What credentials does Chris Walter have? He isn't a scientist. He's a tabloid journalist. He ddn't do anything to earn a title. That was inherited. He ran for parliament and didn't garnish a single vote.
@TRUMPHENT what for i am quiet well versed on lord monckton what is your point ?????? how about you try to debunk chris lord monckton ,or is this the game where you try to discredit the man but not his points /facts
I watched Walter give his talk in Berlin from your channel. He's a third rate cherry picker. His point on Arctic sea ice is totally misleading. He studiously avoids mention of multi-year ice which has virtually disappeared.
He does not mention that Greenland keeps melting at higher altitudes translating to tremendous increase in area that melts.
He meticulously avoids mention of the collapse of the Wilkens and Larsen ice shelves in Antarctica.
@TRUMPHENTOk then mate, ill shall ignore the 700 scientist who disagree, who are now a million times more credible than those disgusting and dreadful fraudsters like the IPCC, CRU,GISS and MET office drones spouting falsified datayeah right!!!! Thanks but no thanks drone
Climate Change is very real and this doesn't change the fact the planet has been radically warming over the last 100 years. Just because some people don't think it's our fault doesn't mean we should stop trying, the results are the same, massive deaths of many organisms. Mark seems a real asshole.
First off the globe hasn't been radically warming over the last 100 years. The number were facked by CRU. The globe has been warming since the last ice age, that is the only warming that is going on. On the up side things are better when the earth is warmer. More life grows, as shown in history.
We are destroying the planet, sorry that some fucks don't give a shit about that but ultimately you don't have the science to back yourselves up so you're just going to have to accept the changes that are going to be made to help the planet.Sorry.
Climate change science is in a period of negative discovery - the more we learn about this exceptionally complex and rapidly evolving field the more we realize how little we know. Truly, the science is NOT settled.
I've never heard a scientist use the word "trick" in the colloquial sense - it pretty much always means a clever way of solving a problem. Same with "hide" - in context, there isn't a shred of conspiracy.
Next time retiredLEO if you can't provide an intelligent response or restain yourself from name calling then please don't respond. What complaint have I made about spelling?
How can you claim conspiracy among thousands of scientist on one hand and then claim that global scienctist are turning on each other on the other. Mass conspiracy requires mass cooperation.
@MrFahrenheit23 really do tell where you get your CREDIBLE SCIENCE from ,or are you baseing you argument from the bible of climate change . the sky will not fall you have nothing to fear except a global government that will relieve you of your liberty and your dollars
Without CO2, we as a species would not be here on earth. Maybe we should all stop breathing, that will certainly cut down on CO2. CO2 is not a greenhouse gas. I am glad you at leat reconize that fact. Not many people here do, they seem to believe that fraudelent science professor and Al Gore.
... Climate change is happening. CO2, a greenhouse gas that humans release 5,500,000,000 tons of each year, allows energy from the sun to pass through the atmosphere and hit the planet where it reflects off as lower grade radiation, i.e. heat, which is then trapped in the Earth's atmosphere by the CO2 released from your Hummer. The scientific community agrees on this. There is no question as to whether this is actually happening.
@MrFahrenheit23 Your making a good case that we may asphyxiate ourselves. when countries the size of China and India come online and start producing to capacity they'll dwarf everything that has come before in CO2 production while we destroy the forests that convert CO2 to breathable oxygen.
Now that's something I can get behind stopping.
But your crying wolf with the global warming shenanigannaire and lies just make Pope Al Gore a bigger Billionaire with the Cap and Trade Scam.
I agree Ruskeller. These Al Gore sheep, listen to his lies and follow him. They are more then willing to let Al Gore, make billion, fly his private jet around the world and just say he is paying for his carbon footprint. The only problem I have with that is that he is paying that penality to himself.
Al Gore is a figurehead for the light-green industrial bullshitters. He doesn't represent anyone who actually cares for the planet, or the future of humanity. It only exposes the weaknesses of the deniers' arguments when they keep rolling Gore out as an excuse to deny. Try reading some Jensen or Zerzan for a change.
We burn fossil fuels which, in their natural reserves, sequestered the planet's carbon naturally within the earth. Burning fossil fuels puts carbon into the atmosphere where it is harmful. The only question is whether 450 ppm in the atmosphere will destroy the Earth in even more terrible, degenerate ways than we believe it will. That is, if we somehow manage to not let the atmosphere get too far above 450 ppm for too long, which is ever so doubtful.
As the professor in this clip said, your fat ass has no scientific basis of its own, and your only method of squabbling for attention is to try to dirty scientists who are attempting to save the planet so that the next generation of whatever organisms may survive have a planet to live on.
I hope that if there is a God and he forsakes this planet with your children, they suffer a painful fate on a planet that is as fruitless as your pitiful life.
Haha, couldn't agree with you more. It's funny how infuriating irrational ad hominem attacks can be despite the fact that they are plainly baseless, agenda ridden, and misleading. I fear that in our poorly educated world, people are easily deceived into thinking a way of believing is tantamount to a way of knowing.
How many miles did you drive in 2008? How did you heat your home in 2008? How much time do you spend watching TV or on your computer? Just think what would happen if all those evergy cost doubled so we could plant trees in Africa.
You have his the nail on it's head, it is all about the money, we lose it and we get screwed. God, I only wish I could make some money out of this hoax. I guess I will have look into that.
I guess I'm not a "progressive" then. Why does this always have to be politicised? Who gives a flying f*** about politics - it's all fraud in the end.
I drove about 500 miles in 2008. Home mainly heated by a wood burner. House powered by renewables. Energy costs doubling - "bring it on", to quote one of your heroes :-)
@farnishk you didnt answer question ,where do you get your CREDITABLE FACTS/DATA or are you just going to believe this bs (climate strangE) like a religion ,
@farnishk as per usual you cant give me ANY source of CREDIBLE data and or science because there is NONE ......FACT .. oh do you think your going to get a good debate by throwing insults nice 1
I meant the denialists, it's all about the money for them. It's not a hoax by the way. Just to let you know.
It's about saving the planet but denialists are just concerned about 'ma money' and don't give a shit about what happens to the planet.Who gives a shit if we have to spend money to try to stop what we've done to this planet.
apparently the person that posted this thinks we should trust obvious poltical hacks (Rush Limbaugh(like) fatheads over real scientists. Thanks for posting this arsehole, one look at this and we know who is telling the truth, and it isn't your political hack(Morano)
Can't be bothered - it would take so long to debunk every word from a person who is so full of himself he gave himself the first name "Lord" because he thought he deserved it.
How right you are motoxmainia, they can't debunk anything, Bananaafone, just starts name calling, boy genius I guess. These people seem to be listening and following AL Gore like sheep, being let to the slaughter. Name calling and ignorance of the facts, is all they can spout.
@ farnishk carbon trading reached 126 billion dollars for 08 ,projected to reach 10 trillion dollars ,the largest commodity world wide bigger than OIL ,GAS .IRON in other words fresh air .how do you like that you fool
What's funny about all this is that for years, the climate deniers were always whining about how temperature reconstructions from indirect methods (tree rings, ice cores, etc.) are unreliable compared to real, measured temperatures.
Well, now we have a clear case where tree ring data contradicted REAL, MEASURED temperatures for a certain period, and suddenly they're on the opposite side of the fence.
Deniers simply don't have a consistent viewpoint apart from "NUH UH."
You forgot the world conspiracy and the little green men who destroy our atmosphere just to make us stop CO2 and thereby slow down our economy so that they can invade the earth lead by the resurrected Hitler and accompanied by Elvis and Michael Moore... *doh
@'kemibe fair enough bud ,but im am yet to see any creditable science .one way or the other .the bebate needs to be now ,before we get sent back to the dark ages ,for wat iv seen so far it apears nothing more than a money grag ,looking at all the data before me
"politician, business consultant, policy adviser, writer, columnist, inventor and hereditary peer."
I note none of those titles even vaguely relates to studying the climate, and he doesn't have any formal scientific training at all. He isn't even really qualified for TV weatherman.
Antarctic: This is well known - what is also well known is that the water has been warming so it has presented a puzzle to climate scientists. The current explanation is that it may be due to increased snowfall.
Anyway, onto the photos - he is showing a facility in use versus one that isn't. He says so himself (Rather quickly I might add.) Further increased precipitation (AKA: Snow) is to be expected inland in Greenland if the air is wetter because the water is warmer.
Neither do you if you can't spell "but," "credibility," or "matters" and have no concept of punctuation marks. It's predictably the functional illiterates in any setting who rabidly lap up denialist bullshit. I've yet to meet an evolution denier who can spell anything besides his or her own name.
LOL ok show us all an actual working model then actually show how it was achieved. Until then you can scream at the top of your lungs and it not mean shit. You can make a snazzy comeback but fact is you can't as your science is unable and unwilling to do so!
"Lamberth finds EPA in contempt for e-document purge"
.-The Tip of the Climategate Iceberg
The global-warming scandal is bigger than one email leak.-
"Which leaves researchers free to withhold information selectively from critics, as when CRU director Phil Jones told Australian scientist Warwick Hughes in a 2005 email: "Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it.""
Whoever posted this is full of shit. Labels like "warmist/alarmist" may make ignorant people feel all warm and happy inside, but do nothing to overturn an overwhelming scientific consensus.
The time difference is because Morano was trying to bull through accusations - and Watson was given time to respond to them.
Basically what the argument came down to was Morano shouting about how Watson was an unethical hack too blinkered by his ideology to face the fact that he is wrong....
And Watson pointing out the facts, only to finally conclude that Morano is indeed an arsehole. Considering this is the same arsehole as was behind the Swiftboaters, Watson had the right of it.
Rubbish. Watson speaks first (0:37 to 3:47), and the time he speaks, without a single interjection from Morano, is longer than the TOTAL amount of time the Morano gets to speak. Morano first starts speaking at 3:52, and Watson speaks over his first words, and interjects repeatedly starting at 4:19, until the presenter hands over to him at 4:27. Yet Watson does not tolerate interjections at all from Morano, rudely shouting "will you shut up just a second" at 4:45. Watson is real the "arsehole".
However, when he starts speaking (Or more like shouting) all he does is lob accusations and deadly insults - which the interviewer was obliged to let Watson respond to.
Which in effect meant that Watson ended up with more time than he would have otherwise - because he had to respond to the accusations, and the nature of the accusations was such that interruptions were called for.
The accusations are valid. He has a right, and even a duty, to put those accusations. It's why he's been invited to take part. Watson's duty, in turn, is to listen to the accusations, and AFTER allowing those accusations to be put in full, answer them. He fails to do so, being unduly impatient and rude. It's understandable, because he is under pressure - trying to defend a very weak position. That's why Morano merely laughs rather than acts offended when Watson loses his cool.
The reality is that AGW alarmism has no basis in science, and the scientists trying to create the impression that it does have been caught with their pants down. They tried to prove there was no MWP, using unreliable proxy data, and tried to hide it, but were caught. They tried to exaggerate the warming in the historical record by "adjusting" weather station data in a biased way, and tried to hide the fact, but were caught. They now have nothing left. No wonder Watson loses his cool on TV.
If your next bout of idiocy doesn't contain a citation for an article supporting your argument, or supporting that ocean claim (you don't think I've forgotten about it do you?) Or an actual email that you believe exemplifies the "faked" data... then I'm going to get back to electrodynamics, you clearly never are willing to substantiate your own argument.
LOL If I am so full of crap, you spent a lot of energy trying to make my claims as false. You backed it up with the same bullshit that is not what we would have called peer reviewed 20 years ago.
Excuse me, you haven't read the papers and seem rather unfamiliar with the scientific journal itself, let alone the statements made in the papers, what position are you in to claim "it's not what we would have called peer reviewed 20 years ago"? And your claims haven't been backed up, I've been spending energy asking you to back them up, not paint them as false. I've asked you to provide the specific emails, or, maybe that article on the ocean, etc.
Your bullshit only holds water if the other bullshit is not bullshit. On many levels it is bullshit since the "science" changes terms over the years to suite a purpose that its models CAN NOT EXPLAIN. Also you have done a piss poor job of debunking any of the peer bias. So you can keep going around in circles trying to SELL a fake science. All your comments are going on ans on trying to sell incomplete and non debated science! Sounds more like the selling of a peice of shit ideology over
Like a model that accurately corresponds to changes in heat capacity of the ocean? Like a model that was explicitly referenced in the article I provided?
Oh, I'm sorry for assuming you were literate and willing to read the articles to become informed. Tell me, if Science (the journal) is a bad source, should we say that there's no evidence disruption of galaxies aid in their formation?
A Population of Compact Elliptical Galaxies Detected with the Virtual Observatory
You haven't cited any "peer bias". I've asked for specific emails, you haven't given me any to debunk. Of course I've done a poor job if you never give me anything specific to debunk. All of my comments are an attempt to get you to provide something, anything, specific, robust, addressable. But no, you've spoken in vague terms and whenever asked to provide a source or citation, actual evidence, you completely back off of the topic, like your ocean claim you've STILL not justified.
Nothing you have presented is robust, otherwise you would have a science that would actually know what is going on..its pretty simple to see you have none of the above which is why having a FULL peer review with a broader point of view is needed.
... Long term trends are easier to establish than short term variance. I ask you again, have you ever worked with noise? I mean worked with it, preformed analysis on a noisy system, have you ever done that? I have, turns out it's a lot easier to get long term trends with lots of data than it is to predict short term events, as the noise is far more prominent on a short scale than long. The papers I've provided address long term variance, not short term predictions.
Your long term trends are a long ways off from the word go. Hence the reason your science produces models that are inaccurate even over KNOWN periods of time hence the very reason M.Mann had to change his warmest decade finding....
Then provide damn articles showing the trends being inaccurate, instead of saying it, provide some damn citations to some journal articles highlighting inaccuracies. That is how you debate science, by providing sources to strengthen your point, such as me providing Mann's paper
"Proxy-based reconstructions of hemispheric
and global surface temperature variations
over the past two millennia"
PNAS 2008
So, what are the flaws in his PNAS paper? Have any counter citations?
And of course, if you want to question the validity of PNAS, then even Hubble's famous paper would be questionable... you'd basically saying there exists no reputable journal in the world and any paper that doesn't agree with your point of view must be forged, faked, and wrong. If you'll wave away any paper from any scientific journal so long as it disagrees with you, then you are beyond repair.
It's time for you to stop screaming about global conspiracies. What nefarious means is the global climate change conspiracy employing to keep you from using the gigabytes of publicly available data to do your own research and come to your own conclusion?
If the work hasn't been disclosed then it isn't any concern of yours, is it? Undisclosed work is work uncited.
Oh no, that bullshit isn't going to work here. I know you have to believe that it's all being done in secret, but what you need to understand is that this is an almost humorous caricature of reality.
This is just not how science works. Scientists do what they do by exposing DISCLOSING their results. That's the whole point.
Actually yes it does concern me. When a bunch of enviro-nazis want to gain control with what I do in my life and how I spend my earning based on falsehoods it should concern many people.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
You haven't shown anything to be false. You've stated it many times. You've said "watch this video", but you haven't provided any research to support your argument, haven't cited specific emails, haven't cited any papers to debunk the papers I've provided, and claim they're all invalid and they're all faked... and that some of the most well respected scientific journals publish fake information. You've made a lot of claims, very little (see: None) support.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Just provide some of the relevant points. I'm not "denying your point", I'm asking you to PROVIDE the points. Rather than force me to watch a video and wade through a gish gallop, provide the relevant points in the video with relevant citations and the like which you believe exemplify your argument. That's not denying your point, that's asking you to provide your own point.
If you could do this work you'd have done it by now. You can't. You have no interest in the studies, otherwise you'd address them. You'd reference the results of the studies, you'd return with the results of your own work and compare them. You'd point out the flaws that you claim exist but cannot actually reference.
But since you can do none of that, you babble about global conspiracies and lie about fundamental concepts hoping that everyone else is as ignorant as you are.
I see no point in going over his bullshit due to the fact that it has been exposed as bullshit. He even claims he has read all the emails...All I can say is it is more than a couple hour task to do.
I haven't read ALL the emails, that's quite a few gigs of textfile, I have read the emails that climate denialists constantly point to, which numbers more around 20 at most. If the emails you cite aren't one of the ones I've seen, I will do the research concerning the ones you bring up. That's why I'm asking for specifics. If I have seen them already, I'll address the email. I don't mind researching claims, you apparently do. I'm still waiting for you to support your ocean claim.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Provide the claims. Instead of shouting "watch the video watch the video", provide the relevant claims. The video isn't evidence, the video isn't a peer reviewed scientific publication. The video is a source of claims, you provide the ones you believe are most robust, and we can discuss those. That's not an extreme request, that's preventing us from having to wade through a gish gallop, and you still get to provide the "information" in the video.
I mean, aside from the fact that you're completely ignorant and couldn't even begin to do such a study if your life depended on it, but despite this inability you've already made up your mind based on what you want to be true and having so decided this are unconcerned about what any particular evidence may indicate.
1) The specific emails that highlight how the science is faked.
2) Papers indicating anthropogenic global warming isn't happening.
3) A paper detailing the "lag" of the change in heat content of the ocean to counter the paper I provided showing an anthropogenic global warming model matching with changes of heat content of the ocean.
I've asked for specifics. You really should be able to comply with those if you want a proper "debate".
I'm not reading talking points you idiot, I've given you proper articles and quotes from the articles, "talking points" are used in lieu of evidence, in lieu of actually reading the relevant material. Like "read the emails yourself!"
I have, that's why I'm asking you to cite the specific emails, so I can address specific claims. That's why I'm guessing you're unwilling to provide specifics, because it allows you to be shown to be very, very wrong.
Im not reading your fake talking points either ...Non real peer reviewed peer reviews tells us nothing exept for the fact that your side lies and bastardizes the science and would rather delete emails than turning over said information, which is what the EPA did in 2001.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
You haven't established the peer reviewed papers are "non-real". You say the emails do so, I've asked you to cite specific emails that highlight this, you haven't. I'm still asking you to. I asked you to in the post before this. And the post before that. And post before that. And the post before that too!
Why the hell is it taking so long for you to provide ONE specific example? Why have you not cited ONE email yet that highlights the information is fake?
No the emails that you claim that do not exist say that and the fact all the sources in this video refuse to comply with said Freedom of Information act. Must be some patented science huh? LMAO
Tell me, how do you test if the papers "comply with the freedom of information act"? How would you confirm if a paper does or does not conform? By all means, show that the paper I provided doesn't. Tell me what you're using to judge.
And I don't claim the emails don't exist, I claim that you are taking them woefully out of context, and you still haven't mentioned a specific email... which I've asked for, in this post, and the post before this, and the post before that, etc etc.
... Did... did you really not even look at the citations themselves? I didn't cite NASA, EPA, CRU, and the IPCC... not once. Not ONE of their papers did I provide a citation for. Interestingly enough, the only journal I did take my articles from was Science but there are plenty of other good ones as well.
So, let me get this straight, you didn't just ignore the citations, you also ignored the source as well? Really? ... Really? You really think you're making decent arguments?
Ahh so you are saying that since those rather large bodies of science that do not complymeans your others do as well? Fact is also that you claim to have read both sides of the argument yet do not provide anything but your own "beliefs" side. What is even funnier is you claim it matters who put the CO2 in the atmosphere to the relivance of the damage it will do, which makes no sense what so ever. Man made or not 1500+ ppm of CO2 has been in the atmosphere and the planet did not die.
... I'm saying I provided a scientific journal. If you want to argue that it's invalid, you might as well argue that PNAS articles are likewise invalid and hence Hubble's paper was a forgery as well! If the articles from prominent peer reviewed journals are bunk, tell me, is the Top Quark not real? Or if your problem is just with Science then is there really no mantle plume under Hawaii? Or are muons really not able to give us smaller accelerators? Or do you just not trust climate?
Just saying if everything you are saying is so correct I would have hoped to have seen an accurate model by now. Also I think forecasts would be more accurate if the science were correct.
If you didn't even bother to read the papers I provided, why would you bother to read any papers where they do provide models? And the forecasts are small term variance for long term phenomenon, it's like trying to predict the noise of an input to an ADC, sure I know the general trend of a ramping function, but noise makes small scale predictions damn near impossible if the noise is high. Same with the weather, why do you expect differently? Have you never worked with noise?
Wrong methods? Oh? Since I already spoke about the paper why not bring it up again.
Detection of Anthropogenic Climate Change in the World's Oceans
Science 13 April 2001:
Vol. 292. no. 5515, pp. 270 - 274
How are the methods wrong? Or is the data faked, are you accusing Barnett, Pierce, and Schnur of forgery? By all means, please address the paper, show how the methodology is wrong, provide counter-citations, you know, good science and proper debating style.
Show me a model they have that works. They do not have it. They fill in the blanks with processes they will not release. They have been cought manipulating older data as well to make all periods look cooler than what they were.
What boat is that? The "I've never read the material, didn't even read the article you provided, claim they all aren't within the freedom of information act, refuse to provide my own citations for articles that DO meet my criteria, and refuse to provide specific citations for claims made while believing "some believe" is an apt refutation"?
Am I not in that boat? Ok, good, I'd rather not be like you.
First of all, the url was bad, second, I'd like you to provide the arguments yourself, pick the specific ones you believe exemplify your point so I don't have to wade through a gish gallop. Notice, I haven't given you videos because I want specific points addressed. I'm getting tired of this and need to study, you have shown yourself completely unwilling to ever cite, well, anything, to provide anything specific at all. At any point. You don't even bother to read the information I do provide.
Forget reading the information, you don't even take a glance at the source and instantly write it off without even knowing who makes the claim. I have to ask, have you ever studied the science? Have you ever debated science? Do you know how to debate science? With your constant refusal to provide citations to support your claims, or provide specifics, I have to sincerely doubt it.
I also find it mildly ironic, though not important, that you're calling me an idiot with rather horrid diction.
Ooooh, he's a fiesty little limey granola isn't he! Oooh!!
cano21 1 year ago
That guy was squirming his ass off lol
CokeSupply 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The failed Met Office forecast for this winter and the consequent unnecessary suffering and road deaths should be
laid at the feet of the University of East Anglia, the Met Office and the BBC and charges of corporate manslaughter be
issued.
Piers Corbyn
motoxmainia 2 years ago
If I met this "professor", I would have to control myself as not to break his jaw.
hatchedarea 2 years ago
Marc Morano was a reporter and producer for Rush Limbaugh.
AmorArmada 2 years ago
Assholes create methane, and also vital common sense and reason.
Now Dick's Like Professor Watson and Left Wing ideologues create conspiracy theories. Go sell your snake oil on Mars. Friggin looney toons.
mec554 2 years ago
@mec554 The right wing of politics is detrimental to the world. You are all selfish fuck heads
TheAntinode 2 years ago
@TheAntinode
Take a look outside you god damn moron. It's sycophants like you that are detrimental, you fuckhead!!!
mec554 2 years ago
climate change is dead
check this vid out on you tube
"Lord Monckton Totally Destroys Global Warming & Greenpeace!"
motoxmainia 2 years ago
What credentials does Chris Walter have? He isn't a scientist. He's a tabloid journalist. He ddn't do anything to earn a title. That was inherited. He ran for parliament and didn't garnish a single vote.
That's some heavy science goin' on.
TRUMPHENT 2 years ago
@TRUMPHENT who the fuck is chris walter .what are you on about ?
motoxmainia 2 years ago
I'm so sorry I have to further explain. Look up Monckton and Walter in a google search. I presumed you were better informed on Walter. My bad.
TRUMPHENT 2 years ago
@TRUMPHENT what for i am quiet well versed on lord monckton what is your point ?????? how about you try to debunk chris lord monckton ,or is this the game where you try to discredit the man but not his points /facts
motoxmainia 2 years ago
I watched Walter give his talk in Berlin from your channel. He's a third rate cherry picker. His point on Arctic sea ice is totally misleading. He studiously avoids mention of multi-year ice which has virtually disappeared.
He does not mention that Greenland keeps melting at higher altitudes translating to tremendous increase in area that melts.
He meticulously avoids mention of the collapse of the Wilkens and Larsen ice shelves in Antarctica.
Chris Walter, 3rd lord of dung beetles.
TRUMPHENT 2 years ago
@TRUMPHENTOk then mate, ill shall ignore the 700 scientist who disagree, who are now a million times more credible than those disgusting and dreadful fraudsters like the IPCC, CRU,GISS and MET office drones spouting falsified datayeah right!!!! Thanks but no thanks drone
motoxmainia 2 years ago
You have to be a TOTAL MORON to believe this fucking scam. Or a religious cultist. Or a regular Marxist.
People will buy into any fucking end of the world bullshit.
But I DO hope they will cut their OWN carbon emissions and STOP BREATHING. lol Idiots.
ok1jwc 2 years ago
Climate Change is very real and this doesn't change the fact the planet has been radically warming over the last 100 years. Just because some people don't think it's our fault doesn't mean we should stop trying, the results are the same, massive deaths of many organisms. Mark seems a real asshole.
amissot 2 years ago
First off the globe hasn't been radically warming over the last 100 years. The number were facked by CRU. The globe has been warming since the last ice age, that is the only warming that is going on. On the up side things are better when the earth is warmer. More life grows, as shown in history.
nubeldorf 2 years ago
the religious cult of agw is over
motoxmainia 2 years ago
We are destroying the planet, sorry that some fucks don't give a shit about that but ultimately you don't have the science to back yourselves up so you're just going to have to accept the changes that are going to be made to help the planet.Sorry.
domlolz 2 years ago
Comment removed
retiredLEO 2 years ago
"tweaked" interesting ?? well they have not convinced me or plenty of scientists ....the jury is still out ..and yet on they go regardless!!
TooDarnSoulful 2 years ago 2
Those are participating in deception are so scared now so Let's send them Love and they might feel the Light again.
prophetchat 2 years ago
Professor Andrew Watson must surly hold a doctorate in divinity not the physical sciences,as his capacity for deception is remarkable
what a revolting creature !!!
dfbewsdfbdfb77 2 years ago
@farnishk waisting time ????? wtf ...this new global treaty will put humanity back in the dark ages ,taxing the air we breath get it
motoxmainia 2 years ago
Climate change science is in a period of negative discovery - the more we learn about this exceptionally complex and rapidly evolving field the more we realize how little we know. Truly, the science is NOT settled.
motoxmainia 2 years ago
I've never heard a scientist use the word "trick" in the colloquial sense - it pretty much always means a clever way of solving a problem. Same with "hide" - in context, there isn't a shred of conspiracy.
rubberbandiv 2 years ago 4
spell correction: scientist
momentofsciencetx 2 years ago 2
You must be another nutbag, when your complaint is about spelling. You are certified as a KooK. That may be misspelled, but that is what you are.
retiredLEO 2 years ago
Next time retiredLEO if you can't provide an intelligent response or restain yourself from name calling then please don't respond. What complaint have I made about spelling?
momentofsciencetx 2 years ago
18 hours ago you complained about spelling
Spell check: scientist.
retiredLEO 2 years ago
I corrected my own spelling mistake. How is that a complaint?
momentofsciencetx 2 years ago 2
How can you claim conspiracy among thousands of scientist on one hand and then claim that global scienctist are turning on each other on the other. Mass conspiracy requires mass cooperation.
momentofsciencetx 2 years ago
Dear staunch conservative asshole who appeared in this clip whose name I will not bother to learn
MrFahrenheit23 2 years ago
@MrFahrenheit23 really do tell where you get your CREDIBLE SCIENCE from ,or are you baseing you argument from the bible of climate change . the sky will not fall you have nothing to fear except a global government that will relieve you of your liberty and your dollars
motoxmainia 2 years ago
Without CO2, we as a species would not be here on earth. Maybe we should all stop breathing, that will certainly cut down on CO2. CO2 is not a greenhouse gas. I am glad you at leat reconize that fact. Not many people here do, they seem to believe that fraudelent science professor and Al Gore.
retiredLEO 2 years ago
What exactly is a greenhouse gas?
jtkerb 2 years ago
A gas that absorbs infrared radiation.
H2O and CO2 do, oxygen and nitrogen don't.
n9387d 2 years ago
What about the staunch asshole scientist, who is lying through his ass.
retiredLEO 2 years ago 2
Well if you can't learn a name, obviously you can't learn much, especially about global warming that is a fraud.
retiredLEO 2 years ago
... Climate change is happening. CO2, a greenhouse gas that humans release 5,500,000,000 tons of each year, allows energy from the sun to pass through the atmosphere and hit the planet where it reflects off as lower grade radiation, i.e. heat, which is then trapped in the Earth's atmosphere by the CO2 released from your Hummer. The scientific community agrees on this. There is no question as to whether this is actually happening.
MrFahrenheit23 2 years ago
@MrFahrenheit23 Your making a good case that we may asphyxiate ourselves. when countries the size of China and India come online and start producing to capacity they'll dwarf everything that has come before in CO2 production while we destroy the forests that convert CO2 to breathable oxygen.
Now that's something I can get behind stopping.
But your crying wolf with the global warming shenanigannaire and lies just make Pope Al Gore a bigger Billionaire with the Cap and Trade Scam.
russkeller 2 years ago 2
I agree Ruskeller. These Al Gore sheep, listen to his lies and follow him. They are more then willing to let Al Gore, make billion, fly his private jet around the world and just say he is paying for his carbon footprint. The only problem I have with that is that he is paying that penality to himself.
retiredLEO 2 years ago
Al Gore is a figurehead for the light-green industrial bullshitters. He doesn't represent anyone who actually cares for the planet, or the future of humanity. It only exposes the weaknesses of the deniers' arguments when they keep rolling Gore out as an excuse to deny. Try reading some Jensen or Zerzan for a change.
farnishk 2 years ago
We burn fossil fuels which, in their natural reserves, sequestered the planet's carbon naturally within the earth. Burning fossil fuels puts carbon into the atmosphere where it is harmful. The only question is whether 450 ppm in the atmosphere will destroy the Earth in even more terrible, degenerate ways than we believe it will. That is, if we somehow manage to not let the atmosphere get too far above 450 ppm for too long, which is ever so doubtful.
MrFahrenheit23 2 years ago
As the professor in this clip said, your fat ass has no scientific basis of its own, and your only method of squabbling for attention is to try to dirty scientists who are attempting to save the planet so that the next generation of whatever organisms may survive have a planet to live on.
I hope that if there is a God and he forsakes this planet with your children, they suffer a painful fate on a planet that is as fruitless as your pitiful life.
With the utmost sincerity,
JG
MrFahrenheit23 2 years ago
Haha, couldn't agree with you more. It's funny how infuriating irrational ad hominem attacks can be despite the fact that they are plainly baseless, agenda ridden, and misleading. I fear that in our poorly educated world, people are easily deceived into thinking a way of believing is tantamount to a way of knowing.
jtkerb 2 years ago
Who got the 22 million in grant money the scientist, not the political hack.
retiredLEO 2 years ago
Who made $45.2 billion profit in 2008, the scientist or ExxonMobil? :-)
farnishk 2 years ago
How many miles did you drive in 2008? How did you heat your home in 2008? How much time do you spend watching TV or on your computer? Just think what would happen if all those evergy cost doubled so we could plant trees in Africa.
retiredLEO 2 years ago
Comment removed
motoxmainia 2 years ago
I wouldn't give a shit, it's all about money though isn't it?
domlolz 2 years ago
You have his the nail on it's head, it is all about the money, we lose it and we get screwed. God, I only wish I could make some money out of this hoax. I guess I will have look into that.
retiredLEO 2 years ago
It is all about money, but the progressives don't think is about that, they think is about saving the planet.
Just take a look at what is going on around you
retiredLEO 2 years ago
I guess I'm not a "progressive" then. Why does this always have to be politicised? Who gives a flying f*** about politics - it's all fraud in the end.
I drove about 500 miles in 2008. Home mainly heated by a wood burner. House powered by renewables. Energy costs doubling - "bring it on", to quote one of your heroes :-)
farnishk 2 years ago
@farnishk you didnt answer question ,where do you get your CREDITABLE FACTS/DATA or are you just going to believe this bs (climate strangE) like a religion ,
motoxmainia 2 years ago
Don't be so rude and I might tell you.
Actually, forget it: why should I waste time talking to someone called "motoxmainia" (did you mean to spell it like that?) about climate change?
farnishk 2 years ago
@farnishk as per usual you cant give me ANY source of CREDIBLE data and or science because there is NONE ......FACT .. oh do you think your going to get a good debate by throwing insults nice 1
motoxmainia 2 years ago
Of course not, but what's the point wasting time debating if the other party has no intention of changing?
farnishk 2 years ago
I meant the denialists, it's all about the money for them. It's not a hoax by the way. Just to let you know.
It's about saving the planet but denialists are just concerned about 'ma money' and don't give a shit about what happens to the planet.Who gives a shit if we have to spend money to try to stop what we've done to this planet.
domlolz 2 years ago
apparently the person that posted this thinks we should trust obvious poltical hacks (Rush Limbaugh(like) fatheads over real scientists. Thanks for posting this arsehole, one look at this and we know who is telling the truth, and it isn't your political hack(Morano)
dordogne 2 years ago 2
Lesson: Who needs science? What really matters is who can shout loudest.
And another thumbs up for Watson's final comment!
doktorzoom 2 years ago 2
What do you think you exhale? Maybe you should leave the planet, you are a major poluter. Really, what circus do you perform in?
retiredLEO 2 years ago
and you're retarded.
bananaafone 2 years ago
Wow, it sounds like you don't know what money is? Did you buy your solar panel yet? Did you buy your electric car too?
retiredLEO 2 years ago
Watson rocks!!
He is real, the other guy a payed mouth!!
aburgheim 2 years ago
i challenge all the warmers posting comment here to watch this vid an debunk
you tube
"Lord Monckton on Climategate at the 2nd International Climate Conference, Dec. 4, 2009 - 1of4"
motoxmainia 2 years ago
Can't be bothered - it would take so long to debunk every word from a person who is so full of himself he gave himself the first name "Lord" because he thought he deserved it.
farnishk 2 years ago
@farnishk if monckton is such a fool then debunk 1 of his arguments you wont because you cant
motoxmainia 2 years ago
How right you are motoxmainia, they can't debunk anything, Bananaafone, just starts name calling, boy genius I guess. These people seem to be listening and following AL Gore like sheep, being let to the slaughter. Name calling and ignorance of the facts, is all they can spout.
retiredLEO 2 years ago
Comment removed
motoxmainia 2 years ago
@ farnishk carbon trading reached 126 billion dollars for 08 ,projected to reach 10 trillion dollars ,the largest commodity world wide bigger than OIL ,GAS .IRON in other words fresh air .how do you like that you fool
motoxmainia 2 years ago
What's funny about all this is that for years, the climate deniers were always whining about how temperature reconstructions from indirect methods (tree rings, ice cores, etc.) are unreliable compared to real, measured temperatures.
Well, now we have a clear case where tree ring data contradicted REAL, MEASURED temperatures for a certain period, and suddenly they're on the opposite side of the fence.
Deniers simply don't have a consistent viewpoint apart from "NUH UH."
errorchimp 2 years ago
We have to attack the pro-side by refuting their claims. Here are some better arguments.
1. CO2 comprises a very tiny, tiny percentage of all greenhouse gasses. Water vapor is a much more prevalent and insulating gas then is CO2.
2. Higher CO2 levels have NOT been proven to increase average temps. In fact it's probably higher temps. that are increasing CO2 levels.
3. There is NO consensus among scientist about anthropogenic (human caused) global warming.
What else should we add to the list?
junius80 2 years ago
You forgot the world conspiracy and the little green men who destroy our atmosphere just to make us stop CO2 and thereby slow down our economy so that they can invade the earth lead by the resurrected Hitler and accompanied by Elvis and Michael Moore... *doh
humanistfrankfurt 2 years ago
Well :) funny as hell :)
But I have to agree with prof. Watson on his well thought out last comment.
marutimon 2 years ago
"occasionally tweaked data" ! haha
deelean 2 years ago
Fear! Fear!
danieljpost 2 years ago
@'kemibe fair enough bud ,but im am yet to see any creditable science .one way or the other .the bebate needs to be now ,before we get sent back to the dark ages ,for wat iv seen so far it apears nothing more than a money grag ,looking at all the data before me
motoxmainia 2 years ago
@thandi123 fact is ice grows at a faster rate in warm water FACT
motoxmainia 2 years ago
No - ice covers a wider area fact. That isn't the only measure for how much ice there is.
Thandi123 2 years ago
@thandi ...so would it be a good idea to have a live debate with this so called fool and the credible scientist
do you agree ,i sorely suggest you watch that video before you start slaging him off
motoxmainia 2 years ago
@Thandi123 sorry bud il say this again NO CREDABILITY
WATCH THIS VID AND DEBUNK IF YOU CAN
YOU TUBE
"Lord Monckton on Climategate at the 2nd International Climate Conference, Dec. 4, 2009 - 1of4"
motoxmainia 2 years ago
Okay. First lets start with just who Monckton is:
Wikipedia has the list as:
"politician, business consultant, policy adviser, writer, columnist, inventor and hereditary peer."
I note none of those titles even vaguely relates to studying the climate, and he doesn't have any formal scientific training at all. He isn't even really qualified for TV weatherman.
Thandi123 2 years ago
Hmmm, second part didn't come through (Had links to back this up) oh well.
First graph: He completely makes up the IPCC projection. The real one doesn't look like that.
The first graphic: Ignores the fact that the ice growth is younger, more brittle ice and thus melts faster in summer.
Thandi123 2 years ago 2
@Thandi123 ok so a live debate would be cool with you yes ?
motoxmainia 2 years ago
Antarctic: This is well known - what is also well known is that the water has been warming so it has presented a puzzle to climate scientists. The current explanation is that it may be due to increased snowfall.
Thandi123 2 years ago
Greenland: It would help the fact check if he actually put the title of the paper rather than just one out of many authors.
Thandi123 2 years ago
Anyway, onto the photos - he is showing a facility in use versus one that isn't. He says so himself (Rather quickly I might add.) Further increased precipitation (AKA: Snow) is to be expected inland in Greenland if the air is wetter because the water is warmer.
Thandi123 2 years ago
The problem with the naked eye can only see the surface, it can't delve deeper - which is why we develop other tools.
His statement there is akin to saying you can't see diseases with the naked eye, so microscopes are rubbish.
Thandi123 2 years ago
@Thandi123 ok you made some resonable points ,so would you be cool with a live debate ,with both sides present
motoxmainia 2 years ago
Now, on the emails:
You have 13 years of emails from this organisation - and these emails are the best you denialists can come up with?
One talking about how to deal with inconsistencies in tree ring data and another about how he didn't like a particular article?
Seriously?
Thandi123 2 years ago
@Thandi123 bud the science has NO CREDABILITY it maters not that you slag of morano it wont help you .
motoxmainia 2 years ago
Neither do you if you can't spell "but," "credibility," or "matters" and have no concept of punctuation marks. It's predictably the functional illiterates in any setting who rabidly lap up denialist bullshit. I've yet to meet an evolution denier who can spell anything besides his or her own name.
kemibe 2 years ago 2
THANX FOR THE INSULT i though my literacy was okish im french
motoxmainia 2 years ago
OK, your English is a lot better than my French. But you're still wrong.
kemibe 2 years ago
motoxmainia
Bullshit.
You can shout from the tops of your lungs that 2+2=5 but the evidence will show you are wrong.
Private corrospondence isn't exactly stunning evidence for your position.
All Morano did was shout accusations, he didn't actually provide anything real.
Thandi123 2 years ago
LOL ok show us all an actual working model then actually show how it was achieved. Until then you can scream at the top of your lungs and it not mean shit. You can make a snazzy comeback but fact is you can't as your science is unable and unwilling to do so!
tubaboy71 2 years ago
You say that like the studies don't include their methadology. Go look a few models up and they will tell you exactly how they achieve their results.
Anyway, because links don't seem to work this will require Googling - the IPCC has Climate Models and Their Evaluation is a start.
Another source that explains this is Isaac Held of Princeton - The scientific basis for projections of climate change (in a nutshell)
Thandi123 2 years ago
"Lamberth finds EPA in contempt for e-document purge"
.-The Tip of the Climategate Iceberg
The global-warming scandal is bigger than one email leak.-
"Which leaves researchers free to withhold information selectively from critics, as when CRU director Phil Jones told Australian scientist Warwick Hughes in a 2005 email: "Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it.""
tubaboy71 2 years ago
Whoever posted this is full of shit. Labels like "warmist/alarmist" may make ignorant people feel all warm and happy inside, but do nothing to overturn an overwhelming scientific consensus.
kemibe 2 years ago
The time difference is because Morano was trying to bull through accusations - and Watson was given time to respond to them.
Basically what the argument came down to was Morano shouting about how Watson was an unethical hack too blinkered by his ideology to face the fact that he is wrong....
And Watson pointing out the facts, only to finally conclude that Morano is indeed an arsehole. Considering this is the same arsehole as was behind the Swiftboaters, Watson had the right of it.
Thandi123 2 years ago
Rubbish. Watson speaks first (0:37 to 3:47), and the time he speaks, without a single interjection from Morano, is longer than the TOTAL amount of time the Morano gets to speak. Morano first starts speaking at 3:52, and Watson speaks over his first words, and interjects repeatedly starting at 4:19, until the presenter hands over to him at 4:27. Yet Watson does not tolerate interjections at all from Morano, rudely shouting "will you shut up just a second" at 4:45. Watson is real the "arsehole".
73elephants 2 years ago
However, when he starts speaking (Or more like shouting) all he does is lob accusations and deadly insults - which the interviewer was obliged to let Watson respond to.
Which in effect meant that Watson ended up with more time than he would have otherwise - because he had to respond to the accusations, and the nature of the accusations was such that interruptions were called for.
Thandi123 2 years ago
The accusations are valid. He has a right, and even a duty, to put those accusations. It's why he's been invited to take part. Watson's duty, in turn, is to listen to the accusations, and AFTER allowing those accusations to be put in full, answer them. He fails to do so, being unduly impatient and rude. It's understandable, because he is under pressure - trying to defend a very weak position. That's why Morano merely laughs rather than acts offended when Watson loses his cool.
73elephants 2 years ago 2
i challenge all the warmers commenting on this vid to debunk this vid.......... you tube
"Lord Monckton on Climategate at the 2nd International Climate Conference, Dec. 4, 2009 - 1of4"
all this bullshit .why wont they debate lord monkton
motoxmainia 2 years ago
The leaked emails came out at 63 megabytes - not gigs.
Thandi123 2 years ago
Why are the loudest Americans the dumbest?
GBart 2 years ago
Worth it for the last 2 seconds. In those 3 words Prof. Watson has summed up the gulf between reality and rhetoric.
farnishk 2 years ago
The reality is that AGW alarmism has no basis in science, and the scientists trying to create the impression that it does have been caught with their pants down. They tried to prove there was no MWP, using unreliable proxy data, and tried to hide it, but were caught. They tried to exaggerate the warming in the historical record by "adjusting" weather station data in a biased way, and tried to hide the fact, but were caught. They now have nothing left. No wonder Watson loses his cool on TV.
73elephants 2 years ago 2
If your next bout of idiocy doesn't contain a citation for an article supporting your argument, or supporting that ocean claim (you don't think I've forgotten about it do you?) Or an actual email that you believe exemplifies the "faked" data... then I'm going to get back to electrodynamics, you clearly never are willing to substantiate your own argument.
Killua2001 2 years ago
LOL If I am so full of crap, you spent a lot of energy trying to make my claims as false. You backed it up with the same bullshit that is not what we would have called peer reviewed 20 years ago.
tubaboy71 2 years ago
Excuse me, you haven't read the papers and seem rather unfamiliar with the scientific journal itself, let alone the statements made in the papers, what position are you in to claim "it's not what we would have called peer reviewed 20 years ago"? And your claims haven't been backed up, I've been spending energy asking you to back them up, not paint them as false. I've asked you to provide the specific emails, or, maybe that article on the ocean, etc.
Killua2001 2 years ago
Your bullshit only holds water if the other bullshit is not bullshit. On many levels it is bullshit since the "science" changes terms over the years to suite a purpose that its models CAN NOT EXPLAIN. Also you have done a piss poor job of debunking any of the peer bias. So you can keep going around in circles trying to SELL a fake science. All your comments are going on ans on trying to sell incomplete and non debated science! Sounds more like the selling of a peice of shit ideology over
tubaboy71 2 years ago
a science that can be made into something actual and factual.
tubaboy71 2 years ago
Like a model that accurately corresponds to changes in heat capacity of the ocean? Like a model that was explicitly referenced in the article I provided?
Oh, I'm sorry for assuming you were literate and willing to read the articles to become informed. Tell me, if Science (the journal) is a bad source, should we say that there's no evidence disruption of galaxies aid in their formation?
A Population of Compact Elliptical Galaxies Detected with the Virtual Observatory
4 December 2009: 1379-1382.
Killua2001 2 years ago
You haven't cited any "peer bias". I've asked for specific emails, you haven't given me any to debunk. Of course I've done a poor job if you never give me anything specific to debunk. All of my comments are an attempt to get you to provide something, anything, specific, robust, addressable. But no, you've spoken in vague terms and whenever asked to provide a source or citation, actual evidence, you completely back off of the topic, like your ocean claim you've STILL not justified.
Killua2001 2 years ago
Nothing you have presented is robust, otherwise you would have a science that would actually know what is going on..its pretty simple to see you have none of the above which is why having a FULL peer review with a broader point of view is needed.
tubaboy71 2 years ago
... Long term trends are easier to establish than short term variance. I ask you again, have you ever worked with noise? I mean worked with it, preformed analysis on a noisy system, have you ever done that? I have, turns out it's a lot easier to get long term trends with lots of data than it is to predict short term events, as the noise is far more prominent on a short scale than long. The papers I've provided address long term variance, not short term predictions.
Killua2001 2 years ago
Your long term trends are a long ways off from the word go. Hence the reason your science produces models that are inaccurate even over KNOWN periods of time hence the very reason M.Mann had to change his warmest decade finding....
tubaboy71 2 years ago
Then provide damn articles showing the trends being inaccurate, instead of saying it, provide some damn citations to some journal articles highlighting inaccuracies. That is how you debate science, by providing sources to strengthen your point, such as me providing Mann's paper
"Proxy-based reconstructions of hemispheric
and global surface temperature variations
over the past two millennia"
PNAS 2008
So, what are the flaws in his PNAS paper? Have any counter citations?
Killua2001 2 years ago
Show me a real working model that doesnt have a 2.4 C margin of error when talking about tenths of degrees.
tubaboy71 2 years ago
Ok, how about
Contributions of natural and anthropogenic forcing to changes in temperature extremes over the United States
Geophysical research letters 2007
They don't even bother to deal with temperature, they just care about if the confidence intervals capture the data sets.
Killua2001 2 years ago
10ths of degrees C temperature.
Killua2001 2 years ago
And of course, if you want to question the validity of PNAS, then even Hubble's famous paper would be questionable... you'd basically saying there exists no reputable journal in the world and any paper that doesn't agree with your point of view must be forged, faked, and wrong. If you'll wave away any paper from any scientific journal so long as it disagrees with you, then you are beyond repair.
Killua2001 2 years ago
And you're back on this peer review babbling? I mentioned this before. What's stopping it?
It's not peer review that you're interested in. You or anyone else could have done that at any point.
NomadSoul76 2 years ago
What is stopping it are the very scientists who are doing the study.
tubaboy71 2 years ago
How? How are they stopping it?
It's time for you to stop screaming about global conspiracies. What nefarious means is the global climate change conspiracy employing to keep you from using the gigabytes of publicly available data to do your own research and come to your own conclusion?
NomadSoul76 2 years ago 2
The science bodies do not want to disclose all of their work.
tubaboy71 2 years ago
If the work hasn't been disclosed then it isn't any concern of yours, is it? Undisclosed work is work uncited.
Oh no, that bullshit isn't going to work here. I know you have to believe that it's all being done in secret, but what you need to understand is that this is an almost humorous caricature of reality.
This is just not how science works. Scientists do what they do by exposing DISCLOSING their results. That's the whole point.
NomadSoul76 2 years ago
Actually yes it does concern me. When a bunch of enviro-nazis want to gain control with what I do in my life and how I spend my earning based on falsehoods it should concern many people.
tubaboy71 2 years ago
speaking of falsehoods, about this "they all claim the earth has never been any warmer than it is now" thing...
NomadSoul76 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
You haven't shown anything to be false. You've stated it many times. You've said "watch this video", but you haven't provided any research to support your argument, haven't cited specific emails, haven't cited any papers to debunk the papers I've provided, and claim they're all invalid and they're all faked... and that some of the most well respected scientific journals publish fake information. You've made a lot of claims, very little (see: None) support.
Killua2001 2 years ago
You have not watched the video.... so you deny my point because you refuse to see it.
tubaboy71 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Just provide some of the relevant points. I'm not "denying your point", I'm asking you to PROVIDE the points. Rather than force me to watch a video and wade through a gish gallop, provide the relevant points in the video with relevant citations and the like which you believe exemplify your argument. That's not denying your point, that's asking you to provide your own point.
Killua2001 2 years ago
The video doesn't mush around at all
tubaboy71 2 years ago
If you could do this work you'd have done it by now. You can't. You have no interest in the studies, otherwise you'd address them. You'd reference the results of the studies, you'd return with the results of your own work and compare them. You'd point out the flaws that you claim exist but cannot actually reference.
But since you can do none of that, you babble about global conspiracies and lie about fundamental concepts hoping that everyone else is as ignorant as you are.
NomadSoul76 2 years ago
I see no point in going over his bullshit due to the fact that it has been exposed as bullshit. He even claims he has read all the emails...All I can say is it is more than a couple hour task to do.
tubaboy71 2 years ago
I haven't read ALL the emails, that's quite a few gigs of textfile, I have read the emails that climate denialists constantly point to, which numbers more around 20 at most. If the emails you cite aren't one of the ones I've seen, I will do the research concerning the ones you bring up. That's why I'm asking for specifics. If I have seen them already, I'll address the email. I don't mind researching claims, you apparently do. I'm still waiting for you to support your ocean claim.
Killua2001 2 years ago
You are just stuck where your "side" has attempted to debunk LOL.
tubaboy71 2 years ago
Watch the video!
tubaboy71 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Provide the claims. Instead of shouting "watch the video watch the video", provide the relevant claims. The video isn't evidence, the video isn't a peer reviewed scientific publication. The video is a source of claims, you provide the ones you believe are most robust, and we can discuss those. That's not an extreme request, that's preventing us from having to wade through a gish gallop, and you still get to provide the "information" in the video.
Killua2001 2 years ago
I mean, aside from the fact that you're completely ignorant and couldn't even begin to do such a study if your life depended on it, but despite this inability you've already made up your mind based on what you want to be true and having so decided this are unconcerned about what any particular evidence may indicate.
NomadSoul76 2 years ago
the emails are bad, the source code is the killer.
shedendpussys 2 years ago
So, the list of things I've asked you to provide.
1) The specific emails that highlight how the science is faked.
2) Papers indicating anthropogenic global warming isn't happening.
3) A paper detailing the "lag" of the change in heat content of the ocean to counter the paper I provided showing an anthropogenic global warming model matching with changes of heat content of the ocean.
I've asked for specifics. You really should be able to comply with those if you want a proper "debate".
Killua2001 2 years ago
Read the emails your self and not your sides talking points attempting to debunk the emails.
tubaboy71 2 years ago
I'm not reading talking points you idiot, I've given you proper articles and quotes from the articles, "talking points" are used in lieu of evidence, in lieu of actually reading the relevant material. Like "read the emails yourself!"
I have, that's why I'm asking you to cite the specific emails, so I can address specific claims. That's why I'm guessing you're unwilling to provide specifics, because it allows you to be shown to be very, very wrong.
Killua2001 2 years ago
Im not reading your fake talking points either ...Non real peer reviewed peer reviews tells us nothing exept for the fact that your side lies and bastardizes the science and would rather delete emails than turning over said information, which is what the EPA did in 2001.
tubaboy71 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
You haven't established the peer reviewed papers are "non-real". You say the emails do so, I've asked you to cite specific emails that highlight this, you haven't. I'm still asking you to. I asked you to in the post before this. And the post before that. And post before that. And the post before that too!
Why the hell is it taking so long for you to provide ONE specific example? Why have you not cited ONE email yet that highlights the information is fake?
Killua2001 2 years ago
No the emails that you claim that do not exist say that and the fact all the sources in this video refuse to comply with said Freedom of Information act. Must be some patented science huh? LMAO
tubaboy71 2 years ago
Tell me, how do you test if the papers "comply with the freedom of information act"? How would you confirm if a paper does or does not conform? By all means, show that the paper I provided doesn't. Tell me what you're using to judge.
And I don't claim the emails don't exist, I claim that you are taking them woefully out of context, and you still haven't mentioned a specific email... which I've asked for, in this post, and the post before this, and the post before that, etc etc.
Killua2001 2 years ago
Basically all of your trash is not being released. FYI NASA, EPA, CRU and IPCC are all in contempt.
tubaboy71 2 years ago
... Did... did you really not even look at the citations themselves? I didn't cite NASA, EPA, CRU, and the IPCC... not once. Not ONE of their papers did I provide a citation for. Interestingly enough, the only journal I did take my articles from was Science but there are plenty of other good ones as well.
So, let me get this straight, you didn't just ignore the citations, you also ignored the source as well? Really? ... Really? You really think you're making decent arguments?
Killua2001 2 years ago
Ahh so you are saying that since those rather large bodies of science that do not complymeans your others do as well? Fact is also that you claim to have read both sides of the argument yet do not provide anything but your own "beliefs" side. What is even funnier is you claim it matters who put the CO2 in the atmosphere to the relivance of the damage it will do, which makes no sense what so ever. Man made or not 1500+ ppm of CO2 has been in the atmosphere and the planet did not die.
tubaboy71 2 years ago
... I'm saying I provided a scientific journal. If you want to argue that it's invalid, you might as well argue that PNAS articles are likewise invalid and hence Hubble's paper was a forgery as well! If the articles from prominent peer reviewed journals are bunk, tell me, is the Top Quark not real? Or if your problem is just with Science then is there really no mantle plume under Hawaii? Or are muons really not able to give us smaller accelerators? Or do you just not trust climate?
Killua2001 2 years ago
Just saying if everything you are saying is so correct I would have hoped to have seen an accurate model by now. Also I think forecasts would be more accurate if the science were correct.
tubaboy71 2 years ago
If you didn't even bother to read the papers I provided, why would you bother to read any papers where they do provide models? And the forecasts are small term variance for long term phenomenon, it's like trying to predict the noise of an input to an ADC, sure I know the general trend of a ramping function, but noise makes small scale predictions damn near impossible if the noise is high. Same with the weather, why do you expect differently? Have you never worked with noise?
Killua2001 2 years ago
If it not fully released under the act it is a biased review.....
tubaboy71 2 years ago
You have not shown anything that gets by the data+ wrong methods=right answer = BAD SCIENCE..
audiolife36 2 years ago
Wrong methods? Oh? Since I already spoke about the paper why not bring it up again.
Detection of Anthropogenic Climate Change in the World's Oceans
Science 13 April 2001:
Vol. 292. no. 5515, pp. 270 - 274
How are the methods wrong? Or is the data faked, are you accusing Barnett, Pierce, and Schnur of forgery? By all means, please address the paper, show how the methodology is wrong, provide counter-citations, you know, good science and proper debating style.
Killua2001 2 years ago
Show me a model they have that works. They do not have it. They fill in the blanks with processes they will not release. They have been cought manipulating older data as well to make all periods look cooler than what they were.
audiolife36 2 years ago
until you show me anything that has passed the freedom of information act you are in the same boat you claim that i am in.
tubaboy71 2 years ago
What boat is that? The "I've never read the material, didn't even read the article you provided, claim they all aren't within the freedom of information act, refuse to provide my own citations for articles that DO meet my criteria, and refuse to provide specific citations for claims made while believing "some believe" is an apt refutation"?
Am I not in that boat? Ok, good, I'd rather not be like you.
Killua2001 2 years ago
/watch?v=-sHg3ZztDAw has it laid out for even an idiot like you can read.
tubaboy71 2 years ago
First of all, the url was bad, second, I'd like you to provide the arguments yourself, pick the specific ones you believe exemplify your point so I don't have to wade through a gish gallop. Notice, I haven't given you videos because I want specific points addressed. I'm getting tired of this and need to study, you have shown yourself completely unwilling to ever cite, well, anything, to provide anything specific at all. At any point. You don't even bother to read the information I do provide.
Killua2001 2 years ago
Forget reading the information, you don't even take a glance at the source and instantly write it off without even knowing who makes the claim. I have to ask, have you ever studied the science? Have you ever debated science? Do you know how to debate science? With your constant refusal to provide citations to support your claims, or provide specifics, I have to sincerely doubt it.
I also find it mildly ironic, though not important, that you're calling me an idiot with rather horrid diction.
Killua2001 2 years ago
I have sourced videos with data from someone who actually did work with the IPCC.
tubaboy71 2 years ago