurate.
robhoneycutt 1 year ago
@funky... Yes, you can go through the entire record and create virtually any conclusion you like based on shorter data sets. Going out to 400k years means nothing in relation to current warming.
Try this. Draw as many short term trend lines as you like. Place them together and you will get a moving average for the past 100 years. In that moving average you will see statistically significant warming.
robhoneycutt 1 year ago
0.5 degrees Celsius over the last 100 years.
We need to get it up about 5 more degrees to the past temperatures...
tiny , cc/3I3w6
But lets assume that warming is bad (that is according to the IPCC), if we stop all human emissions of CO2 for 60 years, we will stop 1 degree C of warming...
Funkyflorist 1 year ago
@funky... So, are you trying to make an evaluation that this is NOT statistically significant increase for global temps?
robhoneycutt 1 year ago
FYI... I get ~0.9C to 1.0C for the GISS/NASA data set.
robhoneycutt 1 year ago
If I cherry pick 1900 to 2000 I get 0.4C. If I cherry pick 1907 to 2007 I get 0.95C.
robhoneycutt 1 year ago
In the early 20th century Svante Arrhenius did the science showing that doubling atmospheric CO2 would result in a 4-5C increase in global temps. With a ~1C increase this century and a 32% increase in CO2 we are showing Arrhenius' calcs to be spot on.
It was also around the same time that is was postulated that warming would be more pronounced at the poles, which is also showing to be accurate.
robhoneycutt 1 year ago
To be clear, it was 1896 when Arrhenius made that calculation... At that time he did not have the basic equations needed to calculate the radiative transfers in the atmosphere...
In 1906 he made new calculations, and it came out to about 1.6 degrees C... CO2 does not have the forcing you assume it to have.
The IPCC has made similar calculations in their 2007 report, 3.26 degrees C. (Which they now admit to be too high).
Funkyflorist 1 year ago
But the original point remains. CO2 is a forcing mechanism for global temps consistent with what we currently see with rising atmospheric CO2 levels.
robhoneycutt 1 year ago
I am not disputing that, the question is;
"IF co2 increases by X, THEN temperature increases by Y."
If we went by the IPCC estimates and models, we'd need to shut down the entire world for 60 years in order to stop just 1 degree C of warming.
Funkyflorist 1 year ago
@funky... What is your basis for that conclusion? No one is saying shut down the world for 60 years. No one!
robhoneycutt 1 year ago
Even though its the only way to stop the destructive warming? That is according to the IPCC and their models as well.
Doubling of co2 will increase temperature by about 3.4 degrees C. For 468 ppm, that would be 1C/140 ppm.
That roughly equates to 2 Trillion tons of CO2 emission / 1C.
Funkyflorist 1 year ago
@funky... But YOU are adding the bit about "stopping the world for 60 years." It's NOT the ONLY way to deal with the issue. And NO ONE is claiming that would be a rational solution.
In fact, just look at greenman's latest video. It's exactly about one aspect of this very topic.
robhoneycutt 1 year ago
I'm not adding anything, its a fact.
In order to prevent 1 degree C of Warming, you need to mitigate 2 Trillion tons of co2 emission... That is about 60 years of all man made co2 emissions world-wide.
That is according to IPCC's numbers as well.
Funkyflorist 1 year ago
That is why start-points and end-points are so deceptive. That's why I chose large data sets that go back thousands if not millions of years;
tiny , cc/oVTo2
tiny , cc/3I3w6
Funkyflorist 1 year ago
You are still dodging the question. If 1995 to now is a reliable data set then that means 1992 to now would be more reliable. Right? And 1970 to now would be even more reliable. And 1900 to today would be more reliable.
Run each of these and tell me if you see statistically significant warming.
robhoneycutt 1 year ago
Is your point the over-all temperature or the rate it warms? Because from 1860-1880, 1910-1940 and 1975-1998 the rate of warming is the same.
If you are arguing that the rate is unprecedented, that is false (1860-1880).
If you the overall temperature is unprecedented, I simply need to refer to older charts.
tiny , cc/oVTo2
tiny , cc/3I3w6
Everyone concedes that CO2 enhances the temperature, what NO ONE has been able to say is "By how much?"
There are 'models' but they only predict.
Funkyflorist 1 year ago
@funky... The science is much more settled on this issue that I believe you care to admit.
robhoneycutt 1 year ago
Which point are you arguing now?
We agree that CO2 enhances temperature. According to the IPCC's numbers its about 1C per 140 ppm.
I also use the 'shutdown the world example' to show the effects of an extreme. So what if no one is advocating it? If we *did* stop all CO2 emissions world-wide for 60 years, it will only stop 1 degree C of warming.
If that assertion is wrong, then the IPCC is wrong because that is based on their data...
Funkyflorist 1 year ago
@Funkyflorist
You argue that stopping 1 degree of warming would necessarily "shut down the entire world".
Nice straw man.
substanti8 1 year ago
Furthermore, your use of "only" (as a qualifier for one degree Celsius of warming) displays incredible ignorance of the issue.
substanti8 1 year ago
Yea, I forgot how CO2 emissions caused earthquakes... Want to pull that rabbit out?
Funkyflorist 1 year ago
Personally, when I look at the current situation with CO2 and global warming, as a businessman, I see incredible opportunity. I mean, how would you like to be J.D. Rockefeller in the mid-1800's when oil was just starting into broad use?
We are going to enter a period where we fundamentally change how we generate and consume energy. If you are lucky enough to be born at the right time you can get crazy rich doing the right thing!!
robhoneycutt 1 year ago
Oil wasn't subsidized... Also using oil in this context of environ'mental' insanity is inane.
Funkyflorist 1 year ago
It didn't need to be subsidized. What was our energy source before oil, funky?
robhoneycutt 1 year ago
Whale Oil genius... Ignorant of energy history?
Funkyflorist 1 year ago
@funky... That's pretty humorous. So, before the oil economy we had the "whale oil economy." Is that what you're claiming?
Whale oil was primarily used for illumination. Candles, oil lamps, etc. It was not used as the primary energy source for humanity, as oil has been used for the past century.
robhoneycutt 1 year ago
Strawman example:
Person A makes claim C.
Person B distorts claim C into claim D.
Person B DISPROVES claim D, therefore claim C is false...
I have NEVER disproved my claim that you need to mitigate 2 Trillion tons of co2 emission to prevent 1 degree C...
It's called a counter-argument.
Funkyflorist 1 year ago
@Funky
"Person B disorts claim C into claim D."
Yes ...
B = Bubba (you)
C = Claim (by scientists)
D = Distorted rhetoric (your straw man)
You distorted the widespread claim that society must make a rapid transition to virtually zero CO2 emissions, and you fabricated this instead: "We'd need to shut down the entire world for 60 years."
Your neglect to "disprove" your own distortion does not absolve you from the fallacy, because the distortion is absurd on its face.
substanti8 1 year ago
Alright, show me where I distorted it in ANYWAY.
The IPCC claims that IF co2 increases by 468 ppmv THEN temperature increases by 3.4 degrees C.
That is 140 ppmv per 1 degree C.
For each 1 ppmv increase, you need to emit 14,150 million tons of co2.
Therefore you must mitigate 2 Trillion Tons of CO2 emission. That is the equivalent of 67 years of GLOBAL co2 emission...
This is all based on the IPCC, and assumes that CO2 has the forcing they say it has.
Where did I distort it?
Funkyflorist 1 year ago
@funky... Are you taking into account natural carbon sinks for your off the cuff equations?
And, heck, if you really think this is a viable analysis, find a scientist to work with, collect the relevant data, write up a paper and see if you can get it published.
robhoneycutt 1 year ago
It does not consider natural emissions of CO2, it is focused on man made emissions. (we cannot control natural emissions / sinks)
Yearly man made emissions are around 26.2 gigatonnes per year. It is actually more than that, it would push the calculations to around 75 years to stop 1C degree warming.
I looked at your conservative argument, if we 'capped' co2 emissions, and mitigated 5 billion tons per year. It would take 1360 years to stop 1C degree of warming.
Funkyflorist 1 year ago
@funky... I believe the whole point is to just keep us from the tipping point where we set off too many natural feedbacks that we then can't control. Latest I read is that is estimated to be around 500 ppm.
It doesn't have to be an all or nothing scenario if we start instituting mitigation efforts now. That is the whole point to cap and trade.
robhoneycutt 1 year ago
When have we ever been able to control any natural feedback?
Are you supporting Cap and Trade?
(MADE BY THE SAME PEOPLE WHO MADE EXXON)
That literally means, we are taxing and trading 'air'.
Let us suppose that we are able to mitigate 5 billion tons of emission per year, it would take over 1,000 years to stop 1 degree C of warming.
Funkyflorist 1 year ago
Do you understand the feedbacks I'm talking about? When we get into higher CO2 concentrations additional feedbacks kick into place, potentially doubling CO2 levels again. That would push us to 1000+ ppm.
Taxing air? How is that any different than any other tax? Sales tax is taxing a "transaction" which is even less tangible than air.
robhoneycutt 1 year ago
Then how did CO2 go down from a high over 6,000 ppm during the Cambrian era?
If co2 causes natural feedbacks that are so dangerous, why did life begin to thrive?
tiny , cc/k3Hrb
Keep in mind many
Funkyflorist 1 year ago
There's a really great lecture on paleoclimate science that greenman posted a while back. It's explains how CO2 levels came down but I can't remember the exact process. It's well worth watching...
google alley biggest control knob
robhoneycutt 1 year ago
CO2 declines thru a process called carbonate weathering, where the co2 dissolved in rain water as carbonic acid reacts with rocks in the crust, particularly new, developing mountain ranges, and becomes carbonate, washing into the ocean.
from there it is taken up into living creatures, which die and sink to the bottom, and out of the system till continental drift bulldozes them up again.
greenman3610 1 year ago
where it turns into fossil fuels (sometimes) so we can dig them up and release them again
treeplanter99 1 year ago
Nature Co2 is one thing, but Humans are continueing to release Co2 at a rate at which nature cannot handle to filter the air, not just that but the deforestation is also destroying our natural air filters. No one is asking you to change anything in your life only that we use alternative sources its that bad at all even if Global warming was a scam?
WhatsAfterThisPlace 1 year ago
One alternative was Ethanol, was it so bad that millions in the third world died of starvation?
The only thing it caused was giving ADM a massive monopoly of farm land in the US...
Funkyflorist 1 year ago
full agreement on the corn/ethanol boondoggle.
corn is subsidized in this country to a level that distorts our entire food and nutritional system.
greenman3610 1 year ago
I don't know that anyone is trying to defend ethanol these days.
robhoneycutt 1 year ago
what really killed them was our dumping cheap subsidised agricultural products, for the past half century putting their farmers out of work. then we decide we would rather make ethanol with our land. too bad for them
treeplanter99 1 year ago
Having a despots that practice confiscation screws them too...
Funkyflorist 1 year ago
@Funkyflorist that's not new....
jannikmt 1 year ago
I'm reading through the working group 3 AR4 right now. Trying to get some idea of what they are expecting in terms of mitigation efforts.
robhoneycutt 1 year ago
But, funky... You might want to read the IPCC work group 3 report first. Mitigation of Climate Change.
tiny (dot) cc/EZpSl
robhoneycutt 1 year ago
Sequestering carbon in the ground is extremely destructive to the water table. btw.
Lets assume their suggestions are good, the largest co2 emitting country in the world (China) will not follow them.
China is building about 4 Coal Power Plants PER WEEK. And you want me to change a few light bulbs?
No matter what method/s you use to mitigate co2, it would still take over a thousand years to stop 1 degree C of warming...
That is a fact.
Funkyflorist 1 year ago
I actually know quite a lot about China. I speak Chinese (Cantonese), my wife is Chinese and I travel to China about 8 times a year. I've been going to China for the past 10 years.
China has invested I belief it's 10X what we have on their new smart grid. As per greenman's video the Chinese are starting to produce a wide range of electric vehicles. They are actually going to kick our butts technologically if we don't get on the ball.
If we aren't careful we'll have to buy tech from them.
robhoneycutt 1 year ago
Funky;
So if it's going to take 1000 years to stop 1 degree C of warming, that means it's OK to go for 3 degrees of warming?
I bow to your superior logic...
11BBell 1 year ago
@Funkyflorist Yes, I agree! Sequestering Carbon is extremely hazardous to water tables. That is why most of the naturally sequestered "Carbon" is found far below the fresh water aquifers.
All the proposed sequestering of CO2 is into deep "Brine Reservoirs" topped with a layer of tasty caprock. This has already been done for decades.
Yeah, change a few light bulbs, especially the low watt filament between your ears.
TRUMPHENT 1 year ago
Actually it makes the groundwater more acidic and makes it UN-USABLE for either irrigation or drinking... USGS has learned about this from the "decades of use" you cited...
It is also very energy intensive to 'inject' that carbon in the ground.
Make sure your new bulb doesn't break, it will release mercury...
Funkyflorist 1 year ago
Phill Jones told staff to DESTROY DATA.
VERY SCIENTIFIC THAT. A REAL SCIENTIST WOULD NEVER DESTROY DATA UNLESS HE NEEDED TO PROTECT HIS REPUTATION FROM ALLEGATIONS OF FRAUD. CLIMATE DATA DOES NOT EXIST. HE HAS LOST THE PLOT AND IS CONSIDERING SUICIDE.
Operationarsewhole 1 year ago
You can tell a troll by their handle. This is nothing other than crass psy-ops type character assault against GW scientists. Meanwhile GW is happening out there as they deny it while using this all-too-predictable crap.
Exiles800 1 year ago
there's probably a good psychology master's thesis just in analyzing climate denier's screen names.
greenman3610 1 year ago
greenie, seems like your dismissal of the significance of climategate was a little premature. Jones admits there has been no statistically significant global warming since 1995, and admits non statistically significant global cooling since 2002.And he straight up admitted to deleting emails to avoid a FOIA request
globalnomad62 1 year ago
news.
bbc.
co.
uk
/2/hi/science/nature/8511670.stm
globalnomad62 1 year ago
"Greenie"? It's almost like a Nazi sneer, like 'juden'. So I guess we can ignore all the symptoms of Global Warming, the multi-year ice crash in the Arctic, rainfall pattern changes in India, the glacier crash, record highs smashed in Australia, the southern hemisphere heat record, and other thundering signs of GW like extremes in weather because some deniers want to crawl into a nutshell of their own contrived science in order to hide? We can see your butts sticking out.
Exiles800 1 year ago
It's just deniers trying to force the data with doubt.
Exiles800 1 year ago
How ironic you should make the nazi link? The word denier was chosen to stereotype sceptics into the same box as holocaust deniers.
Secondly, GW is part of a natural cycle, just like G cooling. The climate is changing, just like it always has and always will. The arctic has recovered just fine since 2007, and the weeklong heat wave in south Australia is more than offset by the icy winter endured in the N hemisphere.
Thirdly, contrived science comes from your side of the argument.
globalnomad62 1 year ago
Almost daily new reports of fraud, corruption and misrepresentation arise from the camp of Al Gore, the luurve guru Pachauri and many IPCC fudgers (read climategate, glaciergate, amazongate, africagate, coralgate, aussie droughtgate etc etc.)
And lastly, please explain exactly how carbon taxes will fix the problem? The UN have failed in just about every task they were given, and you want them to take control, and get taxes for it??
globalnomad62 1 year ago
@globalnomad62
the word denier was chosen as a shortened version of anthropogenic greenhouse gas induced global warming denier. personally i prefer "idiot"
secondly there is no way of explaining the current warming with natural forcings, and january is still the warmest on record, so the northeast winter does not offset heat elsewhere.
third; all science is on our side
treeplanter99 1 year ago
Yeah, and the word Greenie is short for greenman3610 , and I will refrain from ad hominem remarks, because I DO actually have other cards to play. In a recent interview with the BBC, Prof. Phil Jones unwittingly(?) reveals that the global warming emperor is, if not naked, scantily clad, vindicating key skeptic arguments.
Key points include:
1) Neither the rate nor magnitude of recent warming is exceptional.
--->
globalnomad62 1 year ago
2) There was no significant warming from 1998-2009. According to the IPCC we should have seen a global temperature increase of at least 0.2°C per decade.
3) The IPCC models may have overestimated the climate sensitivity for greenhouse gases, underestimated natural variability, or both.
4) This also suggests that there is a systematic upward bias in the impacts estimates based on these models just from this factor alone.
--->
globalnomad62 1 year ago
5) The logic behind attribution of current warming to well-mixed man-made greenhouse gases is faulty.
6) The science is not settled, however unsettling that might be.
7) There is a tendency in the IPCC reports to leave out inconvenient findings, especially in the part(s) most likely to be read by policy makers
globalnomad62 1 year ago
@globalnomad62
1) The science is clear that rising co2 causes warming.
2) humans are raising co2 levels, today co2 levels are the highest they've been in at least 1 million years.
3) There are multiple lines of evidence that climate sensitivity is hi
4) Phil Jone's BBC interview was mis-presented by the daily mail and telegraph newspapers. He made it clear that there was warming since 1995 with about 90% confidence, but they painted that as him saying there had been no warming. Go figure.
cthulhu11111111 1 year ago
nomad is a just a Marshall Institute disinformationist. Honest people would admit that heat records couldn't be smashed in the southern hemisphere if we were in any kind of genuine "cooling period". This trend is just a world climate "snap-back" of macro climate equilibrium. The reason there are heat records being set during this correction is because the dominating, guiding harmonic is warming (and don't think these deniers don't know this). Vostok shows the firm CO2 relationship not deniers.
Exiles800 1 year ago
If deniers were honest, which they are not, they would admit that the juxtaposition of record heat in the antipodal summer along with freakishly cold weather and record snows in the northern hemisphere was a pure sign of Global Warming and the expected result of Amplitude. (They know this) If they were honest they would admit the extreme winter weather was accompanied by abnormal warm pockets swung up into Greenland and other places like Vancouver because of these strengthened weather snaps.
Exiles800 1 year ago
@Exiles800 IT's also accompanied by increasing solar acitivty, increasing earthquakes, increasing volcanism, all of which are man made.
Operationarsewhole 1 year ago
Sure, just throw any specious denier chunks into the scientific stew a-hole...
Exiles800 1 year ago
These are not speciuous denier chungs. I am a real scientist and am writing an article for publication. What don't you understand about increasing solar acitivty, increasing volcanism and rapidly escalating earthquakes in the second half of the 20th century, just when CO2 also starts to increase. Only 3%-10% of CO2 is man made anyway. Wikipedia supports this.
Operationarsewhole 1 year ago
of course you are, asshole
all reputable scientists get their data from wiki
treeplanter99 1 year ago
It's edited by scientists all the time, homo.
Operationarsewhole 1 year ago
i'm not the one who put asshole in my handle
it's also edited by arsewholes.
treeplanter99 1 year ago
You can't argue with denier nuts. The 3-10% claim is a silly denier canard. The correct citation is the Vostok CO2 level and corresponding temperatures.
Exiles800 1 year ago
perhaps you lack the understanding that global temps are an average of all regional temps. consequently it is a no-brainer that if some regions have extremes in one direction, other regions have extremes in the opposite direction, as the global average temp drifts are fractions of degrees over decades of time. So why emphasize heat records in Aus, yet dismiss extreme cold in europe, asia and parts of US? I'm still waiting for your answer about how carbon taxes will fix "global warming"
globalnomad62 1 year ago
actually it's the deniers who are emphasizing the cold in europe and the northeast u.s.
carbon taxes will raise the price of fossil fuels, forcing people to find alternatives or cut down.
simple concept, really. can't understand why you don't get it
treeplanter99 1 year ago
@treeplanter99, if you re-read the comments, it was Exiles800 who pointed out the high temp in Aus FIRST. And in case you hadnt noticed, he/she is a denier, but of the COOLING variety.
You said: carbon taxes will raise the price of fossil fuels, forcing people to find alternatives or cut down.
Already 60% of the worlds population live below the poverty line. Removing an affordable energy source will result in them cutting down trees for fuel resulting in --->
globalnomad62 1 year ago
nomad; if you've been following the news. it was fox that first started screaming agw is dead because of the snowstorms. it got a little more pub than these vids.
60% of people living below the poverty line are not causing global warming and will be less affected by higher gas prices than by a warming world. this is why some of the loudest voices to try to fight agw are coming from the third world.
treeplanter99 1 year ago
them cutting down trees for fuel resulting in de-forestation and escalated pollution, as their fires will not be half as efficient as a power station, not to mention the hyper-inflation and unemployment that will follow your poorly thought out solution.
globalnomad62 1 year ago
they cut down trees now, because they cannot afford your affordable energy source.
most of their unemployment comes from rich countries dumping cheap, fossilfuel and subsidy driven agricultural products in the third world.
third world farmers have been screaming about this unfair dumping for years now
treeplanter99 1 year ago
Don't patronize me denier troll boy. You're not answering the question. There can't be any "cooling period" in which multi-year ice crashes and extreme heat and cold records are set simultaneously in the northern and southern hemispheres. Like most politically-motivated denier Swiftboaters, I suspect you don't even understand what Global Warming "Amplitude" is.
Exiles800 1 year ago
Now all of a sudden rapacious Republican deniers suddenly care about the world's poor. (Only when they can march them in front of their evil agenda like a human shield) (This is the same group that just put more Americans into poverty than any other group in our history. While blaming 'liberals')
Exiles800 1 year ago
are you trying to play yourself up as some sort of authority figure, huh? all you are capable of here is to make blanket statements (and feeble ones at that). I do not represent the republican party, not any cable news networks. You are clutching at straws, and you know it. But at least I understand your frustration, becoz even the very scientists on whom your entire case of alarmism and taxes rest, are forced to admit that they have misrepresented the entire fairytale.
globalnomad62 1 year ago
you have quite a cheek to tell me that i never cared for the poor? I would advise you to do get an education or something, before coming here in an attempt to insult anyone who dares to disagree with you. you are one disgusting desperate, disgruntled and bitter fool!
globalnomad62 1 year ago
if you're so concerned about the poor, what have you to say about our putting their farmers in the poorhouse by dumping our cheap, subsidised agricultural products on them.
or why is it that people in the third world are some of the loudest voices against global warming.
treeplanter99 1 year ago
Your pissing contest isn't working and you've more than failed to account for Amplitude or give anything other than the classic Swiftboat dummy response of politically-motivated Global Warming deniers. Deniers have very low standards and a very low bar to clear. That's why they don't have any problems offering the crap they offer while pretending credibility.
Exiles800 1 year ago
@global... READ THE ACTUAL INTERVIEW!! Then look at the NASA temp charts to see what he's saying.
Just try it. I dare you.
robhoneycutt 1 year ago
Global Warming denial is like shouting "Don't worry, stay in your seats, there's no fire" in a burning theater...
Exiles800 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The truth about the dirt about Michael Mann
tinyurl com/yaz8kss
pseudotruth 2 years ago
Thanks, and please keep exposing the anti-science Medieval-minded nuts.
ThorGoLucky 2 years ago
As everyone knows, an inquiry into this affair has been launched in the UK. Given that the charges laid against the CRU are clearly based on distortions and deceit, it has always been likely that an impartial inquiry would reveal this and exonerate the scientists that have been slandered. Knowing this, the sceptics will soon start crying "whitewash!", even before the report is in. That way they can discredit it, as they do with all information that undermines their case. Watch out for it, folks!
LeoFrancisPeter 2 years ago
Yep, already heard quite a few mumbles about it. I asked one of them to actually give me the name of the guys leading the investigation and got no reply. The fact is, very few of them have even heard of Muir Russel, yet because they know there's no real substance in the CRU emails and data, they have to shout whitewash from day one.
Woobaka 2 years ago
Muir Russel is know as a weak leader of enquiries. He led the enquiry in the overspend on the Scottish parliament (a national scandal) and it was a whitewash.
He is a member of the Royal Society - an organisation that is fully signed up to the Global Warming Religion.
If you have doubts about what was going on at CRU and the incompetence and chaos there, just read the emails for yourself (google <anglia emails searchable.). Read the Fortran code where they produce false warming results.
v8pilot 2 years ago
Err, he didn't lead the enquiry. He was at the centre of it. The Royal Society is fully signed up to scientific evidence. If the evidence showed no global warming, that would be their stance.
I'm pretty familiar with the allegations being made over the emails, but I'm afraid there's very little solid evidence in there. I'm sure you're aware that Michael Mann has been more or less cleared, and produced all those emails he supposedly deleted?
Woobaka 2 years ago
talking about distortions and deceit, Phil Jones agreed that the debate had not been settled over whether the Medieval Warm Period was warmer than the current period. Tht destroys Manns Hockey stick by admitting there was a MWP! This is huge! First time an alarmist has admitted that anything about AGW is not settled! Did anyone else just hear the bump-bump of the Jones bus running right over the Hockey Stick?
globalnomad62 1 year ago
The only ones showing sings of desperation is Al Gore and his shills now that Cap-and-trade legislation has been buried.
sim6041 2 years ago
You can usually tell Global Warming denial trolls by their attempt to reduce the whole argument to right-wing think tank propaganda slogans. Despite doing it right under a video that shows what liars they are. Reducing the issue to a pissing contest of one opinion being as good as another is their strategy. That way they can effectively eliminate any scientific or factual discussion in their Swiftboat approach. The knee-jerk denial content of their entries is more than obvious.
Exiles800 2 years ago
This sounds like the tecnique used by Al Gore in his movie. Looks like the propaganda used so long by the left is being turned around on them. Now you cry about it.
Texmurphy51 1 year ago
Texas has already had its turn at destroying the intelligence of our country. None of these dummies ever stop to think how they make America look by standing up for ignorance in a serious world situation. That's the definition of arrogance. You can only avoid so much fact and science by left-baiting. I'm not really sure what you are trying to say there if anything?
Exiles800 1 year ago
I am no more a Texan than you are an Exile. Its a name. Your hatred for Texas show the bias you carry. As for Science and Truth, the Left are Masters of Deception. Gore, Michel Moore, mostly non scientific propagandists in their education. Change terms from Global Warming to Climate Change is but one example. My comment simply means the Right is finally using propaganda tecniques used by the Left for so long & you are crying about it. Like you Swiftboat reference, certain key phrases.
Texmurphy51 1 year ago
Coleman's from Texas. As is typical of aggressive cons are you sure the hatred is towards Texas or from it? 1st) You sound like you are admitting your input and tactics are bogus (which you are). 2nd) You are forgetting the simple fact Global Warming is happening and your side is denying it. Making it a left/right issue is the tactic of those who are not interested in the facts being driven to political methods by their inability to answer those same facts (as you yourself display).
Exiles800 1 year ago
I see you slander & name call in your posts then accuse the other person of not using facts. This is to throw attention off the subject & put them on the defense. You state Global Warming is happening like you have some authority but do not back it up with the facts you claim to have. These Saul Alinsky tactics are obvious & the people are seeing this. The Left made this a Left/Right issue in their campaign so lets place the blame in the proper place.
Texmurphy51 1 year ago
no tex, george bush, rupert murdoch, rush limbaugh et al. are the ones who have made this a left-right issue. there is so much evidence on the side of agw, that deniers keep tripping on themselves trying to change tactics.
first they deny it is warming, then deny man's involvement, then deny it will have a negative impact, then attack every little misstatement that the scientists make.
it's frankly pretty digusting
treeplanter99 1 year ago
Climategate's Phil Jones Confesses to Climate Fraud. I guess Limbaugh held a gun to this guy. Perhaps now his fellow scientists will have enough guts to tell the truth about what is happening. You guys pretty much have egg on your face with this one. You are simply one of the " Useful Idiots" who parrot the slogans of the Warmers. Please read Jones admissions before you respond so you do not make a further ass of yourself.
Texmurphy51 1 year ago
Poor tex thinks doing research means reading the headline on a right wing rag, as opposed to the actual source interview.
Since going to source documents is what this site is all about, I link it here.
tiny [dot] cc /HVgeo
Watch for your self how climate deniers turn "I'm 100% confident that the climate has warmed."
into a "u-turn" "confession".
This is very revealing, and will make for an amusing video soon.
greenman3610 1 year ago
Well I am sure you will use you Propaganda skills to turn it into something that the "usefull Idiots" can view. They only need to read the words Phil Jones has said. They do not your or anyone elses interpretation. Your just trying to cover it up
Texmurphy51 1 year ago
Hey Tex, did you read the actual interview? Did you cross check the decades that were being asked about against the temp records? Obviously not.
If you did you would see that they were cherry picked decades that show little or no warming. But you look at the overall data and it shows significant warming.
robhoneycutt 1 year ago
... robhoneycutt
what is writen by others to interpret what he said.
•The logic behind attribution of current warming to well-mixed man-made greenhouse gases is faulty. Well hell if this is true what is the argument??
•There is a tendency in the IPCC reports to leave out inconvenient findings, especially in the part(s) most likely to be read by policy makers. This means they LIE. This is like when a group demonstrated they creating crop circles & the believers said they were liers.
Texmurphy51 1 year ago
Tex... So, in other words, you have NOT read the interview yourself.
robhoneycutt 1 year ago
Maybe he tried to read it, but there were too many words that he didn't understand.
substanti8 1 year ago
Sir, Thank You.
spiffythealien 2 years ago
I love your videos greenman, but they always seem to load so slow for me :( . Anyways keep up the good work and keep spreading the knowledge.
Proto69 2 years ago
love this guy. him and james hoggan and greg craven is not enough.
ash4432 2 years ago
How can people still believe in fox news after a poll of 120% fucking ridiculous
BEANMANOR 2 years ago
Lol that's fox for you
lucklyclover58 2 years ago
The complaint about the researchers being paid by oil and gas companies is worrying. The very same effect is happening with those supporting man-made global warming. Under the current political climate, which is likely to get more funding. A study on the feeding habits of squirrels, or a study on the effects of climate change on the feeding habits of squirrels? This introduces a very real bias in science.
bjornredtail 2 years ago
@bjornredtail it does'nt introduce a bias in the past science. and you must have a little more faith in the peer review system than the conspiracy people.
treeplanter99 2 years ago
grant funding does not cause ice shelves to collapse, animals to change their range or migration times, or the great lakes to become ice free in winter.
Think about it.
greenman3610 2 years ago
@bjornredtail
If someone has a legitimate research angle that would debunk AGW, then they would have no problem getting funding. Even if Exxon funds it, at the end of the day, *scientists* will accept or reject research on its merits.
Not so in the public arena. Myths repeat themselves for decades, long after being debunked. Arguments are emotional, and it sucks.
The problem is not exxon funding research, but that they produce rubbish deliberately to affect public policy in their favour.
apprenticejedi 2 years ago
Right. The five degrees warming was responsible for the end of the Last Glacial Maximum. If five degrees in the negative gives you an ice age (which would be equivalent to a mile of ice above my head here in the Netherlands) what do you think 5 degrees in the positive might mean?
Hint: intercontinental droughts, sea-level rise, crop-failure, severe water-scarcity, severe damage to ecosystems, huge methane releases from tundras and the oceans...
vanderbilt887 2 years ago
(which is what happened during the permian-trias), more extreme weather, severe regional effects, dangerous tipping points and feedbacks, ocean acidification, the list goes on.
The good news is, we can prevent it. How? Reinvent our energy-system, which is entirely possible today: solar, wind, tidal, geo-energy, and for the long-term the potentially perfect energy source fusion. Fossil fuels belong in a museum.
vanderbilt887 2 years ago
@vanderbilt887 vandy, are you replying to your own posts. anyway as for good news there is none. all our actions will be to stop at the catastrophic and not go to the catclysmic.
in my opinion
treeplanter99 2 years ago
To my knowledge the temperature rose 5 degrees in a few decades around 11.500 years ago. When the iceage ended because of a polar shift (saw it on TV the other night - "Egypt Decoded").
In my view spending trillions (that we have to borrow) on fighting GW will make us "slaves" of whoever loans us that money. And we all know what happens to money we send to corrupt countries. It's such a waste of hard earned taxpayer money.
FrekeOne 2 years ago
Why is global warming a problem? I don't get it. This planet have changed constantly.
FrekeOne 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Global warming will lead to rapid global changes in climate, which is a huge problem for ecosystems that have adapted over a long time to those relatively stable climates. True, the planet is changing constantly, but not at this rate, plus, paleoclimate actually provides evidence why AGW is a big problem. Dramatic increases in temperature have been associated with severe mass-extinctions (see the P-Tr boundary).
Besides that, there are a lot more dire consequences, see:
tinyurl com/y89el8p
vanderbilt887 2 years ago