go back to 1980? how bout going back farther? when grape vines were grown in northern scotland? -warm period, how about back when the river in paris froze and people were able to ice skate on it? how about the warming period in the time of the roman civilization? cherry picking? lets only look back to 1980... to think that humans could affect the atmosphere is preposterous. why are your graphs cartoons? this is a university? show me some dissertations not political arguments...
@JonThm You keep on saying this conspiracy stuff about nuclear power. Have you thought about getting help from a therapist or maybe medication for your mental issues?
The things you are writing as claims are actually logical fallacies.
'Fossil fuels were active life' -so what.
The keyword here is Were. All the garbage burned in an incinerator has been in the past Life (animals or plants), but onto the moment of burning it is producing dioxin and looks much more like Death rather than Life & it doesn't matter-at all.
'Burning the fuels re-establishes the life on Earth' -How did you come to this conclusion. Following your logic a volcano must be Genesis
@JonThm maybe underground nuclear plants would be better, but nuclear is pretty icky stuff. if only there was another cheap abundant realitively clean energy source.....sunlight? wind? geothermal? current? hmmmmm. the problem i think with these sources of energy is it would only be efficient on a global network, as in everyone is wired up to each other and everyone shares all the natural occuring energy globally. Look at Africa, electricity for a week for as low as 1$.
@JonThm think if everyone personally installed their own solar panels and wind turbines, probably wouldn't have much of an electricity bill at all anymore. if the money from wars and weapons were put into these technologies, we would already of been there, its a damn shame
After Chernobyl nuclear power publicised the discredited idea of global warming, and attributed it to a biologically impossible rise of carbon dioxide in the air-ignoring the effect of photosynthesis. This fixes the level of carbon dioxide in the air. Extra carbon dioxide results in extra life on earth.
They never even considered alternative hypothesis’ that were not of “man-made” origin, as a rational person might expect. Again, this is because these “scientists” were not practicing the scientific method – they were simply your typical nutty, hippy liberal who was infatuated with environment, got a Ph.D. in environmental science and then masqueraded as a scientist.
@Mackberserk Well lucky for us we have access to the evidence and recently a study called BEST was just published that was in part funded by the Kock brothers, who are oil tycoons and hardcore global warming deniers, that shows that the earth has been heating up and that the data was very clear about this. I believe it was the largest meta-study on temperature data ever in history. It backs up the case of AGW and was headed by a climate skeptic.
They then started “observing” the temperature of the planet (step 1) and attempted to fit this observation to their hypothesis. This is exactly what you are NOT supposed to do in science – it is backwards of the scientific method. At first, they observed global cooling…but then, years later, they starting observing global warming. Regardless of the observation, the hypothesis discussed in the scientific literature was always the same…these temperature changes were man-made. Cont'
The reason I say scientists in quotes is because all of the scientists who asked this question were of the same political party – liberal democrat – which might explain why they skipped the first step of the scientific method. Although deforestation, cancer-causing chemicals (e.g. DDT), and various forms of species extinction were favorite nuggets of these “scientists”. The one they liked best, of course, was the hypothesis (step 2) that humans were about to destroy the entire planet. Cont'
In the case of global warming, the scientific method was not followed because step one was entirely skipped, and the hypothesis that “humans must be destroying the planet” came BEFORE the actual observation was made. For instance, scientists did not suddenly observe that the earth was warming up (step one) and then made a hypothesis as to why this could be (step 2). No, instead a group of “scientists” asked the question “Humans must be hurting the environment, but how?” Cont'
It's quite ironic that he presented the "murder of Dr Black" as he did because the whole Global Warming alarmism actually began the same way. The first step of the scientific method is to make an observation. The second step is to make a hypothesis that explains the observation, which can then be proven or disproven via a set of experiments. Cont'
Galileo, in his time, would not have expected to encounter a cult-like establishment of fellow "scientists" who react to empirical evidence against traditionally held views much like the rabid church officials did then. According to Dr. Milne, it's okay for a skeptic to tweak the overall theory with hard evidence which contradicts specific elements of the theory, but it's NOT acceptable to challenge the theory itself with hard evidence and alternative theory because it jeopardizes the religion.
The whole climate change fiction is based on the erroneous notion that mankind can increase the level of carbon dioxide in the air. Photosynthesis converts all additional carbon dioxide into extra life on earth. Global warming was a nuclear lie
@squirreljester2 he misrepresents the position of deniers by insinuating that deniers claim volcanos are emitting the all the co2. and to my knowledge they dont say that at all.
deniers say that other sources, INCLUDING volcanos, emit more co2 than humans, and moreoever that co2 does not drive the change, but is lead by it. deniers do NOT deny that humans emit co2.
so when he says around 22 mins about taking down one argument, all he did was erect and take down a strawman
@mikesomething That's because in order to completely and finally shut down ANY further debate over the science and possible alternative theories (very un-scientific-like), Dr Milne must misconstrue the potential opponent's position and marginalize them as lunatics to the effect that nobody would listen to their argument. i.e. "Climate deniers", as if skeptics of anthropogenic climate change actually believe that the climate doesn't naturally change... Very politically charged.
@Mackberserk sounds pretty bogus to me, but he says a fair few things in this vid along those lines
yeah .... dont give me that crap, you are using fancy words to say sometimes its ok to strawman to get people to listen ...... not where im sitting it doesnt. it just adds to my doubt that this guy is giving it to us straight and makes me believe him all the less.
@Mackberserk yeah, and all the while he has pictures of the sneaky deniers in dark glasses showing them as intellectually dishonest whilst being so himself ...... why you want to defend this piss ?
In the late Jurassic all fossil fuels were circulating the carbon system. Sea levels were 60 metres lower, and the 65% more life on earth. And natural ice ages. Global warming was fiction from nuclear power and there paid stooges
@JonThm "Global warming was fiction from nuclear power and there paid stooges" So did the nuclear industry invent a time machine and bribe every scientist who has studied this subject, beginning with Joseph Fourier back in 1824? :)
The only number which might have affected the climate was a global average level of carbon dioxide. This has been static since the little ice age-the life on earth has increased! Obviously carbon dioxide has no affect on the climate-no matter what nuclear power and its paid stooges life
The only number which might have affected the weather is a global average. But global average carbon dioxide has been limited to two parts per 1,000,000, outside forest fires and earthquakes. Cities are too small an area to have any impact. Every Dr. On earth knows is for a fact! And yet you are addicted to the money they can get from nuclear power to write fictitious papers., Comment
RE: 'The only number which might have affected the weather is a global average.'
FALSE. It is not only this statement that is false, but your Special Theory of the Global Average is false as well. For further details write in Google [CO2 map].
Now let's consider the following example: You are eating slow-roasted pork with rosemary and we are eating cabbage (salad) and according to your Special Theory of the Global Average we are all eating Pork & Cabbage, which is not exactly the case.
Harvard may tell you everything to take your money. If they are lying about this (which is serious) imagine what they can tell you about the other things (the future value of money, the modern money mechanics and the global financial system, for example).
The they had any extra carbon dioxide mankind has released is 0.0000175%! And 1000 times less important than a local forest fire all volcanic eruption
From 2000 to 2010 for example the five year moving average is going high (with a little zig-zag). For further details see 'Instrumental Temperature Record'.
Besides the average values can always mislead you. Let's have 10 people sitting and dining on a table, and nine of them eating cabbage (salad), but one of them eats rosemary roasted turkey. For the statistics all ten will be eating cabbage turkey.
In a conclusion the average of 0.4 of -1 and +1.8 and -30 and +30.8 are very different.
@U1T001 Harvard University says there has been no increase in global carbon dioxide levels for 200 years. This was taught to all scientists in high school biology. Go reread your high school text books
As the deserts extend, the arable land becomes less and less. The foodstuffs go high (to Heaven) and the living standard goes low (to Hell).
With the increase of the floods & wildfires more and more economic facilities (not only arable land and melioration systems get devastated) FS -> Hv; LS -> Hll
With the increase of the population, and increase of the relative share of the illiterate and unskillful at the expense of people with education and skills FS -> Hv; LS -> Hll
and he is a bit one sided himself. He crucifies the denier but what about the proponent? I stopped watching after 33 minutes. Al Gore and Rick Perry are in the same boat if you ask me.
@JonThm Yes, plants use CO2 (carbon dioxide) and in the past the use of CO2 by plants has been roughly in balance with the production of CO2 by natural processes. In that last 150 years, however, the amount of plant cover on the earth has been dramatically decreased, at the same time the amount of CO2 being put into the atmosphere has been increased dramatically from use of fossil fuels. The two are no longer in balance, and the proportion of CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing.
This fellow is a biologist....not an expert on climate. He can tell you the effects of a change of climate on an organism but cannot tell you anything about climate change itself....at least it is not his field of expertise.....therefore he is not qualified to speak on the subject. He does so for one reason and one reason alone.....his grant funding will be cut off if he does not preach the religion of global warming (climate change).
This is not entirely bad idea (to proclaim the Climate Change as a religion). So and so the religions on the Earth, except for blaming each other on misbelief (in the 'true' God) and heresy, are hardly doing anything else.
BTW how can you be so sure that the stories about Heaven and Hell do not concern the life on Earth (it is enough to substitute You as a person with You as human species and one can make a brand new interpretation of the Bible)
@U1T001 Doubt it. But it could be you aren't taking enough of something. That would explain the clouded thinking. Nevertheless...one day a judgment will arrive and though many mock at the fires of hell now, none do so after the judgment. I really do not want you to spend eternity in torment with no rest, ever. Be advised, you might remember this warning and regret it eternally but I will not remember you at all....ever. Don't go to hell. No amount of sin, money or anything is worth it.
@U1T001 Why remove your comment? It was an excellent description of the thought process of the worshipers of the theory of evolution. BTW, again...please do not go to hell. Don't believe the lie that it does not exist. Satan is a loser...don't go down to the pit of hell with him. Jesus Christ offers you riches in heaven beyond your wildest dreams for simply acknowledging that Christ is the Son of God and died, and rose again to save you. A bargain at any price, and it's free.
I didn't remove the comment, but anyway it was aside of the discussion.
IMV the Heaven and Hell are here down on the Earth. If we (as human species) succumb to the temptation of money and power, to the excessive desire to acquire and possess more material wealth than we as human beings need we will exhaust the resources of the planet to ground zero and turn it into Hell (as it goes with the extension of the deserts, the forest fires, and the floods). Welcome to the highway to Hell.
@U1T001 Where is the hell for the super rich european bankers who traffic in child sex? Where is the heaven on earth for the children forced to do such evil acts? It ain't here. Justice is an attribute of God and God's justice will not wait forever. Death equalizes us all and judgment follows. You think this is hell? Tell you what, watch the video, "23 minutes in hell" here on youtube. It's the most realistic portrayal of hell I've ever seen/heard. Take a look at your future.
If you mean reasoning through approximate values and inferences over incomplete and inaccurate data with little or no evidences - this is called fuzzy logic not clouded thinking. Anyway.
Because there is SOOOOO much more money to be made in academia than in the fossil fuels industry. (That was sarcasm) He was primarily speaking on the rational assessment of data, and the ways that it can be dishonestly misrepresented. He doesn't have to a climate scientist to do that.
@JonThm Actually many of the scientists who are studying climate change,are also against nuclear power. Promulaters of denial are paid stooges of the oil, coal and gas industry.
@JonThm No it hasn't. That canard was promulgated by someone who took the hottest year in the last 100 years and compared it to the ones immediately after. This is 'weather', climate is average of temperatures over years.
I learned absolutely nothing for the first 12 and a half minutes of this video, and then came the slide with the "denier" characterised as someone that wanted to chop down a tree of knowledge with a chainsaw. I suddenly realised that I was watching propaganda, and promptly switched the video off :s
@morticiamom1 Hmm I just watched it again but he didn't make any valid points above what a ten-year-old takes for granted. No wonder you thought it was "obvious" that I wasn't paying attention. I mean, if I told you "Hey, the sky is blue, water is wet and we are all going to die" you would probably switch off too lol
Biology metabolises all the available carbon dioxide. Extra carbon dioxide results in increased life on earth not more carbon dioxide in the air. Climate change is total fiction from nuclear power and the stupid
Photosynthesis controls the level of carbon dioxide in the air not manned. Man is carbon dioxide has ended up as extra life on earth not extra carbon dioxide in the air!
@JonThm If the world was simple, it would be sufficient to sit at your desk develop theories instead of going out there and get the data. You have a nice theory, but science passed that level of simplicity in 1930 and the computer models predicting global warming is based on data from the real world, not from made up theories.
Climate change was the latest fiction from nuclear power is the world started cooling from 1998: so it contradicts global warming. But plants have ensured there carbon dioxide has been static for two centuries
"In Galileos days and today- not science decided what is true or not but politics did."
Indeed. Instead of adhering to science and what the current scientific consensus is (the planet IS warming and CO2 is one of the contributors)- people talk about politics instea and use the greedy politicians i.e Gore who capitalised from a problem, as an excuse to reject warming.
I am graduate of an University, so I am used to working science based facts and read scientific reports. But with the amout of time I have it's just not possibe to get an satisfying picture on "climate sceptics" and "climate changers". What makes me mad is that both partys dont falsify the "hard facts" of the opposing party to get it proofed.
"I prefer to distinguish between "climate scientists" (who are mainly atmospheric physicists) and "climate change scientists" who seem to be just about anyone in science or social science that has decided to see what climate change means for their own particular field of expertise. While many of these folks do have a good grasp of climate science (atmospheric physics) and the uncertainties in attribution of past events and future projections, many sadly do not.
werecow2003@Why would you forget to tell your target audience that the original hide the decline was done to deceive.And..if the science was so "solid" why would you need to.?
Thats the question :)
Look up climateaudit+ipcc+and+the+trick
McIntrye shredded the original hide the decline in a published journal.
The "message" was correct..what..that we are all doomed.
Based on modelling..weep…based on measurements..we are fine.
daviclond@..in a post modernist world..my fellow greens now call science mistakes= "hands over ears".
You want to injure me..because this guy made a mistake and just pointed it out.Its about the science..and you think thats normal and an adult response. :)
daviclond@ sorry..you are obviously a big oil shrill that tries to make all greens look like immature violent scientific luddites..green supporters do no support abuse and threats of violence..ignore daviclond=big oil.Support clean energy for our future
@davidcloud ..in a post modernist world..my fellow greens now call science mistakes= "hands over ears".
You want to injure me..because this guy made a mistake and just pointed it out.Its about the science..and you think thats normal and an adult response. :)
@cfzaustralia he "mad" a few mistakes so that means you can keep your ridiculous hands-over-ears world view? i'm lining you straight up against the wall when the green revolution comes.
@cfzaustralia The only real error I see there is that he's confusing the (supposed) bristlecone pine issue with the divergence problem, the latter of which is the explanation behind "hide the decline". Considering the target audience, I don't think that has much impact on the overall message, which is essentially correct.
@1regorsemog have you ever seen fox news? the bbc is relatively impartial (i also think it's pretty impartial even not looking at FOX, but you absolutely can't deny it on a relative scale)
Another (often heard) failing in his purported logic is this idea that no-one has come up with good evidence as to what else could be causing the warming. No-one needs to come up with an alternative evidence-backed theory to oust the AGW idea. AGW must stand on its own evidence, of which there is none. It matters not one iota that there is no other theory for what is causing the warming. It's true, every theory I have heard for the temperature change falls flat on its face, INCLUDING AGW.
@anivegmin Only have 500chars. I should have said dangerous/problematic AGW. No evidence for it. Science NEEDS evidence. There is evidence that a CO2 molecule "traps" heat, and there is evidence that humans are adding CO2. There is no evidence that humans have caused the last 100yrs warming and no evidence there will be a problem in the future. The evidence is for the opposite in fact - been hotter and colder before, no problems to date, no warming for past 10-15 years. Models are NOT evidence
@RileyGHunter 1. "no warming for past 10-15 years" is plainly incorrect even disregarding the fact that noise and short term fluctuations can mask a long term trend. The classical definition of Climate is at least 30 years. 2. Yes it has been hotter before in the distant past but this can be explained by natural forcings and the changes took place over very long periods of time. The current rapid warming can only be explained by rising greenhouse gases.
@RileyGHunter 3. Main evidence - Solar activity has been on a slight cooling trend for the past 30 years, Human emitted greenhouse gases are rapidly increasing, Satellite measurements show less heat escaping to space together with a cooling stratosphere, shrinking thermosphere and rising tropopause (can only be explained by greenhouse effect), nights warming faster than days, less oxygen in the air, more fossil fuel carbon in coral, more fossil fuel carbon in the air.
@anivegmin This year the NASA satellite data shows far more heat being release into the atmosphere than assumed by climate models. Look up Dr Roy Spencer (peer reviewed). Saying x can only be explained by y is like saying the universe can only be explained by god. Nights warming faster than days can be explained by the mere fact it is getting warmer. No-one denies the greenhouse effect. As I said before, there is science up to a point, followed by a great leap in faith with no evidence.
@RileyGHunter I assume you are referring to Spencer and Braswell 2011, a paper mistakenly published by a geographers journal (the editor resigned after realising his mistake), written by a professional contrarian with a history of serious errors. Nights warming faster than days is a PREDICTION of climate science - at night Earth’s surface cools by radiating heat out into space. Greenhouse gases trap some of this heat, slowing the night-time cooling. This has been verified by MEASUREMENTS.
@anivegmin Every single paper that contradicts AGW conclusion draws an ad hominem attack. Spencer's paper was peer reviewed. The NASA data is available independently of Spencer's paper. How is it that all the papers that support AGW are glorious peer reviewed science that we all must accept without question but those that dispute it are crackpots? Noone disputes the g/house effect. If it's getting warmer, then the g/house effect will trap more heat, irrespective of whether humans are causing it.
@RileyGHunter Spencer Braswell 2011 was not properly peer reviewed hence the resignation of the journals editor. I'm not disputing the data only the way that Spencer related it to the models. Anyway it is not individual papers, it's the vast body of papers, theory and evidence on the subject built up over 100+ years that counts. It's getting warmer BECAUSE of the INCREASED greenhouse effect. Where else is this extra heat coming from?
@anivegmin That's rubbish. Read more about the Spencer paper. Read Spencer's reply. It was not wrong and not wrongly peer reviewed. Editor resigned cause of pressure from the moron AGW proponents. The paper was not retracted, which is what they do with papers that are incorrectly published. "Where else is this extra heat coming from?" Are you kidding? Go back to my first posts - we've come full circle. Natural forces, but it doesn't matter. Just because you can't model nature doesn't prove AGW.
@RileyGHunteR You cannot accept the greenhouse effect and then deny the consequences of rapidly increasing this effect. There are uncertainties but there is also A LOT of established science (one dodgy paper does not negate this). We have only one earth. The actual evidence gives a very high confidence of dangerous, irreversible changes to the worlds climate and ecosystems. This is not an experiment, we have to live with the consequences. Are you willing to take the chance?
@anivegmin therein lies your leap of faith. You've gone from greenhouse effect straight to "rapidly increasing this effect" and disaster. I hear the so-called science (and the real science) but you need to come up with some evidence that 1. human CO2 is causing (material) change and 2. there is going to be a problem - because there sure as hell ain't one now. Sea level and temp change over 100yrs has been negligible, there are not more extreme weather events and the polar bears are not dying.
@RileyGHunter Yes we are rapidly increasing this effect by adding CO2 to the atmosphere. This is simple physics not a leap of faith. A 0.8C rise over the past 100 years is not negligible. There is plenty of evidence (not just from models) that we are likely to see a 3C+ rise in AVERAGE global temperatures by the end of this century. It will be even hotter in some places and cooler in others. Extreme weather patterns, melting ice, rising sea levels, ecosystem disruption are a natural consequence.
@anivegmin Don't agree. CO2 makes up only 3% of all greenhouse gasses (water vapour is over 95%). Humans only contribute 3% of all CO2 at any time. In other words humans contribute 3%x3% (ie 0.0009) of all greenhouse gases going into the atmosphere at any time (please don't send me back a reply denying this). How do you know this is not negligible? Even if I knew nothing else (that's not an invitation...) I would be comfortable to bet that natural changes would override our 0.0009 contribution.
@RileyGHunter 3. H2O is a feedback not a forcing due to it's short lived effect. Also the different greenhouse gases have different relative effects - It is generally accepted that CO2 contributes anything from 9-30% of the overall greenhouse effect. A small amount of something can have a big effect. 4. So the only evidence you will accept are the actual consequences of AGW?
@anivegmin "Extreme weather patterns, ... are a natural consequence". But it's not happening. After more than 100 years of CO2 pumping the weather patterns are not changing. There are many studies showing that rain, drought, hurricane and cyclones have not increased. Nothing is happening yet, so when will it? Where's your evidence? True that seas and temp have risen, but I'm 50, lived at the beach all my life and I can tell you that the effect has been somewhere between zero & un-noticable.
@anivegmin "Extreme weather patterns, ... are a natural consequence". But it's not happening. After more than 100 years of CO2 pumping the weather patterns are not changing. There are many studies showing that rain, drought, hurricane and cyclones have not increased. Nothing is happening yet, so when will it? Where's your evidence? True that seas and temp have risen, but I'm 50, lived at the beach all my life and I can tell you that the effect has been somewhere between zero & un-noticable
@RileyGHunter Just as a little thought experiment - what might this evidence that you say doesn't exist consist of? Could you imagine any hypothetical evidence that might convince you of the theory of AGW and it's likely consequences?
@anivegmin Yes, theoretically of course there could be evidence that would convince me. Me making up some hypothetical evidence now does not really help us, but I guess if the rate of temp increase really was unprecedented. I guess the numbers might need to be bigger on the CO2 impact side (ie see my earlier post about the 3%s). Also, if we were actually seeing some worrying consequences. Also, even if it was happening, do you really think taxing carbon would make any difference?
@RileyGHunter 1. So the planet acquires this extra heat from some unknown/unspecified "natural forces"? 2. Yes but the natural CO2 in the carbon cycle is in balance and has been for a long time. Only around 40% of the human added CO2 gets absorbed, so the rest remains in the atmosphere building up year on year. A natural change of 100ppm normally takes 5000 to 20000 years, we have achieved that in 120 years with more to come.
@RileyGHunter Climate sensitivity to a doubling of CO2 from pre industrial levels is likely around 3 C. This figure is not only derived from models. Studies of volcanic eruptions, the solar cycle and paleoclimatic data also confirm this. If anything the paleoclimatic data suggests sensitivity could be even higher. A 3 C + rise in global average temperatures will have serious consequences. This is science. Of course there are uncertainties but the evidence is very strong and the risks great.
@anivegmin This is nonsense. "evidence is very strong and the risks great". You have been brainwahsed. I know you don't believe that temp has been flat for a while, but look it up and you will see it is correct. Assuming you will be satisfied that this is the case, what do you think is a reasonable explanation for why temp have levelled out, even though CO2 is still increasing?
@RileyGHunter 1. A 10 year period is not a trend in climate. 2. Looking at the instrumental temperature record there are many short periods that could be cherry picked to see a flat/cooling trend, the overall long term trend is up. 3. Climate science predicts short periods of slowdown due to factors such as - the thermal inertia of the oceans, aerosols in the atmosphere, el nino events etc. Interannual/decadal noise does not constitute a trend.
@anivegmin Again, no-one is denying an upward trend (although if you look at Bob Carter, he gives some great examples of the trend differing depending on from when you take it). But there's nothing extraordinary about that. Have you thought about this - if natural forcings can cancel out your AGW warming over a 10-15 year period, that is an admission that natural forcings can change the climate at the same rate as AGW. It defeats the argument that nature could not cause the rates we are seeing.
@RileyGHunter I didn't mention any natural forcings cancelling out warming. I mentioned short term noise in the temperature record that is caused by known physics. In what way can "nature" cause the warming? By some unknown physical process? By magic?
This is not critical thinking. He's got a massive bias that comes through in almost every sentence he speaks. The deception, denial and manipulation are on the side of the AGW believers. There is no evidence to support a conclusion of dangerous AGW. I find it insulting and offensive that those that have backgrounds in science and think about this stuff in a rational and non-emotional way get branded as "emotional" and "deniers". This guy's just another fool with a green agenda.
solar sun -> what causes -> more or less clouds -> higher or less temperature -> higher temperature more clouds -> cooling - higher temperature -> more co2 from ground + co2 from people -> mini -minimal increase of the temperature - 1 and 2 together at there mini-mini increase of the temperature against good nature cooling from clouds winner cooling *sinking of temperature* and bondage of co2 again if we had 100% more co2 would not chenge something - vademecum brandenberger eu/
Shitheads like hythloday love yapping endless irrelevant lies.
NOBODY makes money from manmade climate change. If we don't act to end world use of fossil fuels, overpopulation, and factory farming NOW, the cost will be MUCH worse.
And solar and wind companies SHOULD be paid for making a sustainable world. Polluters (coal, deniers) SHOULD be forced to pay for their damage.
"NOBODY makes money from manmade climate change. If we don't act to end world use of fossil fuels, overpopulation, and factory farming NOW, the cost will be MUCH worse."
Very true.
Except some people are making a career and lots of money from denying it.
In 2008, Fred Singer (SEPP) made $143k from the NIPCC bullshit, see page 8.
@pseudotruth whats happen with the co2-certificates? thats is a lot of money unbelieveable and its a bissnes because you can handle it, and all transactions have someone at the top who picks up the money
no bussnes with GW?
a deceiver in germany surpressed only on tax and gets over 800 milion euro in one year!
what you thinking how many money change the hands and comes to the top to pic up off some people?
0,00014% co2 from us are not the thing to do that, then look haow many windturbines we need for one nuclear power station
yes we could reduce for less radioaktive waste
polution needs no one so yes and i think that is more need at there to do at for GW, it cames and goes like in the past & we have nothing to do with that
look at diagram, first temperature rise, after a lot of years rise co2 too, together a high arrived first temperature sinks and co2 follows
Anti-environmentalists are the worst offenders of living off the government teat: corporate welfare, massive bailouts to banks and coal and fossil fuel industry.
After this lecture the good professor will have provided these students with the ability to go straight to the streets to protest and whine that they spent all their money on tripe like this but know nothing that can provide a living beyond the government teat. lol
The tree picture is total wrong because it places that we are causing global warming as the roots. Clearly it cannot be placed there since no scientist has proven how much effect we have on climate.
i think it was at the roots only because it's the theory itself and he's trying to show things that branch off from the theory. but yeah I agree that it could have probably been arranged better
The language used in this lecture is very bad. The lecturer repeatedly stated that all scientists believe in global warming. This would mean that all sceptics are not scientists which is no where near being true.
The best is at 50:00 when he stated the reason Mann "hid the decline" was because the publishers asked him to "make it simpler". So we can't trust tree ring data from 1960 onward because it doesn't fit the accepted rising temperature, but we accept it from 1500 to 1960 because it does??? Go Figure!
And even more important is the historical/archeological record showing the Medievil Warming was warmer than now. The Mann Tree Ring incident just shows you how the slight of hand works. Multiply this times a thousand and to get the result we have.
@glenncz I don't see how historical/archeological records can trump actual scientific data. As was explained in the video, the Medieval Warming Period was generally a localised event not a global one. There is both data and historical evidence to confirm this localised warming but there is also data to show other areas of the globe experiencing localised cooling. Global warming is, as the name suggests, a global average of temperature.
When I asked for evidence, I meant peer-reviewed scientific evidence, not a propaganda mouthpiece of the from the global fossil-fuel funded denial industry!
Now either provide the evidence from a world recognised credible source or go away!
Why is it socially acceptable to pullute the environment? CASE CLOSED! It's really a very stupid argument. We know what pollution is, why do we need to believe in a scientific theory to know that having a virtual ISLAND of plastic floating around in the Pacific is wrong! I am so sick of this stupid debate. We are responsible for POLLUTION!!!!! Any measures we can adopt as a planet to stem this tide of garbage should be adopted!!
Critical Thinking, HA ! banal analogies, proof by eliminating the straw men is no proof at all. So I have to provide solid evidence against when u have a gazillion bucks funding the opposite. Yeah right. CAN SOMEBODY pls explain the POSITIVE feedback model to me, I am an electronics eng, I understand, positive feedback, how is THIS positive feedback working ? Climate change doesn't hold water without this. "it was just a theory" - Ha, like ur 'models' are any different. Who understands em ?
@Hythloday71 - Harry Potter twit - "I have to accept the evidence" - the evidence is for computer models you probably don't understand, why should i accept it as evidence. They can easily be tweeked to fit the data and make positive and pessimistic predictions.
@Hythloday71 If you're clever enough, you should read peer reviewed scientific papers on the subject to find out. Jump on google scholar and search "climate change feedback" for articles written in the last decade.
@dannykeat - u don't get it, this guy rabbits on for an hour and 20 mins and doesn't care to explain any of this so called evidence in any sort of critical thinking style. I did as u suggested, its a mine field, it shouldn't be down to me as lay person to seek convincing evidence, the burden of proof is on those making the claims. All i see is superficial and self interest motivating this gravy train with omissions and distortions gallore.
@Hythloday71 It's simple, the more CO2 we emit into the air the warmer it gets (More heat it holds) which in turn causes the oceans to warm. The warmer the oceans get the more CO2 they emits into the air which caused more heating which causes the oceans to warm even more which causes the Oceans to emit more CO2 and on and on
The question you should be asking as an Electrical Engineer is"How long can this go one before we hit the tipping point and go into unstoppable Thermal Runaway?"
@longjohn412 - why hasn't it caused 'thermal runaway' in the past ? How has the amplification been quantified such that we can now make predictions ? How are those predictions manifestly testable ? I suspect its a matter of punching numbers into a computer model until the recent data fits. But that is not science at all. The truth is we just don't know, at best you can appeal to the precautionary principle. But I say better take the precaution of letting globalisation lift people out of poverty!
@Hythloday71 With regard to climate models you seem to be echoing the famous Von Neumann quote "With four parameters I can fit an elephant, and with five I can make him wiggle his trunk." This is true if the various parameters are unconstrained. They are not. Climate models are based on real world physics with the associated real world constraints. It's established physics, chemistry and actual data that the models are based upon. We do not have a second earth to perform experiments on.
@ridgeraiser George Box "All models are wrong but some are useful". Components of the NCAR-based Community Climate System Model (CCSM) - ucarDOTedu/news/features/climatechange/ccsm-textDOTjsp - I think you will find that this widely used model accounts for clouds.
@ridgeraiser We can not predict the weather exactly for three days just, predictions but then as the world's climate will be in a hundred years (also exactly)?
no klima model is exact enough for a half useful forecast vademecum brandenberger eu/themen/klima-2/fehler-1 php#modelle
@ridgeraiser Climate is the average weather over long periods of time. Yes weather is chaotic but climate is not. e.g. tropical, polar, tundra, desert etc.
go back to 1980? how bout going back farther? when grape vines were grown in northern scotland? -warm period, how about back when the river in paris froze and people were able to ice skate on it? how about the warming period in the time of the roman civilization? cherry picking? lets only look back to 1980... to think that humans could affect the atmosphere is preposterous. why are your graphs cartoons? this is a university? show me some dissertations not political arguments...
IndigoPriest 3 hours ago
Carbon dioxide supports photosynthesis and so all life on earth! Any Dr. In total denial of biology is carbon cycle should not be in academia!
JonThm 13 hours ago
You lost me at Harry Potter.,,
bustedtonight 1 day ago
Nuclear power is toxic uneconomic death on earth!
JonThm 1 day ago
Nuclear power is toxic death! Carbon dioxide is the gas of life.
JonThm 1 day ago
All the fossil fuels were active life in the Jurassic. Burning the fuels RE establishes that life on earth! GW was a nuclear line to scare the stupid
JonThm 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@JonThm You keep on saying this conspiracy stuff about nuclear power. Have you thought about getting help from a therapist or maybe medication for your mental issues?
thesparitan 1 day ago
@JonThm
The things you are writing as claims are actually logical fallacies.
'Fossil fuels were active life' -so what.
The keyword here is Were. All the garbage burned in an incinerator has been in the past Life (animals or plants), but onto the moment of burning it is producing dioxin and looks much more like Death rather than Life & it doesn't matter-at all.
'Burning the fuels re-establishes the life on Earth' -How did you come to this conclusion. Following your logic a volcano must be Genesis
U1T001 20 hours ago
The cost of a nuclear accident is €400,000,000,000 spread over 25 years. Fukushima has bankrupting Japan. For ever
JonThm 2 days ago
@JonThm maybe underground nuclear plants would be better, but nuclear is pretty icky stuff. if only there was another cheap abundant realitively clean energy source.....sunlight? wind? geothermal? current? hmmmmm. the problem i think with these sources of energy is it would only be efficient on a global network, as in everyone is wired up to each other and everyone shares all the natural occuring energy globally. Look at Africa, electricity for a week for as low as 1$.
junglistguy9669 2 days ago
@JonThm think if everyone personally installed their own solar panels and wind turbines, probably wouldn't have much of an electricity bill at all anymore. if the money from wars and weapons were put into these technologies, we would already of been there, its a damn shame
junglistguy9669 2 days ago
After Chernobyl nuclear power publicised the discredited idea of global warming, and attributed it to a biologically impossible rise of carbon dioxide in the air-ignoring the effect of photosynthesis. This fixes the level of carbon dioxide in the air. Extra carbon dioxide results in extra life on earth.
JonThm 2 weeks ago
@JonThm That just isn't true. Where is the source for this claim? I would like to read the paper you are talking about.
thesparitan 2 days ago
Nuclear power started promoting the discredited science of global warming in 1986 after Chernobyl
JonThm 2 weeks ago
They never even considered alternative hypothesis’ that were not of “man-made” origin, as a rational person might expect. Again, this is because these “scientists” were not practicing the scientific method – they were simply your typical nutty, hippy liberal who was infatuated with environment, got a Ph.D. in environmental science and then masqueraded as a scientist.
Mackberserk 2 weeks ago
@Mackberserk Well lucky for us we have access to the evidence and recently a study called BEST was just published that was in part funded by the Kock brothers, who are oil tycoons and hardcore global warming deniers, that shows that the earth has been heating up and that the data was very clear about this. I believe it was the largest meta-study on temperature data ever in history. It backs up the case of AGW and was headed by a climate skeptic.
thesparitan 2 days ago
They then started “observing” the temperature of the planet (step 1) and attempted to fit this observation to their hypothesis. This is exactly what you are NOT supposed to do in science – it is backwards of the scientific method. At first, they observed global cooling…but then, years later, they starting observing global warming. Regardless of the observation, the hypothesis discussed in the scientific literature was always the same…these temperature changes were man-made. Cont'
Mackberserk 2 weeks ago
The reason I say scientists in quotes is because all of the scientists who asked this question were of the same political party – liberal democrat – which might explain why they skipped the first step of the scientific method. Although deforestation, cancer-causing chemicals (e.g. DDT), and various forms of species extinction were favorite nuggets of these “scientists”. The one they liked best, of course, was the hypothesis (step 2) that humans were about to destroy the entire planet. Cont'
Mackberserk 2 weeks ago
In the case of global warming, the scientific method was not followed because step one was entirely skipped, and the hypothesis that “humans must be destroying the planet” came BEFORE the actual observation was made. For instance, scientists did not suddenly observe that the earth was warming up (step one) and then made a hypothesis as to why this could be (step 2). No, instead a group of “scientists” asked the question “Humans must be hurting the environment, but how?” Cont'
Mackberserk 2 weeks ago
@Mackberserk
RE: “humans must be destroying the planet” came BEFORE the actual observation was made
The observations were before the hypothesis. What actual observation do you need.
Write in Google 'CO2 map' & click [Images]
Write in Google 'Wildfire' → Images (you may skip the GSM ad there)
Write in Google 'Huge waves' → Images (pay attention these are not tsunamis)
Write in Google 'Extreme weather' → Images
Write in Google 'pollution' → Images
Write in Google 'oil spills' → Images
Click [More]
U1T001 2 weeks ago
It's quite ironic that he presented the "murder of Dr Black" as he did because the whole Global Warming alarmism actually began the same way. The first step of the scientific method is to make an observation. The second step is to make a hypothesis that explains the observation, which can then be proven or disproven via a set of experiments. Cont'
Mackberserk 2 weeks ago
Galileo, in his time, would not have expected to encounter a cult-like establishment of fellow "scientists" who react to empirical evidence against traditionally held views much like the rabid church officials did then. According to Dr. Milne, it's okay for a skeptic to tweak the overall theory with hard evidence which contradicts specific elements of the theory, but it's NOT acceptable to challenge the theory itself with hard evidence and alternative theory because it jeopardizes the religion.
Mackberserk 2 weeks ago
The whole climate change fiction is based on the erroneous notion that mankind can increase the level of carbon dioxide in the air. Photosynthesis converts all additional carbon dioxide into extra life on earth. Global warming was a nuclear lie
JonThm 2 weeks ago
who else notices the megafail in his first rebuttal at 21:40 ? seriously, this guy is teaching at edinburgh ..... wowwwwweeeee
mikesomething 3 weeks ago
@mikesomething He's talking about the CO2 that we KNOW we have emitted into the atmosphere, regardless of it's effects on the planet.
squirreljester2 2 weeks ago
@squirreljester2 he misrepresents the position of deniers by insinuating that deniers claim volcanos are emitting the all the co2. and to my knowledge they dont say that at all.
deniers say that other sources, INCLUDING volcanos, emit more co2 than humans, and moreoever that co2 does not drive the change, but is lead by it. deniers do NOT deny that humans emit co2.
so when he says around 22 mins about taking down one argument, all he did was erect and take down a strawman
mikesomething 2 weeks ago
@mikesomething That's because in order to completely and finally shut down ANY further debate over the science and possible alternative theories (very un-scientific-like), Dr Milne must misconstrue the potential opponent's position and marginalize them as lunatics to the effect that nobody would listen to their argument. i.e. "Climate deniers", as if skeptics of anthropogenic climate change actually believe that the climate doesn't naturally change... Very politically charged.
Mackberserk 2 weeks ago
@Mackberserk sounds pretty bogus to me, but he says a fair few things in this vid along those lines
yeah .... dont give me that crap, you are using fancy words to say sometimes its ok to strawman to get people to listen ...... not where im sitting it doesnt. it just adds to my doubt that this guy is giving it to us straight and makes me believe him all the less.
mikesomething 2 weeks ago
@Mackberserk yeah, and all the while he has pictures of the sneaky deniers in dark glasses showing them as intellectually dishonest whilst being so himself ...... why you want to defend this piss ?
mikesomething 2 weeks ago
In the late Jurassic all fossil fuels were circulating the carbon system. Sea levels were 60 metres lower, and the 65% more life on earth. And natural ice ages. Global warming was fiction from nuclear power and there paid stooges
JonThm 3 weeks ago
@JonThm "Global warming was fiction from nuclear power and there paid stooges" So did the nuclear industry invent a time machine and bribe every scientist who has studied this subject, beginning with Joseph Fourier back in 1824? :)
Richard482 2 weeks ago
The only number which might have affected the climate was a global average level of carbon dioxide. This has been static since the little ice age-the life on earth has increased! Obviously carbon dioxide has no affect on the climate-no matter what nuclear power and its paid stooges life
JonThm 3 weeks ago
@JonThm the physical properties oc CO2 are known for over 100 years and it is sure it has an effect on climate, as it reradiates heat.
Aanthanur 3 weeks ago
The only number which might have affected the weather is a global average. But global average carbon dioxide has been limited to two parts per 1,000,000, outside forest fires and earthquakes. Cities are too small an area to have any impact. Every Dr. On earth knows is for a fact! And yet you are addicted to the money they can get from nuclear power to write fictitious papers., Comment
JonThm 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@JonThm
RE: 'The only number which might have affected the weather is a global average.'
FALSE. It is not only this statement that is false, but your Special Theory of the Global Average is false as well. For further details write in Google [CO2 map].
Now let's consider the following example: You are eating slow-roasted pork with rosemary and we are eating cabbage (salad) and according to your Special Theory of the Global Average we are all eating Pork & Cabbage, which is not exactly the case.
U1T001 2 weeks ago
@JonThm
Do we live on one and the same planet. See the data of Mauna Loa Solar Observatory, Hawaii (away of any TPPs and vehicles):
1960 - 316 ppm; 1970 - 325 ppm; 1980 - 338 ppm; 1990 - 354 ppm; 2000 - 369 ppm; 2010 - 390 ppm; .. 2011 -392 ppm
Harvard may tell you everything to take your money. If they are lying about this (which is serious) imagine what they can tell you about the other things (the future value of money, the modern money mechanics and the global financial system, for example).
U1T001 3 weeks ago
Green plants have ensured there has been no rise in carbon dioxide says levels fell after the little ice age
JonThm 3 weeks ago
The they had any extra carbon dioxide mankind has released is 0.0000175%! And 1000 times less important than a local forest fire all volcanic eruption
JonThm 3 weeks ago
The world has been cooling for for teen years. 2010 was the coldest December in 200 years. For every 2012 should be as cold
JonThm 3 weeks ago
@JonThm
From 2000 to 2010 for example the five year moving average is going high (with a little zig-zag). For further details see 'Instrumental Temperature Record'.
Besides the average values can always mislead you. Let's have 10 people sitting and dining on a table, and nine of them eating cabbage (salad), but one of them eats rosemary roasted turkey. For the statistics all ten will be eating cabbage turkey.
In a conclusion the average of 0.4 of -1 and +1.8 and -30 and +30.8 are very different.
U1T001 3 weeks ago
@U1T001 Harvard University says there has been no increase in global carbon dioxide levels for 200 years. This was taught to all scientists in high school biology. Go reread your high school text books
JonThm 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
U1T001 3 weeks ago
Climate change is PR by nuclear power. Photosynthesis prevents any man made build up of carbon dioxide in the air. Which all doctors realise!
JonThm 3 weeks ago
RE: 'Where is the Hell'
As the deserts extend, the arable land becomes less and less. The foodstuffs go high (to Heaven) and the living standard goes low (to Hell).
With the increase of the floods & wildfires more and more economic facilities (not only arable land and melioration systems get devastated) FS -> Hv; LS -> Hll
With the increase of the population, and increase of the relative share of the illiterate and unskillful at the expense of people with education and skills FS -> Hv; LS -> Hll
U1T001 3 weeks ago
and he is a bit one sided himself. He crucifies the denier but what about the proponent? I stopped watching after 33 minutes. Al Gore and Rick Perry are in the same boat if you ask me.
ThePCZirbes 3 weeks ago
Plants metabolise carbon dioxide to form more life on earth. No accumulation of carbon dioxide in the air is possible
JonThm 4 weeks ago
@JonThm Yes, plants use CO2 (carbon dioxide) and in the past the use of CO2 by plants has been roughly in balance with the production of CO2 by natural processes. In that last 150 years, however, the amount of plant cover on the earth has been dramatically decreased, at the same time the amount of CO2 being put into the atmosphere has been increased dramatically from use of fossil fuels. The two are no longer in balance, and the proportion of CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing.
morticiamom1 3 weeks ago
The level of carbon dioxide in the air is controlled only by photosynthesis. Mankind's additional carbon dioxide has increased life on earth
JonThm 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
WORLD RECORD: BIGGEST WIND TURBINE
Visit: windturbinecarriedbywheels.weebly.com
ZERO-NOISE from gears and generators since they are sealed underground.
SAVES THE BIRDS AND BATS since slow-moving.
DOES NOT OCCUPY A WIDER LANDSCAPE since the turbine can be very tall.
MAY BE LOWER-COST since it may use timber and other cheaper things.
ELUDES HURRICANE FORCE since the V-type folding blades automatically close.
NO FIRE since well-cooled.
HELPS WIND-ENERGY COMPANIES since it is FREE FOR ALL.
TheServiceWeb 1 month ago
This fellow is a biologist....not an expert on climate. He can tell you the effects of a change of climate on an organism but cannot tell you anything about climate change itself....at least it is not his field of expertise.....therefore he is not qualified to speak on the subject. He does so for one reason and one reason alone.....his grant funding will be cut off if he does not preach the religion of global warming (climate change).
KJVWordofGod 1 month ago
@KJVWordofGod
RE: 'The religion of global warming'
This is not entirely bad idea (to proclaim the Climate Change as a religion). So and so the religions on the Earth, except for blaming each other on misbelief (in the 'true' God) and heresy, are hardly doing anything else.
BTW how can you be so sure that the stories about Heaven and Hell do not concern the life on Earth (it is enough to substitute You as a person with You as human species and one can make a brand new interpretation of the Bible)
U1T001 4 weeks ago
@U1T001 Uhh....just what kind of drugs are you using? Your statements and question are quite incomprehensible.
KJVWordofGod 3 weeks ago
@KJVWordofGod
Vitamin C. And you?
U1T001 3 weeks ago
@U1T001 Doubt it. But it could be you aren't taking enough of something. That would explain the clouded thinking. Nevertheless...one day a judgment will arrive and though many mock at the fires of hell now, none do so after the judgment. I really do not want you to spend eternity in torment with no rest, ever. Be advised, you might remember this warning and regret it eternally but I will not remember you at all....ever. Don't go to hell. No amount of sin, money or anything is worth it.
KJVWordofGod 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
U1T001 3 weeks ago
@U1T001 Why remove your comment? It was an excellent description of the thought process of the worshipers of the theory of evolution. BTW, again...please do not go to hell. Don't believe the lie that it does not exist. Satan is a loser...don't go down to the pit of hell with him. Jesus Christ offers you riches in heaven beyond your wildest dreams for simply acknowledging that Christ is the Son of God and died, and rose again to save you. A bargain at any price, and it's free.
KJVWordofGod 3 weeks ago
@KJVWordofGod
I didn't remove the comment, but anyway it was aside of the discussion.
IMV the Heaven and Hell are here down on the Earth. If we (as human species) succumb to the temptation of money and power, to the excessive desire to acquire and possess more material wealth than we as human beings need we will exhaust the resources of the planet to ground zero and turn it into Hell (as it goes with the extension of the deserts, the forest fires, and the floods). Welcome to the highway to Hell.
U1T001 3 weeks ago
@U1T001 Where is the hell for the super rich european bankers who traffic in child sex? Where is the heaven on earth for the children forced to do such evil acts? It ain't here. Justice is an attribute of God and God's justice will not wait forever. Death equalizes us all and judgment follows. You think this is hell? Tell you what, watch the video, "23 minutes in hell" here on youtube. It's the most realistic portrayal of hell I've ever seen/heard. Take a look at your future.
KJVWordofGod 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@KJVWordofGod
RE: 'the clouded thinking'
If you mean reasoning through approximate values and inferences over incomplete and inaccurate data with little or no evidences - this is called fuzzy logic not clouded thinking. Anyway.
U1T001 3 weeks ago
Because there is SOOOOO much more money to be made in academia than in the fossil fuels industry. (That was sarcasm) He was primarily speaking on the rational assessment of data, and the ways that it can be dishonestly misrepresented. He doesn't have to a climate scientist to do that.
morticiamom1 3 weeks ago
Photosynthesis metabolises all carbon dioxide from the air
JonThm 1 month ago
Man made global warming and climate change are Allies from paid stooges to nuclear power
JonThm 1 month ago
@JonThm Actually many of the scientists who are studying climate change,are also against nuclear power. Promulaters of denial are paid stooges of the oil, coal and gas industry.
morticiamom1 3 weeks ago
The world has been cooling for for teen years naturally
JonThm 1 month ago
@JonThm No it hasn't. That canard was promulgated by someone who took the hottest year in the last 100 years and compared it to the ones immediately after. This is 'weather', climate is average of temperatures over years.
morticiamom1 3 weeks ago
I learned absolutely nothing for the first 12 and a half minutes of this video, and then came the slide with the "denier" characterised as someone that wanted to chop down a tree of knowledge with a chainsaw. I suddenly realised that I was watching propaganda, and promptly switched the video off :s
CokeSupply 1 month ago
@CokeSupply You obviously didn't pay attention when he was addressing the difference between honest skepticism, and dishonest denial.
morticiamom1 3 weeks ago
@morticiamom1 If it was after the 12 minutes where I switched off, yes :s
CokeSupply 3 weeks ago
@morticiamom1 Hmm I just watched it again but he didn't make any valid points above what a ten-year-old takes for granted. No wonder you thought it was "obvious" that I wasn't paying attention. I mean, if I told you "Hey, the sky is blue, water is wet and we are all going to die" you would probably switch off too lol
CokeSupply 3 weeks ago
Plants metabolise carbon dioxide. Nuclear power is the ultimate them green technology
JonThm 1 month ago
Photosynthesis limits the level of carbon dioxide in the global air. Local levels over cities has no impact on the weather
MyJonJonify 1 month ago
Biology metabolises all the available carbon dioxide. Extra carbon dioxide results in increased life on earth not more carbon dioxide in the air. Climate change is total fiction from nuclear power and the stupid
JonThm 2 months ago
Photosynthesis controls the level of carbon dioxide in the air not manned. Man is carbon dioxide has ended up as extra life on earth not extra carbon dioxide in the air!
JonThm 2 months ago
@JonThm If the world was simple, it would be sufficient to sit at your desk develop theories instead of going out there and get the data. You have a nice theory, but science passed that level of simplicity in 1930 and the computer models predicting global warming is based on data from the real world, not from made up theories.
bvssvni 2 months ago
Plants metabolise all the available carbon dioxide. No change in free carbon dioxide for 200 years. It was last higher in the little ice age
JonThm 2 months ago
Right wing "think" tank. Oxymoron :D
nellre 2 months ago
I really think this is one of the best lectures on climate change out there.
Gnometower 2 months ago 2
Climate change was the latest fiction from nuclear power is the world started cooling from 1998: so it contradicts global warming. But plants have ensured there carbon dioxide has been static for two centuries
JonThm 2 months ago
In Galileos days and today- not science decided what is true or not but politics did.
Instead of blaming "the bad deniers" why didn't you take their arguments (and they got many) to prove them wrong?
digitalesnegativ 2 months ago
@digitalesnegativ
"In Galileos days and today- not science decided what is true or not but politics did."
Indeed. Instead of adhering to science and what the current scientific consensus is (the planet IS warming and CO2 is one of the contributors)- people talk about politics instea and use the greedy politicians i.e Gore who capitalised from a problem, as an excuse to reject warming.
TurboDally 2 months ago
@TurboDally
I am graduate of an University, so I am used to working science based facts and read scientific reports. But with the amout of time I have it's just not possibe to get an satisfying picture on "climate sceptics" and "climate changers". What makes me mad is that both partys dont falsify the "hard facts" of the opposing party to get it proofed.
digitalesnegativ 2 months ago
Organic carbon increases life on earth and there's the seas
JonThm 2 months ago
Our perhaps less than academic comment on the "sceptics" is "Denial Tango" at watch?v=TrURLJ6Vlsg - hope you enjoy.
ASHaustralia 2 months ago
The quote below was from Professor Richard Betts
Lead AR5 Author...this guy here is a botanist/ paid activist talking about statistics..FAIL. :)
lorettebinienda 3 months ago
"I prefer to distinguish between "climate scientists" (who are mainly atmospheric physicists) and "climate change scientists" who seem to be just about anyone in science or social science that has decided to see what climate change means for their own particular field of expertise. While many of these folks do have a good grasp of climate science (atmospheric physics) and the uncertainties in attribution of past events and future projections, many sadly do not.
.
lorettebinienda 3 months ago
werecow2003@Why would you forget to tell your target audience that the original hide the decline was done to deceive.And..if the science was so "solid" why would you need to.?
Thats the question :)
Look up climateaudit+ipcc+and+the+trick
McIntrye shredded the original hide the decline in a published journal.
The "message" was correct..what..that we are all doomed.
Based on modelling..weep…based on measurements..we are fine.
.
lorettebinienda 3 months ago
gotta love the coke swig at 5:24
jimbo29289 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
daviclond@..in a post modernist world..my fellow greens now call science mistakes= "hands over ears".
You want to injure me..because this guy made a mistake and just pointed it out.Its about the science..and you think thats normal and an adult response. :)
cfzaustralia 3 months ago
daviclond@ sorry..you are obviously a big oil shrill that tries to make all greens look like immature violent scientific luddites..green supporters do no support abuse and threats of violence..ignore daviclond=big oil.Support clean energy for our future
lorettebinienda 3 months ago
@davidcloud ..in a post modernist world..my fellow greens now call science mistakes= "hands over ears".
You want to injure me..because this guy made a mistake and just pointed it out.Its about the science..and you think thats normal and an adult response. :)
cfzaustralia 3 months ago
He mad a few mistakes..go to BishopHill -Richard Milne on the divergence problem..uses ad hominems and plays games with the hide the decline.FAIL
cfzaustralia 3 months ago
@cfzaustralia he "mad" a few mistakes so that means you can keep your ridiculous hands-over-ears world view? i'm lining you straight up against the wall when the green revolution comes.
daviclond 3 months ago
@cfzaustralia The only real error I see there is that he's confusing the (supposed) bristlecone pine issue with the divergence problem, the latter of which is the explanation behind "hide the decline". Considering the target audience, I don't think that has much impact on the overall message, which is essentially correct.
werecow2003 3 months ago
The BBC is impartial. Dr. Milne your are deluded and need treatment.
1regorsemog 3 months ago
@1regorsemog have you ever seen fox news? the bbc is relatively impartial (i also think it's pretty impartial even not looking at FOX, but you absolutely can't deny it on a relative scale)
daviclond 3 months ago
Another (often heard) failing in his purported logic is this idea that no-one has come up with good evidence as to what else could be causing the warming. No-one needs to come up with an alternative evidence-backed theory to oust the AGW idea. AGW must stand on its own evidence, of which there is none. It matters not one iota that there is no other theory for what is causing the warming. It's true, every theory I have heard for the temperature change falls flat on its face, INCLUDING AGW.
RileyGHunter 3 months ago
@RileyGHunter In what way does the theory of man made global warming "fall flat on it's face"?
anivegmin 3 months ago
@anivegmin Only have 500chars. I should have said dangerous/problematic AGW. No evidence for it. Science NEEDS evidence. There is evidence that a CO2 molecule "traps" heat, and there is evidence that humans are adding CO2. There is no evidence that humans have caused the last 100yrs warming and no evidence there will be a problem in the future. The evidence is for the opposite in fact - been hotter and colder before, no problems to date, no warming for past 10-15 years. Models are NOT evidence
RileyGHunter 3 months ago
@RileyGHunter 1. "no warming for past 10-15 years" is plainly incorrect even disregarding the fact that noise and short term fluctuations can mask a long term trend. The classical definition of Climate is at least 30 years. 2. Yes it has been hotter before in the distant past but this can be explained by natural forcings and the changes took place over very long periods of time. The current rapid warming can only be explained by rising greenhouse gases.
anivegmin 3 months ago
@RileyGHunter 3. Main evidence - Solar activity has been on a slight cooling trend for the past 30 years, Human emitted greenhouse gases are rapidly increasing, Satellite measurements show less heat escaping to space together with a cooling stratosphere, shrinking thermosphere and rising tropopause (can only be explained by greenhouse effect), nights warming faster than days, less oxygen in the air, more fossil fuel carbon in coral, more fossil fuel carbon in the air.
anivegmin 3 months ago
@anivegmin This year the NASA satellite data shows far more heat being release into the atmosphere than assumed by climate models. Look up Dr Roy Spencer (peer reviewed). Saying x can only be explained by y is like saying the universe can only be explained by god. Nights warming faster than days can be explained by the mere fact it is getting warmer. No-one denies the greenhouse effect. As I said before, there is science up to a point, followed by a great leap in faith with no evidence.
RileyGHunter 3 months ago
@RileyGHunter I assume you are referring to Spencer and Braswell 2011, a paper mistakenly published by a geographers journal (the editor resigned after realising his mistake), written by a professional contrarian with a history of serious errors. Nights warming faster than days is a PREDICTION of climate science - at night Earth’s surface cools by radiating heat out into space. Greenhouse gases trap some of this heat, slowing the night-time cooling. This has been verified by MEASUREMENTS.
anivegmin 3 months ago
@anivegmin Every single paper that contradicts AGW conclusion draws an ad hominem attack. Spencer's paper was peer reviewed. The NASA data is available independently of Spencer's paper. How is it that all the papers that support AGW are glorious peer reviewed science that we all must accept without question but those that dispute it are crackpots? Noone disputes the g/house effect. If it's getting warmer, then the g/house effect will trap more heat, irrespective of whether humans are causing it.
RileyGHunter 3 months ago
@RileyGHunter Spencer Braswell 2011 was not properly peer reviewed hence the resignation of the journals editor. I'm not disputing the data only the way that Spencer related it to the models. Anyway it is not individual papers, it's the vast body of papers, theory and evidence on the subject built up over 100+ years that counts. It's getting warmer BECAUSE of the INCREASED greenhouse effect. Where else is this extra heat coming from?
anivegmin 3 months ago
@anivegmin That's rubbish. Read more about the Spencer paper. Read Spencer's reply. It was not wrong and not wrongly peer reviewed. Editor resigned cause of pressure from the moron AGW proponents. The paper was not retracted, which is what they do with papers that are incorrectly published. "Where else is this extra heat coming from?" Are you kidding? Go back to my first posts - we've come full circle. Natural forces, but it doesn't matter. Just because you can't model nature doesn't prove AGW.
RileyGHunter 3 months ago
@RileyGHunteR You cannot accept the greenhouse effect and then deny the consequences of rapidly increasing this effect. There are uncertainties but there is also A LOT of established science (one dodgy paper does not negate this). We have only one earth. The actual evidence gives a very high confidence of dangerous, irreversible changes to the worlds climate and ecosystems. This is not an experiment, we have to live with the consequences. Are you willing to take the chance?
anivegmin 3 months ago
@anivegmin therein lies your leap of faith. You've gone from greenhouse effect straight to "rapidly increasing this effect" and disaster. I hear the so-called science (and the real science) but you need to come up with some evidence that 1. human CO2 is causing (material) change and 2. there is going to be a problem - because there sure as hell ain't one now. Sea level and temp change over 100yrs has been negligible, there are not more extreme weather events and the polar bears are not dying.
RileyGHunter 3 months ago
@RileyGHunter Yes we are rapidly increasing this effect by adding CO2 to the atmosphere. This is simple physics not a leap of faith. A 0.8C rise over the past 100 years is not negligible. There is plenty of evidence (not just from models) that we are likely to see a 3C+ rise in AVERAGE global temperatures by the end of this century. It will be even hotter in some places and cooler in others. Extreme weather patterns, melting ice, rising sea levels, ecosystem disruption are a natural consequence.
anivegmin 3 months ago
@anivegmin Don't agree. CO2 makes up only 3% of all greenhouse gasses (water vapour is over 95%). Humans only contribute 3% of all CO2 at any time. In other words humans contribute 3%x3% (ie 0.0009) of all greenhouse gases going into the atmosphere at any time (please don't send me back a reply denying this). How do you know this is not negligible? Even if I knew nothing else (that's not an invitation...) I would be comfortable to bet that natural changes would override our 0.0009 contribution.
RileyGHunter 3 months ago
@RileyGHunter 3. H2O is a feedback not a forcing due to it's short lived effect. Also the different greenhouse gases have different relative effects - It is generally accepted that CO2 contributes anything from 9-30% of the overall greenhouse effect. A small amount of something can have a big effect. 4. So the only evidence you will accept are the actual consequences of AGW?
anivegmin 3 months ago
@anivegmin "Extreme weather patterns, ... are a natural consequence". But it's not happening. After more than 100 years of CO2 pumping the weather patterns are not changing. There are many studies showing that rain, drought, hurricane and cyclones have not increased. Nothing is happening yet, so when will it? Where's your evidence? True that seas and temp have risen, but I'm 50, lived at the beach all my life and I can tell you that the effect has been somewhere between zero & un-noticable.
RileyGHunter 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@anivegmin "Extreme weather patterns, ... are a natural consequence". But it's not happening. After more than 100 years of CO2 pumping the weather patterns are not changing. There are many studies showing that rain, drought, hurricane and cyclones have not increased. Nothing is happening yet, so when will it? Where's your evidence? True that seas and temp have risen, but I'm 50, lived at the beach all my life and I can tell you that the effect has been somewhere between zero & un-noticable
RileyGHunter 3 months ago
@RileyGHunter Just as a little thought experiment - what might this evidence that you say doesn't exist consist of? Could you imagine any hypothetical evidence that might convince you of the theory of AGW and it's likely consequences?
anivegmin 3 months ago
@anivegmin Yes, theoretically of course there could be evidence that would convince me. Me making up some hypothetical evidence now does not really help us, but I guess if the rate of temp increase really was unprecedented. I guess the numbers might need to be bigger on the CO2 impact side (ie see my earlier post about the 3%s). Also, if we were actually seeing some worrying consequences. Also, even if it was happening, do you really think taxing carbon would make any difference?
RileyGHunter 3 months ago
@RileyGHunter 1. So the planet acquires this extra heat from some unknown/unspecified "natural forces"? 2. Yes but the natural CO2 in the carbon cycle is in balance and has been for a long time. Only around 40% of the human added CO2 gets absorbed, so the rest remains in the atmosphere building up year on year. A natural change of 100ppm normally takes 5000 to 20000 years, we have achieved that in 120 years with more to come.
anivegmin 3 months ago
@RileyGHunter Climate sensitivity to a doubling of CO2 from pre industrial levels is likely around 3 C. This figure is not only derived from models. Studies of volcanic eruptions, the solar cycle and paleoclimatic data also confirm this. If anything the paleoclimatic data suggests sensitivity could be even higher. A 3 C + rise in global average temperatures will have serious consequences. This is science. Of course there are uncertainties but the evidence is very strong and the risks great.
anivegmin 3 months ago
@anivegmin This is nonsense. "evidence is very strong and the risks great". You have been brainwahsed. I know you don't believe that temp has been flat for a while, but look it up and you will see it is correct. Assuming you will be satisfied that this is the case, what do you think is a reasonable explanation for why temp have levelled out, even though CO2 is still increasing?
RileyGHunter 3 months ago
@RileyGHunter 1. A 10 year period is not a trend in climate. 2. Looking at the instrumental temperature record there are many short periods that could be cherry picked to see a flat/cooling trend, the overall long term trend is up. 3. Climate science predicts short periods of slowdown due to factors such as - the thermal inertia of the oceans, aerosols in the atmosphere, el nino events etc. Interannual/decadal noise does not constitute a trend.
anivegmin 3 months ago
@anivegmin Again, no-one is denying an upward trend (although if you look at Bob Carter, he gives some great examples of the trend differing depending on from when you take it). But there's nothing extraordinary about that. Have you thought about this - if natural forcings can cancel out your AGW warming over a 10-15 year period, that is an admission that natural forcings can change the climate at the same rate as AGW. It defeats the argument that nature could not cause the rates we are seeing.
RileyGHunter 3 months ago
@RileyGHunter I didn't mention any natural forcings cancelling out warming. I mentioned short term noise in the temperature record that is caused by known physics. In what way can "nature" cause the warming? By some unknown physical process? By magic?
anivegmin 3 months ago
@RileyGHunter I have not been brainwashed. I just read the science.
anivegmin 3 months ago
@anivegmin Are you sure? This AGW stuff has all the markings of a religion :o)
RileyGHunter 3 months ago
This is not critical thinking. He's got a massive bias that comes through in almost every sentence he speaks. The deception, denial and manipulation are on the side of the AGW believers. There is no evidence to support a conclusion of dangerous AGW. I find it insulting and offensive that those that have backgrounds in science and think about this stuff in a rational and non-emotional way get branded as "emotional" and "deniers". This guy's just another fool with a green agenda.
RileyGHunter 3 months ago
or
first rise co2, after some hundret years rise co2 too
how could co2 rise the temperature?
how could it be that we coulkd live here to good temperature if there was a long time ago 1000x more co2 in the atmosphere?
and how could it be that if co2 stop riseing on high position the erth will be cooling?
its all against the logic
co2 from us is this it will rise the temp. so we had to reduce everything to zero to stop warming
are we doing this with co2 zertifikaten?
NO
all lies for the f... money
ridgeraiser 3 months ago
ridgeraiser 3 months ago
the most believe in the media, but the media only show what the paying one like
ridgeraiser 3 months ago
Yes - there is FOX crap in the USA, Dr Milne. Yet, in spite of that, a majority of Americans DO know that manmade climate change is real and serious.
mphello 3 months ago
Shitheads like hythloday love yapping endless irrelevant lies.
NOBODY makes money from manmade climate change. If we don't act to end world use of fossil fuels, overpopulation, and factory farming NOW, the cost will be MUCH worse.
And solar and wind companies SHOULD be paid for making a sustainable world. Polluters (coal, deniers) SHOULD be forced to pay for their damage.
mphello 3 months ago 2
@mphello
"NOBODY makes money from manmade climate change. If we don't act to end world use of fossil fuels, overpopulation, and factory farming NOW, the cost will be MUCH worse."
Very true.
Except some people are making a career and lots of money from denying it.
In 2008, Fred Singer (SEPP) made $143k from the NIPCC bullshit, see page 8.
tiny dot cc slash Singer990NIPCC2008
pseudotruth 3 months ago
@pseudotruth whats happen with the co2-certificates? thats is a lot of money unbelieveable and its a bissnes because you can handle it, and all transactions have someone at the top who picks up the money
no bussnes with GW?
a deceiver in germany surpressed only on tax and gets over 800 milion euro in one year!
what you thinking how many money change the hands and comes to the top to pic up off some people?
best buisness of the last century
ridgeraiser 3 months ago
@ridgeraiser
Reply by om
pseudotruth 3 months ago
@mphello not realy
0,00014% co2 from us are not the thing to do that, then look haow many windturbines we need for one nuclear power station
yes we could reduce for less radioaktive waste
polution needs no one so yes and i think that is more need at there to do at for GW, it cames and goes like in the past & we have nothing to do with that
look at diagram, first temperature rise, after a lot of years rise co2 too, together a high arrived first temperature sinks and co2 follows
comparse sun temp
ridgeraiser 3 months ago
Anti-environmentalists are the worst offenders of living off the government teat: corporate welfare, massive bailouts to banks and coal and fossil fuel industry.
mphello 3 months ago
After this lecture the good professor will have provided these students with the ability to go straight to the streets to protest and whine that they spent all their money on tripe like this but know nothing that can provide a living beyond the government teat. lol
nanoballs2 3 months ago
@nanoballs2
yeah they should have stayed in and watched the Simpsons instead.
cthulhu11111111 3 months ago
The tree picture is total wrong because it places that we are causing global warming as the roots. Clearly it cannot be placed there since no scientist has proven how much effect we have on climate.
MrCoffeeFiend 3 months ago
@MrCoffeeFiend
'since no scientist has proven how much effect we have on climate.' - This is debunked on a number of levels, see sks.to
You made the claim, now provide evidence for this!
pseudotruth 3 months ago
@MrCoffeeFiend
i think it was at the roots only because it's the theory itself and he's trying to show things that branch off from the theory. but yeah I agree that it could have probably been arranged better
cthulhu11111111 3 months ago
The language used in this lecture is very bad. The lecturer repeatedly stated that all scientists believe in global warming. This would mean that all sceptics are not scientists which is no where near being true.
MrCoffeeFiend 3 months ago
Yes there is a moral comparison (at 18:40): And it is worth mentioning:
Climate Change Denial is the MOST morally repugnant - the very worst since it's impact is far greater that the other examples given.
rapauli 3 months ago
Comment removed
rapauli 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The best is at 50:00 when he stated the reason Mann "hid the decline" was because the publishers asked him to "make it simpler". So we can't trust tree ring data from 1960 onward because it doesn't fit the accepted rising temperature, but we accept it from 1500 to 1960 because it does??? Go Figure!
glenncz 3 months ago
@glenncz Tree ring data is not the only temperature proxy - ice cores, coral, fossils, ocean/lake sediments, boreholes, glaciers ...........
anivegmin 3 months ago
And even more important is the historical/archeological record showing the Medievil Warming was warmer than now. The Mann Tree Ring incident just shows you how the slight of hand works. Multiply this times a thousand and to get the result we have.
glenncz 3 months ago
@glenncz I don't see how historical/archeological records can trump actual scientific data. As was explained in the video, the Medieval Warming Period was generally a localised event not a global one. There is both data and historical evidence to confirm this localised warming but there is also data to show other areas of the globe experiencing localised cooling. Global warming is, as the name suggests, a global average of temperature.
anivegmin 3 months ago
@glenncz
Show evidence for a globally synchronous warmer than now MWP.
sks.to slash mwp
pseudotruth 3 months ago
Medievil Warm Period Project
glenncz 3 months ago
@glenncz
When I asked for evidence, I meant peer-reviewed scientific evidence, not a propaganda mouthpiece of the from the global fossil-fuel funded denial industry!
Now either provide the evidence from a world recognised credible source or go away!
pseudotruth 3 months ago
@pseudotruth Subhuman unpatriotic coward shitheads like glenncz are unable to provide any scientifically-valid proof of anything.
mphello 3 months ago
Comment removed
glenncz 3 months ago
Why is it socially acceptable to pullute the environment? CASE CLOSED! It's really a very stupid argument. We know what pollution is, why do we need to believe in a scientific theory to know that having a virtual ISLAND of plastic floating around in the Pacific is wrong! I am so sick of this stupid debate. We are responsible for POLLUTION!!!!! Any measures we can adopt as a planet to stem this tide of garbage should be adopted!!
EdEthridgeProduction 4 months ago
Critical Thinking, HA ! banal analogies, proof by eliminating the straw men is no proof at all. So I have to provide solid evidence against when u have a gazillion bucks funding the opposite. Yeah right. CAN SOMEBODY pls explain the POSITIVE feedback model to me, I am an electronics eng, I understand, positive feedback, how is THIS positive feedback working ? Climate change doesn't hold water without this. "it was just a theory" - Ha, like ur 'models' are any different. Who understands em ?
Hythloday71 4 months ago
@Hythloday71 - Harry Potter twit - "I have to accept the evidence" - the evidence is for computer models you probably don't understand, why should i accept it as evidence. They can easily be tweeked to fit the data and make positive and pessimistic predictions.
Hythloday71 4 months ago
@Hythloday71 If you're clever enough, you should read peer reviewed scientific papers on the subject to find out. Jump on google scholar and search "climate change feedback" for articles written in the last decade.
dannykeat 3 months ago
@dannykeat - u don't get it, this guy rabbits on for an hour and 20 mins and doesn't care to explain any of this so called evidence in any sort of critical thinking style. I did as u suggested, its a mine field, it shouldn't be down to me as lay person to seek convincing evidence, the burden of proof is on those making the claims. All i see is superficial and self interest motivating this gravy train with omissions and distortions gallore.
Hythloday71 3 months ago
Comment removed
longjohn412 3 months ago
@Hythloday71 It's simple, the more CO2 we emit into the air the warmer it gets (More heat it holds) which in turn causes the oceans to warm. The warmer the oceans get the more CO2 they emits into the air which caused more heating which causes the oceans to warm even more which causes the Oceans to emit more CO2 and on and on
The question you should be asking as an Electrical Engineer is"How long can this go one before we hit the tipping point and go into unstoppable Thermal Runaway?"
longjohn412 3 months ago
@longjohn412 - why hasn't it caused 'thermal runaway' in the past ? How has the amplification been quantified such that we can now make predictions ? How are those predictions manifestly testable ? I suspect its a matter of punching numbers into a computer model until the recent data fits. But that is not science at all. The truth is we just don't know, at best you can appeal to the precautionary principle. But I say better take the precaution of letting globalisation lift people out of poverty!
Hythloday71 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Hythloday71 With regard to climate models you seem to be echoing the famous Von Neumann quote "With four parameters I can fit an elephant, and with five I can make him wiggle his trunk." This is true if the various parameters are unconstrained. They are not. Climate models are based on real world physics with the associated real world constraints. It's established physics, chemistry and actual data that the models are based upon. We do not have a second earth to perform experiments on.
anivegmin 3 months ago
@anivegmin not realy i think because the models are not with all needed data
clouds and others are not calculated for example
ridgeraiser 3 months ago
@ridgeraiser George Box "All models are wrong but some are useful". Components of the NCAR-based Community Climate System Model (CCSM) - ucarDOTedu/news/features/climatechange/ccsm-textDOTjsp - I think you will find that this widely used model accounts for clouds.
anivegmin 3 months ago
@ridgeraiser We can not predict the weather exactly for three days just, predictions but then as the world's climate will be in a hundred years (also exactly)?
no klima model is exact enough for a half useful forecast vademecum brandenberger eu/themen/klima-2/fehler-1 php#modelle
and the model is not the only one of faild
ridgeraiser 3 months ago
@ridgeraiser Climate is the average weather over long periods of time. Yes weather is chaotic but climate is not. e.g. tropical, polar, tundra, desert etc.
anivegmin 3 months ago