@zibtor "No matter what side of the discussion you are on . the people who are the safest to trust "sound" like these guys!". So do get to build a windmill in your garden or not?(?)
After initializing and parametrizing hundreds of unknown factors,inserting divergent proxy data and ignoring any difficult natural forcing factors,we ran hundreds of simulations until we obtained the results we wanted–an ensemble of meaningless projected results,which we then averaged.We utilized the liberally unprincipled component method to homogenize and sensitize this to produce a new hockey stick,which gave a very robust prediction (95% probability) that we are totally screwing all of you
Dowlatabadi is fairly restrained in this video. That's what we've been reduced to. Pandering to the sceptics. Treat them nice till we win them over. Big mistake. They're not sceptics because they're rational. They're just scared in their own way.
Jared Diamond (for example) lists 8 types of environmental impact that can lead to collapse of a society. CO2 isn't one of them. CO2 is one of the 4 optional extras we have today. It's time to leave the good CO2/bad CO2 agenda, and the media friendly "global warming alarmists tut tut", and re-enter the world of serious issues. This vid is a good debate, but these guys are, by definition even, intellectual sideshows. If we are to survive, CO2 better not even wink at us.
@anon1152 "doesn't Diamond say that climate change can lead to the collapse of a society?". Yes, he does, the 4 optional extras are not exclusive to our modern society. Collapse is often the inevitable conjunction of periodic adverse climate change coupled with exponential increase in population; but collapse will always occur even without the optional extras. My point is that the guys in this video are being restricted to an intellectual talk on an optional extra.
What a brilliant and refreshing interview, we need this level of debate in Australia where the whole debate is completely out of control and being conducted by lay persons ingnorant of the facts and the science. Thankyou very much for this posting.
The theory of climate change over thousands of years is built on shaky foundation - is that what both of you are saying? YES. And the IPCC accepts the shaky foundation? YES.
32:40 says it all. The theory of climate change over thousands of years is built on shaky foundation - is that what both of you are saying? YES. And the IPCC accepts the shaky foundation? YES.
What a fantastic interview. Nice to hear sensible discussion from two people who actually know what they're talking about, without the emotive stuff. Good neutral interview style also. The Australian media could learn something here. Unexpected takeaway was that the simplistic message being peddled by NASA has both sides cringing.
Its the wrong word to use, but I'm "hedging my bet"
If the Climate is very sensitive, and we need to do something, than any action like that would also be very sensitive and could cause ripples and make it worse
If the climate is not very sensitive, then yes we can interject ourselves without issue.... but why would we do it if CO2 is not a problem?
I'm all about taming the environment, humans have done it since the dawn of time
But have you looked at a flow chart of climate? Just a very qualitative way of looking at things, true, but the interconnections, and the number of separate cycles feeding on themselves
The idea you can just interject yourself into it, seems like a bad idea. If CO2 is causing problems, I'd want the solution to be removing that, not meddling in some other area
If CO2 causes the kind of ripple effect they are talking about, if you interject in another spot, you're just going to create even more ripples, potentially making it worse
As far as greenman, he is one of the more articulate speakers from the "we're all going to die" camp, but, I find him helpful but also misleading
He looks at a "climate denier" claim, that maybe uses a little snippet of a graph, and then he uses the snippet we'll referencing the whole graph (which he doesn't show)
But to me, he seems just as misleading as the guys he claims to be debunking. And his method, he reads a couple snippets out of the reports, which is good I guess
But they're snippets that say, this data is completely consistent with our theory
But I can say all the reports are consistent with my theory, doesn't make it true
Which is why, I want a debate between scientists only, 4-5 hours long, meet back every 3 months for another debate, and continue like that until the public picks sides
But I'm a little nervous from just the suggestion of trying the meddle with the climate. I think it is way to complex a system to start messing with. And if we already are with CO2, I think we should cut our losses, and just adapt to the changes when and if they occur
If water level goes up, build levies. If fresh water is depleted, desalinate the ocean, etc
As far as artificially controlling the climate, I saw an article a while back where someone had developed a CO2 scrubber, literally sucks in air, and spits it right back out without the CO2 in it
They said, all they would need to do is build them bigger, and find a place for the CO2, and they could suck all the CO2 thats been added by industry out of the air
Personally, I think thats a waste of money, because I don't see CO2 as a problem, but I see this scrubber as the least stupid solution
Haha, Godamnit Lindzen you're a genius! The dry realist. At last, a "peered reviewed" interview. You never see a simple question / response by two parties on American TV. A huge portion of the public thinks that the only way to talk about a subject of any value is to be at one's throats about it. So, they just avoid talking about anything of value! Or they are at somebodies throat about it which produces an even less productive or even negatively productive psychological public connection
Also, MrOllyK, being a palaeontologist i have to dispute your claim that fossils from that time should be "dissolved" due to acidity. No, actually there are different degrees of acidity, and fossils that are going to be preserved have to be covered with sediment protecting them from the environment anyway. And, like i said, there *were* coral extinctions in the Mesozoic. The link between this and Mesozoic CO2 has yet to be fully understood, but the simple assessment you give is deeply flawed.
@dalellll Are there any specific studies on these correlations that you could point us to? I find both palaeontology and palaeoclimatology very interesting, so I'd love to learn more about the area of overlap.
I recently read Prothero's latest book, which was quite interesting, but unfortunately he only really deals with the Eocene (I was hoping for some more in depth treatment of climate impacts during the Mesozoic, but unfortunately the title "greenhouse of the dinosaurs" was a misnomer).
The simple idea that AGW catastrophists use is that CO2 alone is responsible for destruction of corals and shellfish. In fact, the National Resources Defense Council film tries to paint CO2 as the bad guy with one idiot saying they've never seen shells so thin. Cherrypicking, with no proof.
However, natural mechanisms always end up destroying each other, such as sediments from flooding. If people only understood that each number on the PH scale is actually 10x the previous..
MrOllyK, have you never heard of bicarb soda? CO2 in water turns into HCO3(−). Bicarbonate ions. Experiments from the here-and-now have showed that rising acidity will kill corals. Both the rise in acidity with CO2 & the depletion of coral reefs (or at least their skeletinized components) is documented and confirmed experimentally. The fossils are less well understood, but CO2 is also a possible cause of the coral extinctions observed in the Mesozoic.
What most have forgotten, is that CO2 has been some 10-20x higher in the past (EG: the Jurassic), where life clearly thrived and delicate aragonite corals evolved in non-acid oceans, without a tipping point, ever (it's true, check your history).
If CO2 had the capability to acidify the oceans such that warmists claim, how is it we have fossils from that time? Shouldn't they have been dissolved or non-existent?
AGW catastrophists need to shut up right about now..
If there's a global argument about AGW, and there is, that means the science isn't settled. In fact, more evidence supports AGW, however it's difficult to differentiate ACTUAL AGW from the natural noise.
Anthropogenic CO2 has been calculated at some 3%. And 3% of global atmospheric 0.03% CO2 is 0.0009% of the atmosphere. That shouldn't worry anyone if they understood the logarithmic (NOT linear) effect of CO2.
There's an argument about many of the details of climate, but in the scientific community, there's no longer any substantial debate about whether there has been a warming trend for the past few decades, or about whether anthropogenic forcing is responsible for much of the warming.
As for small fractions: you're fallaciously assuming that small quantities of a substance cannot have a large effect. All of what you said is well understood and taken into account by climate scientists.
There was a warming trend up to 1940, which crashed and caused panic about a new ice age up to 1975:
ww w. time. com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,944914-1,00. html
Do they know what they're on about? Sadly no. The mainstream media will pick up on any calamity because it's news, not necessarily the truth. There was even panic that the Arctic ocean was getting too hot for seals in 1922:
@MrOllyK There was never any sort of scientific consensus about that. There were concerns about global cooling, yes, but the ice age bit was pure speculation that got blown up by the press. It was very controversial at the time, and not at all accepted by a majority of scientists. In fact, many scientists were concerned about global warming even then. Plus, our understanding of climate has progressed a lot since those days, and as it turns out, there probably was a cooling effect from aerosols.
Have we been warming since the Maunder Minimum? Yes. Could man have any influence on the climate in 1800 when the Maunder Minimum ended? No (source NOAA):
ww w. junkscience. com/Greenhouse/irradiance. gif
If man was capable of climate change, why did it cool between 1940 and 1975? Particulates? Maybe. If CO2 is so bad, why do plants inhale it? Today's climate and rate of change is nothing unusual compared to the past:
@MrOllyK No one has argued that climate change can only be caused by man. The fact is that we can directly measure decreases in outgoing longwave emissions along the absorbtion bandwidths of greenhouse gasses by means of spectroscopic analysis in the infrared using satellites, and we measure a corresponding increase in incomming radiation on the ground. From this, we can tell that the effect is not yet saturated. Your mistake lies in assuming that the atmosphere is a single, homogenized layer.
" and we measure a corresponding increase in incomming radiation on the ground. From this, we can tell that the effect is not yet saturated. Your mistake lies in assuming that the atmosphere is a single, homogenized layer."
You're incorrect in your assumption, I'm not that stupid.
The Lindzen & Choi paper proves satellite observations of outgoing radiation is the same as what goes in, which is why deserts freeze at night without cloudcover.
@MrOllyK The L&C paper is heavily flawed; their results are not robust and have not held up to scrutiny (see w. agu. org / journals / pip / gl / 2009GL042314-pip. pdf). Even Roy Spencer (who is hardly an alarmist) was not supportive of the L&C paper's conclusions. I suggest you put this paper in some context and take a look at Harries 2001, Griggs 2004, Chen 2007, Philipona 2004, Evans 2006 and Wang 2009.
Some may think Lindzen & Choi's paper was flawed, however if the IPCC's "models" were correct, the planet would have been uninhabitable since its formation. If the radiation coming in doesn't escape or escapes too slowly, a runaway greenhouse is inevitable.
The reason we don't have a runaway greenhouse is because the planet is able to lose this heat as radiation, from its own core as well as incoming. It's been doing this for 4.5Bn years.
@MrOllyK This is an assertion that doesn't hold if you take into account the sun's decreased output back through time and the changing configuration of continents. For example, during the Ordovician, the difference in radiative forcing was enough to lead to glaciation when CO2 reached levels lower than 3000 ppm.
Regardless of whether the IPCC's models are correct, though, LC09 has been picked apart enough to know that it simply was heavily flawed. One has no bearing on the other.
The reason we don't have a runaway greenhouse is because the planet is able to lose this heat as radiation, from its own core as well as incoming. It's been doing this for 4.5Bn years.
The Sun's output has been higher than now as well. Face it - you can argue this all you like and we've been over this before as you know that we're not facing change any more rapid than the past but you still persist. My above statement stands proven.
@MrOllyK The sun's luminosity grows significantly over the course of it's lifetime (approx 10% per Bn years) as more of its mass is converted into He. I've never heard of a time when it's long term (i.e. on a scale of millions of years) output was higher than today, and it strikes me as extremely implausible. Shorter term (decadal / century scale) variability can lead to swings in radiative forcing, but these are peanuts compared to the differences we're talking about.
I always take into account of the global continental configuration. The early Jurassic wasn't suitable to engender polar ice caps, but the late Jurassic was.
The LIA was a blip in solar system time, and still the Sun managed to dip our planet into a mini ice age. As you say - it's just peanuts.
I'm sure you've taken into account Milankovich Cycles as well as solar cycles. However, in 4.5Bn years, CO2 has never caused or created any runaway greenhouse. Vena, Vidi, Vici..
I'll add to that last post that we've actually been in a downward trend in solar irradiance in the past decade, and yet temperatures have actually still been rising. So you are simultaneously ignoring the huge influence of solar output on past climate equilibrium states and you now seem to be trying to argue that the sun is responsible for the recent warming trend. Neither holds up to scrutiny.
"we've actually been in a downward trend in solar irradiance in the past decade, and yet temperatures have actually still been rising. So you are simultaneously ignoring the huge influence of solar output on past climate equilibrium states and you now seem to be trying to argue that the sun is responsible for the recent warming trend."
I'm not ignoring them at all. Have you taken into account the oceans retain heat for decades, which is some 70% of our planet?
The Sun needn't change its output for millions of years to affect global change, as the relatively minor Maunder Minimum in about 1700 demonstrated with chilly clarity. However, this happens all the time at regular intervals:
@MrOllyK Apples and oranges. The kinds of effects you describe here are on the order of 0.1-1 percent. The effect I'm talking about is a steady climb that happens over millions of years, but the total effect is one or two orders of magnitude more pronounced. Your earlier assertion that we would have to have had a runaway effect many times in the past is oversimplifying things. Of course, we do see evidence of 'tipping points' in paleodata, but that's a different, less catastrophic beastie.
"Apples and oranges. The kinds of effects you describe here are on the order of 0.1-1 percent."
Global CO2 is some 0.03% of the atmosphere and man's contribution is just 3% of that. Somehow you infer that 0.1-1% is teeny and irrelevant but you panic over 0.0009%?
"Your earlier assertion that we would have to have had a runaway effect many times in the past is oversimplifying things."
We've never had a runaway greenhouse, ever. 0.0009% won't cause it either. Simple enough?
"there's no longer any substantial debate about whether there has been a warming trend for the past few decades, or about whether anthropogenic forcing is responsible for much of the warming."
There's a massive debate in case you missed it.
"As for small fractions: you're fallaciously assuming that small quantities of a substance cannot have a large effect."
The first 20ppm CO2 accounts for significant warming, the rest declines rapidly due to the logarithmic effect.
"plants and animals can't adapt to this rate of change"
"I didn't say that"
Preemtive strike. Yes you did, some time ago.
Fact - temperature swings of 20C daily is not uncommon globally, and your idea that tenths of a degree swing per decade are unnatural and unadaptable is ludicrous. In the past, this planet has seen much more rapid temp swings than today, or even last century. Can't hide the truth:
@MrOllyK You shouldn't "reply" to an argument I haven't made as if I have. Fact is, many organisms are having trouble keeping up with the changes.
Rapid changes have occurred in the past (e.g. D-O events), but to the best of our knowledge, these were hemispheric, and global change has not happened before at this rate in at least the last few miullion years.
Finally daily temp changes are not climate. Weather isn't climate. These are very different phenomena with very different consequences.
Follow the money. Gore & his Goldman Sachs business partners (the enemy of the working/middleclass) have set up companies to "promote" their scam, funnel money to "influence" the results they want, then companies set up to "Cash in" on the criminal enterprise. All players involved in this criminal racket should be ensnared under RICO statutes. If enough of us had the gumption of our forefathers, these scumbags would be on ice by now
In addition to what demirparcasi said, we DO have statistically significant information over a larger time period than the last 10 or 12 years. In order to believe that Global Warming has stopped, we REALLY should have statistically significant evidence that it's STOPPED. In other words, there is no evidence that it has stopped and lots of evidence (though not conclusive), that it is continuing (though possibly somewhat reduced due to the sun and reduced water vapor in the stratosphere.
Yes, we do have stat significant warming. I was going to point that out, but you beat me to it. In fact, there are two things to note: first off, GISS does reach statistical significance over the past 15 years, mainly due to its larger coverage (when contrasted with HadCRUT). Second, a shorter time period has an intrinsically higher signal-to-noise ratio, so you're always less likely to reach significance over a shorter period. That's why climate is preferentially measured over multiple decades.
In a very complex system like earth climate. It is very hard or sometimes almost impossible to reach statistically significant results.There are so many variables (almost infinite) and they are interacting with each other.
If we need only statistically significant results in order to take action, we need really large amount of data. That means years or even decades of study and research. Should we wait to satisfy sceptics?
It is true that if earth global surface temprature increases even 3 or 4 degree, life on earth can still continue. Sure! No question about it. The question is that how many people can live on this planet.
Oh great! They get one guy who's a skeptic and another one who's a partial skeptic. I'll bet you I know why they only got 2 people to debate instead of the usual 5 or 6, it's because they couldn't find 2 or 3 reputable skeptics who were capable of "debating" the "issue". This isn't a debate! It's practically a smooch fest!
Yes, I know. But when I use the word "skeptic" in this context, I specifically mean those who are, well, more skeptical of AGW than most. I don't like calling somebody like Spencer a contrarian or denialist because those are insults and I respect Dr. Spencer. I reserve those words for people who are truly in denial, grossly ignorant or outright liars.
Actually, this wasn't much of a debate. They tried to tone down their anti-AGW rhetoric to make it sound like a debate but they're both skeptics.
If you're used to only hearing the traditional media coverage of AGW, it might sound like one, but if you've actually read about the science (like I have), then you recognize this as a farce.
Yes - I agree, it was not a debate but it does represent the opinions of respectable scientists at one extreme of the debate. At the other extreme are James Lovelock and Mark Lynas and somewhere in the middle are the IPCC. If you read my postings regularly, you'll see that I'm much more convinced by the Lovelock/Lynas argument.
So it was 'fascinating' to see this program, even though I agree with you wholeheartedly, this was no debate.
Shame, it looked so promising at first and then both agreed on the "global warming stopped in 1998" line. You'd think climatologists would see a problem with drawing conclusions based on huge outliers.
I'd put it much more strongly than that; they are either completely ignorant of science (which I doubt) or they absolutely know this to be a BS line. It's intellectually dishonest.
There is a problem w/ this & most other discussions on climate change. These 2 scientists seemed like specialists & so couldn't provide larger context. They barely touched upon another field w/ mentioning the acidity of oceans. It's almost worthless speaking of climate change w/o speaking of deforestation, run-off, erosion, extinctions, pollution-related diseases, over-population, etc. I was glad that one of these scientists mentioned the problem isn't just warming but shifting weather patterns.
1) Vast majority of climatologists & scientists in all fields support the theory of anthropogenic global warming, but why did this show only have skeptics?
2) If I remember correctly, most climatologists work in the US, but why didn't this show have any US scientists?
3) Both mentioned there were higher levels of CO2 & temp in the past, but why didn't they point out there has never been higher levels during the entire existence of the human species?
1. Lindzen is a AGW Skeptic, Dowlatabadi is a supporter why claim two skeptics?
2. Richard Lindzen is a US professor of Meterology at MIT.
The argument is directed not to levels of CO2 as much as climate sensitivity to CO2. So far the climate has not shown itself to be very sensitive with only a .6 degree increase in the past 100 years. Models demonstrate a much higher sensitivity by using positive feedbacks or multipliers that will make temperatures snowball.
The increasing scientific ability to track minute weather changes over time allows for apocalyptic story-tellers to dramatize the end of the world by providing misleading data to generate confusion and fear.
Government, in its endless quest to grow in areas it doesn't need to be, uses catch phrases like "global warming" to scare people into allowing it to increase taxation and regulation over everything.
General society, in its endless quest to protect itself from the need to adapt, uses "global warming" to justify its campaign to stop private businesses from being productive.
One of the government's jobs as laid out by the economics textbooks (the one I read happened to be very pro-conservative) is to regulate negative externalities and subsidize positive ones.
If there is a negative externality going unaccounted for in the cost of doing business, then it's the government's job to make sure it is.
It's not so much the government that's fearmongering as it is anti-technology groups. Cleaner Industry can't be discussed until they hush up and let the grownups talk.
Using this video discussion as a basis for analysis, it is far from clear that there is a significantly negative externality occurring, and thus no major role for government regulation at this time, despite what Al Gore (a politician) says.
Indeed; Al Gore is a politician who, in my view, is engaging this issue not to discern and back a proper way of moving forward, but in order to profit from it. I do not look to him when trying to examine the evidence, because he has an agenda that would be pushed regardless of the truth.
@aerobique Yes, Al Gore has a lot of neat ideas, like keeping the level of technology in the Third World at the same level that it's been for thousands of years, as he said in his book Earth in the Balance.
Isn't that neat? That would mean about 4 billion human beings would have to die. But that's okay; there are too many people on the earth now anyways.
Al Gore is wise. He says the best way to solve human problems is to eliminate human beings. Neat.
And who, pray tell, is a "Gore-tard"? Would that be anybody who mentions the name Gore who is an "anti-human extremist"? And do you then generalize that ANYBODY who mentions Al Gore is an "Gore-tard" and thus, by definition, an "anti-human extremist"?
@sciencemile I agree with point 1, it wont work. But Id have to dissagree with point 2. Any research into cleant energy technology IS human progress. Theres nothing wrong with becoming more efficient with energy, it saves energy and more poignantly, it saves money.
Research into Clean Energy is human progress. The Organic and Holistic movements are not, since when we can design our food to be better than it otherwise would and design vaccinations instead of growing them in eggs or counting on the placebo effect from "natural cures", we will be able to feed Earth's people and free them from disease.
Progress to me, though, doesn't stop with Earth. If any planet is going to need environmentalists, it's Venus and Mars ;).
All I'm trying to do is illustrate that it's very easy to over-generalize when you use hyperbolic rhetoric like "Gore-tard". It can cause you to judge people who you don't know based on your preconceptions and biases.
It's good that you didn't get defensive over my question! :) It wasn't meant as an accusation though it was meant to sound like one to someone who doesn't know how to think clearly. You passed my test! :)
But IMHO, semantics IS the argument in almost all cases!
I will concede there are things I applaud Al Gore for; It's a rather common thing to make fun of Al Gore for saying he "invented the internet", but if you look into it, he really is responsible in part, believe it or not.
However, when it comes to politicians, I have no loyalty if they "turn to the dark side" when it comes to truth, no matter whose side they're on concerning the issues.
1. A single decade isn't long enough to determine trends.
2. The sun has entered a cooling period.
3. The amount of moisture in the upper atmosphere has increased which has trapped more incoming solar radiation.
4. Fluctuations in ocean currents called El Nino and La Nina
5. Variations in the Pacific decadal oscillation
6. It hasn't cooled. HadCRUT's temperature estimates showed 1998 as the warmest temperature in the last 150 years but NASA and NOAA showed 2006 as the warmest.
Not at all. The so called "Urban Heat Island" effect has been ruled out as a source of error in the AGW models. Besides, what does THAT have to do with what I said? Are you just randomly spewing out Glenn Beck talking points?
Why not? It would create an industry that would boost our economy and help us to drop our dependence on foreign oil.
Besides, there's no guarantee that it will "berly effects [sic]" us and it's pretty much guaranteed that if we do nothing at all it will definitely strongly affect our descendants at some point and I'd prefer not to have my name cursed by my grandchildren or great grand children or whatever.
1. Oil is sold on a global commodities market. If OPEC decides to restrict supplies, it drives up the price of oil everywhere.
2. Anti conservation conservatives have been in control of our federal government since Carter. They haven't TRIED to do much of anything to reduce foreign oil consumption.
3. I don't believe in this conservative myth.
4. Nobody said you have to increase the debt to do it.
5. I already answered this one above. It isn't going down.
@simontimon2 We need tougher regulation before we try any more of that, although Hindsight is always 20/20, but well it's happened often enough, so that isn't really an excuse.
But by all means, if there's oil why not use it. Just realize that the cheapness would be temporary; once we ran out, we'd be dependent on foreign exports again unless we had something domestic that was virtually renewable, even if it was just genetically-engineered plants that produced crude oil.
He won a nobel prize for his movie, and the IPCC accepted sharing it with him
Now, for a "scientific" documentary, you'd think the IPCC would check his science, which is blatantly wrong. So by accepting half the prize, they accept also the responsibility for the content
It is just an example, of how that organization operates, and that they don't mind political and scientific propaganda, as long as it suits their interest
And they need to get their interest out of my science
He's misusing his influence in my opinion; you can go to his most recent TED Talk on Youtube and see exactly why I don't like it; his whole speech is about how to "Sell" global warming.
Let me tell you, you don't need to "Sell" the truth. I refuse to associate with people who try to "Sell" the truth.
However good or true their intentions are, they certainly aren't intent on supporting truth in a calm, practical way.
I accept the evidence that points to Global Warming; I don't accept Al Gore.
Though, from a science perspective, I do think that it is the evolution of man to increasingly take responsibility over the management of climate conditions.
Further, the ongoing research that is occurring in this area is vast and the potential for improving the well-being of mankind is very exciting.
Recall that it was the conservatives who instituted the National Park system way back when. The conservatives of today have really gotten too focused on being against everything the liberals are for that we've abandoned some of the ideals that were held just because the liberals happened to hold them too.
No matter what side of the discussion you are on . the people who are the safest to trust "sound" like these guys!
zibtor 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@zibtor "No matter what side of the discussion you are on . the people who are the safest to trust "sound" like these guys!". So do get to build a windmill in your garden or not?(?)
bobinhk1 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
After initializing and parametrizing hundreds of unknown factors,inserting divergent proxy data and ignoring any difficult natural forcing factors,we ran hundreds of simulations until we obtained the results we wanted–an ensemble of meaningless projected results,which we then averaged.We utilized the liberally unprincipled component method to homogenize and sensitize this to produce a new hockey stick,which gave a very robust prediction (95% probability) that we are totally screwing all of you
1000frolly 3 weeks ago
Lol at 42:00 Hitler pops up behind Richard. Subliminal message?
fabiogaucho77 1 month ago
Dowlatabadi is fairly restrained in this video. That's what we've been reduced to. Pandering to the sceptics. Treat them nice till we win them over. Big mistake. They're not sceptics because they're rational. They're just scared in their own way.
bobinhk1 1 month ago
Jared Diamond (for example) lists 8 types of environmental impact that can lead to collapse of a society. CO2 isn't one of them. CO2 is one of the 4 optional extras we have today. It's time to leave the good CO2/bad CO2 agenda, and the media friendly "global warming alarmists tut tut", and re-enter the world of serious issues. This vid is a good debate, but these guys are, by definition even, intellectual sideshows. If we are to survive, CO2 better not even wink at us.
bobinhk1 1 month ago
@bobinhk1 ... But doesn't Diamond say that climate change can lead to the collapse of a society?
anon1152 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@anon1152 "doesn't Diamond say that climate change can lead to the collapse of a society?". Yes, he does, the 4 optional extras are not exclusive to our modern society. Collapse is often the inevitable conjunction of periodic adverse climate change coupled with exponential increase in population; but collapse will always occur even without the optional extras. My point is that the guys in this video are being restricted to an intellectual talk on an optional extra.
bobinhk1 1 month ago
Well done Lindzen for being so honest.
zzebowa 2 months ago
Really good video.
antiHUMANDesigns 2 months ago
warming is just bull
MsH1h1h1h1 5 months ago
What a brilliant and refreshing interview, we need this level of debate in Australia where the whole debate is completely out of control and being conducted by lay persons ingnorant of the facts and the science. Thankyou very much for this posting.
zoltanapril42 7 months ago
I agree. This is a fantastic, quiet, measured, intelligent interview.
I love the fact that CO2 measurement is 600 ppm under the forest canopy.
BubbaLouis 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
32:40 says it all.
The theory of climate change over thousands of years is built on shaky foundation - is that what both of you are saying? YES. And the IPCC accepts the shaky foundation? YES.
swiftyread 1 year ago
32:40 says it all. The theory of climate change over thousands of years is built on shaky foundation - is that what both of you are saying? YES. And the IPCC accepts the shaky foundation? YES.
swiftyread 1 year ago 2
What a fantastic interview. Nice to hear sensible discussion from two people who actually know what they're talking about, without the emotive stuff. Good neutral interview style also. The Australian media could learn something here. Unexpected takeaway was that the simplistic message being peddled by NASA has both sides cringing.
NotSoAlarmed 1 year ago 6
Submarines have 8,000 to 10,000 ppm of CO2. 10,000 ppm of CO2 is considered dangerous.
BubbaLouis 1 year ago
Its the wrong word to use, but I'm "hedging my bet"
If the Climate is very sensitive, and we need to do something, than any action like that would also be very sensitive and could cause ripples and make it worse
If the climate is not very sensitive, then yes we can interject ourselves without issue.... but why would we do it if CO2 is not a problem?
Seemed perfectly logical to me
LordVigeous666999 1 year ago
I'm all about taming the environment, humans have done it since the dawn of time
But have you looked at a flow chart of climate? Just a very qualitative way of looking at things, true, but the interconnections, and the number of separate cycles feeding on themselves
The idea you can just interject yourself into it, seems like a bad idea. If CO2 is causing problems, I'd want the solution to be removing that, not meddling in some other area
LordVigeous666999 1 year ago
If CO2 causes the kind of ripple effect they are talking about, if you interject in another spot, you're just going to create even more ripples, potentially making it worse
As far as greenman, he is one of the more articulate speakers from the "we're all going to die" camp, but, I find him helpful but also misleading
He looks at a "climate denier" claim, that maybe uses a little snippet of a graph, and then he uses the snippet we'll referencing the whole graph (which he doesn't show)
LordVigeous666999 1 year ago
But to me, he seems just as misleading as the guys he claims to be debunking. And his method, he reads a couple snippets out of the reports, which is good I guess
But they're snippets that say, this data is completely consistent with our theory
But I can say all the reports are consistent with my theory, doesn't make it true
Which is why, I want a debate between scientists only, 4-5 hours long, meet back every 3 months for another debate, and continue like that until the public picks sides
LordVigeous666999 1 year ago
yeah, the coal and oil probably will
But I'm a little nervous from just the suggestion of trying the meddle with the climate. I think it is way to complex a system to start messing with. And if we already are with CO2, I think we should cut our losses, and just adapt to the changes when and if they occur
If water level goes up, build levies. If fresh water is depleted, desalinate the ocean, etc
LordVigeous666999 1 year ago
As far as artificially controlling the climate, I saw an article a while back where someone had developed a CO2 scrubber, literally sucks in air, and spits it right back out without the CO2 in it
They said, all they would need to do is build them bigger, and find a place for the CO2, and they could suck all the CO2 thats been added by industry out of the air
Personally, I think thats a waste of money, because I don't see CO2 as a problem, but I see this scrubber as the least stupid solution
LordVigeous666999 1 year ago
thanks for checking it out
You talk about addiction to growth like its bad thing. I just call it getting out of poverty
And I will check that out, thanks for the suggestion
LordVigeous666999 1 year ago
Haha, Godamnit Lindzen you're a genius! The dry realist. At last, a "peered reviewed" interview. You never see a simple question / response by two parties on American TV. A huge portion of the public thinks that the only way to talk about a subject of any value is to be at one's throats about it. So, they just avoid talking about anything of value! Or they are at somebodies throat about it which produces an even less productive or even negatively productive psychological public connection
JakeSelkirk 1 year ago
Enviromentalism is a man made religion. Worship the planet.
elfenomeno777 1 year ago
Also, MrOllyK, being a palaeontologist i have to dispute your claim that fossils from that time should be "dissolved" due to acidity. No, actually there are different degrees of acidity, and fossils that are going to be preserved have to be covered with sediment protecting them from the environment anyway. And, like i said, there *were* coral extinctions in the Mesozoic. The link between this and Mesozoic CO2 has yet to be fully understood, but the simple assessment you give is deeply flawed.
dalellll 1 year ago 2
@dalellll Are there any specific studies on these correlations that you could point us to? I find both palaeontology and palaeoclimatology very interesting, so I'd love to learn more about the area of overlap.
I recently read Prothero's latest book, which was quite interesting, but unfortunately he only really deals with the Eocene (I was hoping for some more in depth treatment of climate impacts during the Mesozoic, but unfortunately the title "greenhouse of the dinosaurs" was a misnomer).
werecow2003 1 year ago
@dalellll
The simple idea that AGW catastrophists use is that CO2 alone is responsible for destruction of corals and shellfish. In fact, the National Resources Defense Council film tries to paint CO2 as the bad guy with one idiot saying they've never seen shells so thin. Cherrypicking, with no proof.
However, natural mechanisms always end up destroying each other, such as sediments from flooding. If people only understood that each number on the PH scale is actually 10x the previous..
MrOllyK 1 year ago
MrOllyK, have you never heard of bicarb soda? CO2 in water turns into HCO3(−). Bicarbonate ions. Experiments from the here-and-now have showed that rising acidity will kill corals. Both the rise in acidity with CO2 & the depletion of coral reefs (or at least their skeletinized components) is documented and confirmed experimentally. The fossils are less well understood, but CO2 is also a possible cause of the coral extinctions observed in the Mesozoic.
You owe "AGW catastrophists" an apology.
dalellll 1 year ago 2
What most have forgotten, is that CO2 has been some 10-20x higher in the past (EG: the Jurassic), where life clearly thrived and delicate aragonite corals evolved in non-acid oceans, without a tipping point, ever (it's true, check your history).
If CO2 had the capability to acidify the oceans such that warmists claim, how is it we have fossils from that time? Shouldn't they have been dissolved or non-existent?
AGW catastrophists need to shut up right about now..
MrOllyK 1 year ago
If there's a global argument about AGW, and there is, that means the science isn't settled. In fact, more evidence supports AGW, however it's difficult to differentiate ACTUAL AGW from the natural noise.
Anthropogenic CO2 has been calculated at some 3%. And 3% of global atmospheric 0.03% CO2 is 0.0009% of the atmosphere. That shouldn't worry anyone if they understood the logarithmic (NOT linear) effect of CO2.
MrOllyK 1 year ago
There's an argument about many of the details of climate, but in the scientific community, there's no longer any substantial debate about whether there has been a warming trend for the past few decades, or about whether anthropogenic forcing is responsible for much of the warming.
As for small fractions: you're fallaciously assuming that small quantities of a substance cannot have a large effect. All of what you said is well understood and taken into account by climate scientists.
werecow2003 1 year ago
@werecow2003
There was a warming trend up to 1940, which crashed and caused panic about a new ice age up to 1975:
ww w. time. com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,944914-1,00. html
Do they know what they're on about? Sadly no. The mainstream media will pick up on any calamity because it's news, not necessarily the truth. There was even panic that the Arctic ocean was getting too hot for seals in 1922:
mensnewsdaily. com/sexandmetro/2010/02/23/arctic-water-too-hot-for-seals
MrOllyK 1 year ago
@MrOllyK There was never any sort of scientific consensus about that. There were concerns about global cooling, yes, but the ice age bit was pure speculation that got blown up by the press. It was very controversial at the time, and not at all accepted by a majority of scientists. In fact, many scientists were concerned about global warming even then. Plus, our understanding of climate has progressed a lot since those days, and as it turns out, there probably was a cooling effect from aerosols.
werecow2003 1 year ago
@werecow2003
Have we been warming since the Maunder Minimum? Yes. Could man have any influence on the climate in 1800 when the Maunder Minimum ended? No (source NOAA):
ww w. junkscience. com/Greenhouse/irradiance. gif
If man was capable of climate change, why did it cool between 1940 and 1975? Particulates? Maybe. If CO2 is so bad, why do plants inhale it? Today's climate and rate of change is nothing unusual compared to the past:
ww w. palisad. com/co2/slides/siframes. html
MrOllyK 1 year ago
@MrOllyK No one has argued that climate change can only be caused by man. The fact is that we can directly measure decreases in outgoing longwave emissions along the absorbtion bandwidths of greenhouse gasses by means of spectroscopic analysis in the infrared using satellites, and we measure a corresponding increase in incomming radiation on the ground. From this, we can tell that the effect is not yet saturated. Your mistake lies in assuming that the atmosphere is a single, homogenized layer.
werecow2003 1 year ago
@werecow2003
" and we measure a corresponding increase in incomming radiation on the ground. From this, we can tell that the effect is not yet saturated. Your mistake lies in assuming that the atmosphere is a single, homogenized layer."
You're incorrect in your assumption, I'm not that stupid.
The Lindzen & Choi paper proves satellite observations of outgoing radiation is the same as what goes in, which is why deserts freeze at night without cloudcover.
MrOllyK 1 year ago
@MrOllyK The L&C paper is heavily flawed; their results are not robust and have not held up to scrutiny (see w. agu. org / journals / pip / gl / 2009GL042314-pip. pdf). Even Roy Spencer (who is hardly an alarmist) was not supportive of the L&C paper's conclusions. I suggest you put this paper in some context and take a look at Harries 2001, Griggs 2004, Chen 2007, Philipona 2004, Evans 2006 and Wang 2009.
werecow2003 1 year ago
@werecow2003
Some may think Lindzen & Choi's paper was flawed, however if the IPCC's "models" were correct, the planet would have been uninhabitable since its formation. If the radiation coming in doesn't escape or escapes too slowly, a runaway greenhouse is inevitable.
The reason we don't have a runaway greenhouse is because the planet is able to lose this heat as radiation, from its own core as well as incoming. It's been doing this for 4.5Bn years.
MrOllyK 1 year ago
@MrOllyK This is an assertion that doesn't hold if you take into account the sun's decreased output back through time and the changing configuration of continents. For example, during the Ordovician, the difference in radiative forcing was enough to lead to glaciation when CO2 reached levels lower than 3000 ppm.
Regardless of whether the IPCC's models are correct, though, LC09 has been picked apart enough to know that it simply was heavily flawed. One has no bearing on the other.
werecow2003 1 year ago
@madcow2003
I still stand by my last statement to be true:
The reason we don't have a runaway greenhouse is because the planet is able to lose this heat as radiation, from its own core as well as incoming. It's been doing this for 4.5Bn years.
The Sun's output has been higher than now as well. Face it - you can argue this all you like and we've been over this before as you know that we're not facing change any more rapid than the past but you still persist. My above statement stands proven.
MrOllyK 1 year ago
@MrOllyK The sun's luminosity grows significantly over the course of it's lifetime (approx 10% per Bn years) as more of its mass is converted into He. I've never heard of a time when it's long term (i.e. on a scale of millions of years) output was higher than today, and it strikes me as extremely implausible. Shorter term (decadal / century scale) variability can lead to swings in radiative forcing, but these are peanuts compared to the differences we're talking about.
werecow2003 1 year ago
@madcow2003
I always take into account of the global continental configuration. The early Jurassic wasn't suitable to engender polar ice caps, but the late Jurassic was.
The LIA was a blip in solar system time, and still the Sun managed to dip our planet into a mini ice age. As you say - it's just peanuts.
I'm sure you've taken into account Milankovich Cycles as well as solar cycles. However, in 4.5Bn years, CO2 has never caused or created any runaway greenhouse. Vena, Vidi, Vici..
MrOllyK 1 year ago
I'll add to that last post that we've actually been in a downward trend in solar irradiance in the past decade, and yet temperatures have actually still been rising. So you are simultaneously ignoring the huge influence of solar output on past climate equilibrium states and you now seem to be trying to argue that the sun is responsible for the recent warming trend. Neither holds up to scrutiny.
werecow2003 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@werecow2003
"we've actually been in a downward trend in solar irradiance in the past decade, and yet temperatures have actually still been rising. So you are simultaneously ignoring the huge influence of solar output on past climate equilibrium states and you now seem to be trying to argue that the sun is responsible for the recent warming trend."
I'm not ignoring them at all. Have you taken into account the oceans retain heat for decades, which is some 70% of our planet?
MrOllyK 1 year ago
@werecow2003
The Sun needn't change its output for millions of years to affect global change, as the relatively minor Maunder Minimum in about 1700 demonstrated with chilly clarity. However, this happens all the time at regular intervals:
icecap. us/images/uploads/Last5000years. jpg
MrOllyK 1 year ago
@MrOllyK Apples and oranges. The kinds of effects you describe here are on the order of 0.1-1 percent. The effect I'm talking about is a steady climb that happens over millions of years, but the total effect is one or two orders of magnitude more pronounced. Your earlier assertion that we would have to have had a runaway effect many times in the past is oversimplifying things. Of course, we do see evidence of 'tipping points' in paleodata, but that's a different, less catastrophic beastie.
werecow2003 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@werecow2003
"Apples and oranges. The kinds of effects you describe here are on the order of 0.1-1 percent."
Global CO2 is some 0.03% of the atmosphere and man's contribution is just 3% of that. Somehow you infer that 0.1-1% is teeny and irrelevant but you panic over 0.0009%?
"Your earlier assertion that we would have to have had a runaway effect many times in the past is oversimplifying things."
We've never had a runaway greenhouse, ever. 0.0009% won't cause it either. Simple enough?
MrOllyK 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@werecow2003
"there's no longer any substantial debate about whether there has been a warming trend for the past few decades, or about whether anthropogenic forcing is responsible for much of the warming."
There's a massive debate in case you missed it.
"As for small fractions: you're fallaciously assuming that small quantities of a substance cannot have a large effect."
The first 20ppm CO2 accounts for significant warming, the rest declines rapidly due to the logarithmic effect.
MrOllyK 1 year ago
@werecow2003
"plants and animals can't adapt to this rate of change"
"I didn't say that"
Preemtive strike. Yes you did, some time ago.
Fact - temperature swings of 20C daily is not uncommon globally, and your idea that tenths of a degree swing per decade are unnatural and unadaptable is ludicrous. In the past, this planet has seen much more rapid temp swings than today, or even last century. Can't hide the truth:
watch?v=3DWB5yid3PA
MrOllyK 1 year ago
@MrOllyK You shouldn't "reply" to an argument I haven't made as if I have. Fact is, many organisms are having trouble keeping up with the changes.
Rapid changes have occurred in the past (e.g. D-O events), but to the best of our knowledge, these were hemispheric, and global change has not happened before at this rate in at least the last few miullion years.
Finally daily temp changes are not climate. Weather isn't climate. These are very different phenomena with very different consequences.
werecow2003 1 year ago
Follow the money. Gore & his Goldman Sachs business partners (the enemy of the working/middleclass) have set up companies to "promote" their scam, funnel money to "influence" the results they want, then companies set up to "Cash in" on the criminal enterprise. All players involved in this criminal racket should be ensnared under RICO statutes. If enough of us had the gumption of our forefathers, these scumbags would be on ice by now
Thisawareness 1 year ago
In addition to what demirparcasi said, we DO have statistically significant information over a larger time period than the last 10 or 12 years. In order to believe that Global Warming has stopped, we REALLY should have statistically significant evidence that it's STOPPED. In other words, there is no evidence that it has stopped and lots of evidence (though not conclusive), that it is continuing (though possibly somewhat reduced due to the sun and reduced water vapor in the stratosphere.
Skydancer365 1 year ago
Yes, we do have stat significant warming. I was going to point that out, but you beat me to it. In fact, there are two things to note: first off, GISS does reach statistical significance over the past 15 years, mainly due to its larger coverage (when contrasted with HadCRUT). Second, a shorter time period has an intrinsically higher signal-to-noise ratio, so you're always less likely to reach significance over a shorter period. That's why climate is preferentially measured over multiple decades.
werecow2003 1 year ago
In a very complex system like earth climate. It is very hard or sometimes almost impossible to reach statistically significant results.There are so many variables (almost infinite) and they are interacting with each other.
If we need only statistically significant results in order to take action, we need really large amount of data. That means years or even decades of study and research. Should we wait to satisfy sceptics?
demirparcasi 1 year ago
It is true that if earth global surface temprature increases even 3 or 4 degree, life on earth can still continue. Sure! No question about it. The question is that how many people can live on this planet.
demirparcasi 1 year ago
There must be some scientist from NASA in this show. They are attacking NASA videos but there is no one from NASA to defend.
demirparcasi 1 year ago
Richard Lindzen is very good at obfuscating his nonsense with science speak that very few people actually understand.
Skydancer365 1 year ago
Oh great! They get one guy who's a skeptic and another one who's a partial skeptic. I'll bet you I know why they only got 2 people to debate instead of the usual 5 or 6, it's because they couldn't find 2 or 3 reputable skeptics who were capable of "debating" the "issue". This isn't a debate! It's practically a smooch fest!
Skydancer365 1 year ago
@Skydancer365 all scientist are skeptics
glennimmortal 1 year ago
@glennimmortal
Yes, I know. But when I use the word "skeptic" in this context, I specifically mean those who are, well, more skeptical of AGW than most. I don't like calling somebody like Spencer a contrarian or denialist because those are insults and I respect Dr. Spencer. I reserve those words for people who are truly in denial, grossly ignorant or outright liars.
Skydancer365 1 year ago
Fastinating. And indeed wonderful to see Lindzen as part of a rational debate rather than an anti-agw polemic.
Herecomesthefatlady 1 year ago
@Herecomesthefatlady
Actually, this wasn't much of a debate. They tried to tone down their anti-AGW rhetoric to make it sound like a debate but they're both skeptics.
If you're used to only hearing the traditional media coverage of AGW, it might sound like one, but if you've actually read about the science (like I have), then you recognize this as a farce.
Skydancer365 1 year ago
@Skydancer
Yes - I agree, it was not a debate but it does represent the opinions of respectable scientists at one extreme of the debate. At the other extreme are James Lovelock and Mark Lynas and somewhere in the middle are the IPCC. If you read my postings regularly, you'll see that I'm much more convinced by the Lovelock/Lynas argument.
So it was 'fascinating' to see this program, even though I agree with you wholeheartedly, this was no debate.
Herecomesthefatlady 1 year ago
Yeah, this was indeed a farce. Neither of them is close to the mainstream. Highly misleading.
werecow2003 1 year ago
holy crap, mature articulate smart scientist
thequietkid10 1 year ago
Shame, it looked so promising at first and then both agreed on the "global warming stopped in 1998" line. You'd think climatologists would see a problem with drawing conclusions based on huge outliers.
DaJonas 1 year ago 2
And he said that the trend isin't statisticly significant, but still there.
Finlandcitizen 1 year ago
I'd put it much more strongly than that; they are either completely ignorant of science (which I doubt) or they absolutely know this to be a BS line. It's intellectually dishonest.
werecow2003 1 year ago
Excellent discussion. Both scientists avoid the "alarmist" tropes, thus bringing the debate to a more realistic level.
ClioSmith 1 year ago
There is a problem w/ this & most other discussions on climate change. These 2 scientists seemed like specialists & so couldn't provide larger context. They barely touched upon another field w/ mentioning the acidity of oceans. It's almost worthless speaking of climate change w/o speaking of deforestation, run-off, erosion, extinctions, pollution-related diseases, over-population, etc. I was glad that one of these scientists mentioned the problem isn't just warming but shifting weather patterns.
MarmaladeINFP 1 year ago
1) Vast majority of climatologists & scientists in all fields support the theory of anthropogenic global warming, but why did this show only have skeptics?
2) If I remember correctly, most climatologists work in the US, but why didn't this show have any US scientists?
3) Both mentioned there were higher levels of CO2 & temp in the past, but why didn't they point out there has never been higher levels during the entire existence of the human species?
MarmaladeINFP 1 year ago 2
@MarmaladeINFP
1. Lindzen is a AGW Skeptic, Dowlatabadi is a supporter why claim two skeptics?
2. Richard Lindzen is a US professor of Meterology at MIT.
The argument is directed not to levels of CO2 as much as climate sensitivity to CO2. So far the climate has not shown itself to be very sensitive with only a .6 degree increase in the past 100 years. Models demonstrate a much higher sensitivity by using positive feedbacks or multipliers that will make temperatures snowball.
hydrashok33 1 year ago 10
@MarmaladeINFP
1) This show did not have only skeptics, Richard Lindzen was the climate change skeptic, but Hadi Dowlatabadi is NOT a skeptic of climate change.
2) This program was filmed in Canada (hence Dowlatabadi), but notice that Lindzen works at MIT. Last time I checked, that was in the USA.
plutorip 1 year ago
The increasing scientific ability to track minute weather changes over time allows for apocalyptic story-tellers to dramatize the end of the world by providing misleading data to generate confusion and fear.
Kmacdonald2008 1 year ago
Government, in its endless quest to grow in areas it doesn't need to be, uses catch phrases like "global warming" to scare people into allowing it to increase taxation and regulation over everything.
General society, in its endless quest to protect itself from the need to adapt, uses "global warming" to justify its campaign to stop private businesses from being productive.
Kmacdonald2008 1 year ago
One of the government's jobs as laid out by the economics textbooks (the one I read happened to be very pro-conservative) is to regulate negative externalities and subsidize positive ones.
If there is a negative externality going unaccounted for in the cost of doing business, then it's the government's job to make sure it is.
It's not so much the government that's fearmongering as it is anti-technology groups. Cleaner Industry can't be discussed until they hush up and let the grownups talk.
sciencemile 1 year ago
@sciencemile
Using this video discussion as a basis for analysis, it is far from clear that there is a significantly negative externality occurring, and thus no major role for government regulation at this time, despite what Al Gore (a politician) says.
Kmacdonald2008 1 year ago
Indeed; Al Gore is a politician who, in my view, is engaging this issue not to discern and back a proper way of moving forward, but in order to profit from it. I do not look to him when trying to examine the evidence, because he has an agenda that would be pushed regardless of the truth.
sciencemile 1 year ago
al gore is important environmentalist in this case - with huge influence because he was a politician
(pushed from the 1st chair by the bush-regime by the way)
people should read his books, hes a good man, with true and good intentions
aerobique 1 year ago
@aerobique Yes, Al Gore has a lot of neat ideas, like keeping the level of technology in the Third World at the same level that it's been for thousands of years, as he said in his book Earth in the Balance.
Isn't that neat? That would mean about 4 billion human beings would have to die. But that's okay; there are too many people on the earth now anyways.
Al Gore is wise. He says the best way to solve human problems is to eliminate human beings. Neat.
classic14rider 1 year ago
LOL
another superficial media-victim
aerobique 1 year ago
@classic14rider
Jeez! Why do you all keep talking about Al Gore? Who cares about Al Gore?!!
I only pay attention to science.
But it seems like all the skeptics can do is attack Al Gore!
Why? Don't you guys have any scientific evidence to talk about?
Skydancer365 1 year ago 2
I accept the scientific evidence. I only attack the Gore-tards because they're anti-human extremists.
sciencemile 1 year ago
@sciencemile
And who, pray tell, is a "Gore-tard"? Would that be anybody who mentions the name Gore who is an "anti-human extremist"? And do you then generalize that ANYBODY who mentions Al Gore is an "Gore-tard" and thus, by definition, an "anti-human extremist"?
Skydancer365 1 year ago 2
1. People who buy into his Carbon-Credit scam.
2. People who push any solution to Global Warming that comes at the expense of Human Progress.
I don't have to support Al Gore to support Global Warming. They don't get to sneak a cult of personality into science, sorry.
sciencemile 1 year ago 2
@sciencemile I agree with point 1, it wont work. But Id have to dissagree with point 2. Any research into cleant energy technology IS human progress. Theres nothing wrong with becoming more efficient with energy, it saves energy and more poignantly, it saves money.
TheCaptainLulz 1 year ago
@TheCaptainLulz
Research into Clean Energy is human progress. The Organic and Holistic movements are not, since when we can design our food to be better than it otherwise would and design vaccinations instead of growing them in eggs or counting on the placebo effect from "natural cures", we will be able to feed Earth's people and free them from disease.
Progress to me, though, doesn't stop with Earth. If any planet is going to need environmentalists, it's Venus and Mars ;).
sciencemile 1 year ago
Nor do I immediately disregard the possibility that you know exactly what you're doing when you try to muddy the waters.
I've dealt with Scientologists and Creationists, I'm not going to be put on the defensive over any semantic quibbles or accusations you throw at me.
Or maybe it's an honest misreading of what I said. Maybe I'm jaded. Maybe not.
sciencemile 1 year ago
@sciencemile
All I'm trying to do is illustrate that it's very easy to over-generalize when you use hyperbolic rhetoric like "Gore-tard". It can cause you to judge people who you don't know based on your preconceptions and biases.
It's good that you didn't get defensive over my question! :) It wasn't meant as an accusation though it was meant to sound like one to someone who doesn't know how to think clearly. You passed my test! :)
But IMHO, semantics IS the argument in almost all cases!
Skydancer365 1 year ago
Fair enough.
I will concede there are things I applaud Al Gore for; It's a rather common thing to make fun of Al Gore for saying he "invented the internet", but if you look into it, he really is responsible in part, believe it or not.
However, when it comes to politicians, I have no loyalty if they "turn to the dark side" when it comes to truth, no matter whose side they're on concerning the issues.
sciencemile 1 year ago
Well I could mention Spencer & Braswell, et al, 2008.
That was kinda nice.
Finlandcitizen 1 year ago
Well then how can you explain that in the last decade humans have produce more CO2 then in the last century yet the tempurture went down?
simontimon2 1 year ago
@simontimon2
1. A single decade isn't long enough to determine trends.
2. The sun has entered a cooling period.
3. The amount of moisture in the upper atmosphere has increased which has trapped more incoming solar radiation.
4. Fluctuations in ocean currents called El Nino and La Nina
5. Variations in the Pacific decadal oscillation
6. It hasn't cooled. HadCRUT's temperature estimates showed 1998 as the warmest temperature in the last 150 years but NASA and NOAA showed 2006 as the warmest.
Skydancer365 1 year ago
Comment removed
simontimon2 1 year ago
@simontimon2
Not at all. The so called "Urban Heat Island" effect has been ruled out as a source of error in the AGW models. Besides, what does THAT have to do with what I said? Are you just randomly spewing out Glenn Beck talking points?
Skydancer365 1 year ago
listen there no point in spending trillion to solve problem that berly effects us.
simontimon2 1 year ago
@simontimon2
Why not? It would create an industry that would boost our economy and help us to drop our dependence on foreign oil.
Besides, there's no guarantee that it will "berly effects [sic]" us and it's pretty much guaranteed that if we do nothing at all it will definitely strongly affect our descendants at some point and I'd prefer not to have my name cursed by my grandchildren or great grand children or whatever.
Skydancer365 1 year ago
1. Most of the foreign oil is from Canada and Mexico
2. Give me one example of something that the government did that reduced foreign oil consumption.
3. Every government run green jobs kill two private sector jobs
4. Are you truely helping the next generation by turning them into debt slave.
5. There is no such thing as man made global warming, if it was then how can you explain that in the last 10 years global tempuratures have gone down?
simontimon2 1 year ago
@simontimon2
1. Oil is sold on a global commodities market. If OPEC decides to restrict supplies, it drives up the price of oil everywhere.
2. Anti conservation conservatives have been in control of our federal government since Carter. They haven't TRIED to do much of anything to reduce foreign oil consumption.
3. I don't believe in this conservative myth.
4. Nobody said you have to increase the debt to do it.
5. I already answered this one above. It isn't going down.
Skydancer365 1 year ago
Government restriction on driling for oil in the US is one of the reason that there such a dependancy of foreign oil.
Government is to blame
And the ferderal government spending trillion on fighting a fictional problem is UNCONSTITUTION
simontimon2 1 year ago
@simontimon2 We need tougher regulation before we try any more of that, although Hindsight is always 20/20, but well it's happened often enough, so that isn't really an excuse.
But by all means, if there's oil why not use it. Just realize that the cheapness would be temporary; once we ran out, we'd be dependent on foreign exports again unless we had something domestic that was virtually renewable, even if it was just genetically-engineered plants that produced crude oil.
sciencemile 1 year ago
He won a nobel prize for his movie, and the IPCC accepted sharing it with him
Now, for a "scientific" documentary, you'd think the IPCC would check his science, which is blatantly wrong. So by accepting half the prize, they accept also the responsibility for the content
It is just an example, of how that organization operates, and that they don't mind political and scientific propaganda, as long as it suits their interest
And they need to get their interest out of my science
LordVigeous666999 1 year ago
He's misusing his influence in my opinion; you can go to his most recent TED Talk on Youtube and see exactly why I don't like it; his whole speech is about how to "Sell" global warming.
Let me tell you, you don't need to "Sell" the truth. I refuse to associate with people who try to "Sell" the truth.
However good or true their intentions are, they certainly aren't intent on supporting truth in a calm, practical way.
I accept the evidence that points to Global Warming; I don't accept Al Gore.
sciencemile 1 year ago
(cont)
Though, from a science perspective, I do think that it is the evolution of man to increasingly take responsibility over the management of climate conditions.
Further, the ongoing research that is occurring in this area is vast and the potential for improving the well-being of mankind is very exciting.
Kmacdonald2008 1 year ago
(continued)
Recall that it was the conservatives who instituted the National Park system way back when. The conservatives of today have really gotten too focused on being against everything the liberals are for that we've abandoned some of the ideals that were held just because the liberals happened to hold them too.
sciencemile 1 year ago