global warming alarmist scientists are the deceivers. There the one spreading bullshit, go find climategate and read the emails and Michael Manns hockey temperature stick graph, now who's lying and being fraudulent you bunch of alarmist nazi assholes that's who
@greenman3610 you haven't got any popular vid's , you belong to the lunatic fringe and you don't even know it. Just goes to show, you have your head stuck up your own ass
@Joe2000King so we should take the word of a Journalist about a scientific theory above that of scientists that have actually studied the stuff and published their findings in peer reviewed journals?
Milankovitches theory does not follow the ice ages. Even if it did, we are supposedly hitting a steady, warm spot.
These reports could be made very simple. It takes a genius to make simple what a clever fool made complicated. But there was a reason for this. The strawman!
He looks at the data then explains away in three cases offering no proof of his case.
I've sat in awe reading about highly respected "scientists" made assertions that have been proven utterly wrong. The Panda is extinct, That Duck billed platypus in this jar is a fraud. The Wright brothers, The speed one can safely be in a train entering a tunnel. The lists go on and on.
AGW is political, the "scientists" are ideologues, there is no balance of fact and not one jot of empirical proof that this planet is warming due to CO2.
@Aanthanur Ahh! The old "scientists wrote peer reviewed papers therefore its true" Canard.
Hansen is a major ideologue on AGW. All his papers on planetary atmospheres are already consigned to the bin when real data came through. All his past theories on GW are wildly off too. Yet reading his wiki page gives me the impression the man is a nut case!
current CO2 levels are at 390 ppm and rising. it wont be long before antarctica begins to thaw as fast as greenland currently is, which btw is rising out of the sea at a rate of 1 inch per year. when antarctica thaws enough it too will rise out of the sea. it is connected to every tectonic plate around the world and will crack the earths crust. this could well be the 'toba catastrophe' happening again.
It's kind of funny really. When I step on my car's GAS PEDAL, it causes more fuel to the engine, and the car accelerates. When the fuel flow is at a certain level, assuming constant lode, the engine will maintain a speed. And when the FUEL decreases, the RPMs decease. It is as if the FUEL contributes to , or CONTROL the rate of the engines RPMs! Like MAGIC!
If only the increased CO2 ever caused increased Temperature in the past, EVEN held the Temperature HIGH, EVER had positive feedback.
LOL! Great usage of the 'wicked witch' video clips to show JUST HOW BAD those evil 'deniers' are !
Too bad the bullshit meter pegs every time TEMPERATURE RISES BEFORE CO2 and CO2 is IMPOTENT to keep temperature HIGH.
That's the problem with bullshit claims of the AGW crowd. LOGIC simply does not enter their rhetoric.
IF CO2 WERE a driver in TEMPERATURE, every point in the past where CO2 was at MAXIMUM levels, the Temperature WOULD RISE, not FALL. Oh, wait - the MAGIC 'tipping point'...
Carbon tax is a disgusting crime against Humanity. CO2 whether man-made or otherwise doesn't drive global climate, it never has, it never will, the Sun does...
This is funny. We are headed into an ice age. There is no global warming so calm down kids. Do ants control the temperature of your sidewalk? No. So relax
@699backstab "Do ants control the temperature of your sidewalk? No. So relax" -- That has to be one of the dumbest arguments I've ever heard against climate change. Congratulations!
@TheChristChris he means the ants are people.. anyway its not global warming its global climate change, 10,000 years ago the earth was in an ice age, and now its clearly, everything changes over time
all you did was prove that the sun through orbital forcing BEGINS the warming, then the released CO2 only adds to the warming....btw the increased water vapor released during that warming HAS A FAR GREATER EFFECT then the CO2.... for the last 3 years i have been studying both sides of the debate (and fallowing you) so that i have a informed opinion on this very important issue. crock of the week? personally i think you alarmist are mostly just a bunch of crocks peddling lies for your next grant.
@greenman3610 #1 glen beck is completely insane.#2 however for you to compare me to him just shows how professional and/or devout warmist love to start name calling and comparing all AGW deniers to fringe characters like glen beck to try to change the subject when we point out little inconvenient facts like the i mentioned earlier. once any critical thinking intelligent person starts looking at the science and literature of AGW, they typically start questioning the whole theory in the end.
I find it interesting that your video is about a logical fallacy, but your comment about who's on your side is another logical fallacy, the 'appeal to authority'.
It also shows that you reject science, as science is strictly about data and what the data tells us, not counting the number of people who agree with us.
By the way, on your side: Al Gore. That should just about trump anyone you can bring out.
the point of the video is that a scientific paper is deliberately distorted - and I am setting it straight. As a matter of fact, the author of that paper wrote to me that I had it "exactly right'. I'll take it as a plus that the actual, much misquoted expert tells me I have straightened out the lie.
You, apparently are happy with the delusional, distorted version. I try to dig deeper.
@andypro7777 Al Gore supporting global warming is completley irrelevant. He is not a scientist and therefore he has no authority on the subject. And saying that you believe the scientific consensus is not an appeal to authority because that consensus is backed up by facts. Your just trying to make a provocation. Scientists of NASA, NOA, the U.S Navy have all presented countless examples of evidence in favor of global warming, all of them factually accurate.
First of all, my comment on Al Gore was a DIRECT response to greenman3610 listing Glenn Beck, etc. on the other side of the issue as if that is some kind of argument. I mentioned Gore to show him the folly of his line of argumentation. (you could add Obama, Pelosi, etc just for fun).
Next, appealing to consensus IS a logical fallacy, so it's relevant.
Also, COUNTLESS scientists have also debunked many of the the major points that the AGW crowd makes (cont.)
@andypro7777 1) I'll give you the point about Al Gore. But appealing to consensus is only fallacious when one appeals to consensus for the sake of doing so. If there are facts to back it up it isn't a fallacy. If I were to say "I believe scientists are right about GW because they're scientists" that would be a fallacy. However I would say "I believe scientists about GW because they have presented facts and verifiable evidence". That is not fallacious. And your last point is just plain wrong.
@andypro7777 2 Now onto your challenge to prove global warming. It is a verfiable fact that the Earth's average temperature is increasing. No credible scientist would deny that. Also, the overwhelming majority of scientists assert that it is man made. If there was no such majority, we would not be having this conversation. A scientific theory needs such a consensus. Direct observation shows that human beings are directly responsible for rising CO2 levels in the atmosphere which triggers a (cont)
@andypro7777 2 Now onto your challenge to prove global warming. It is a verfiable fact that the Earth's average temperature is increasing. No credible scientist would deny that. Also, the overwhelming majority of scientists assert that it is man made. If there was no such majority, we would not be having this conversation. A scientific theory needs such a consensus. Direct observation shows that human beings are directly responsible for rising CO2 levels in the atmosphere which triggers a (cont)
Wow, so much. I love that you cite as a 'verifiable fact' that the Earth's average temp is increasing when it is in fact DECREASING, and has been since the late 90s. (you must visit older websites).
Otherwise, your entire line of argumentation is just one big long logical fallacy (which is the Al Gore staple, so you've learned that from him). Correlation DOES NOT imply Causation. It's a logical fallacy, and thus CAN NOT be offered up as proof.
Ah, so we've stopped talking science, facts, and logic, and we're on to the personal attacks. Guess it's all you've got left when your religion crumbles around you.
It's not my first rodeo, it's always where you guys go when someone presents intelligent responses to your unscientific religion and logical fallacies.
Also "absolutely no doubt" among the credible scientific community? You should probably read more. Here's a little teaching on how you 'hockey stick" 97%...
The Doran/Zimmerman survey is widely used by GW zealots to say that 97% of scientists believe in global warming. In actual fact, that was a online survey sent to over 10,000 scientists. A little over 3000 actually responded, and the survey takers then ONLY used 77 of the respondents answers. When 75 of those 77 said they believed, BAM, you've got 97%.
There you go, there's your consensus. Asking over 10K scientists and then only using the responses from 77 of them. Is that 'credible' science?
You say that the increased industrialization and burning of coals, etc. has led to increased CO2s and increased temps. This is where you fallacy comes in. Just because those things occur at the same time, doesn't mean one causes the other.
If what you say is true, then explain this to me: How is it that temperatures DECREASED substantially from the 40s to the 70s? If you're right, the increased industrialization should have led to higher temps, right?
@andypro7777 3) a warming effect. This is because of the greenhouse effect. Now it is true that there are some fluctuations in climate with periods of warm and cold but normally these last over spans of decades but we know that the average trend of warming has lasted almost a century. There are only a few things that could cause this. Some say it is because of the sun but scientists know that solar activity has been relatively normal. Now look at human emissions. Since 2006, humans have (cont)
@andypro7777 4) put in nearly 29 billion tonnes of CO2 per year. You don't need to be a climatologist to know thats a lot of CO2. We know CO2 produces a warming trend and there have been no major, natural causes for rising CO2 levels in recent history and solar output is normal so the only logical answer is human causation. Now, lets look at pre-Industrial times. Before the Industrial Revolution, CO2 levels were stable (we know this by examining ice cores) and so was our Climate, but then (cont)
@andypro7777 the Industrial Revolution comes along and we start to see the buring of coal and fossil fuels and by examining the ice core evidence, we can clearly see that this is when CO2 levels start to rise. Now compare this with graphs showing warming trends. The rise of human Greenhouse emissions directly coincides with increase in global average temperature. Greenman does a good job of explaining more or less the same thing in other videos. However, he's right in saying that you and (cont)
Or, how about this? If industrialization and increased C02s lead to DEADLY increases in temps, how is it that the Medieval Warming Period was warmer than it is today? I mean, I don't remember a lot of factories and SUVs during the MWP? This is why your logic fails.
You know what else coincides with increase in temps in the last 100 years. Urbanization. And temperature stations being seated closer to urban areas and thus recording higher temperatures.
@andypro7777 other deniers have made your appeal to authority in believing the lies pushed forward by Glenn Beck and his ilk. There is absolutely no doubt among the credible scientific community that humans are the cause for this warming trend. And if believing scientists is a fallacy, as you so ignorantly claimed, next you're going to tell me that the Earth is flat, gravity doesn't exist, and evolution doesn't occur. Perhaps you just don't like the implications or maybe you're too ignorant to..
So, on one hand you have 'countless' scientists who you say believe in global warming, and on the other hand there are 'countless' scientists using scientific evidence and facts to show where the original 'countless' group got it wrong. This is why appealing to consensus is illogical.
But, let's just forget about them, you seem pretty sure.
How about you give me your best, top of the line, 100% rock-solid proof that global warming is occurring and that it is caused by man.
So, on one hand you have 'countless' scientists who you say believe in global warming, and on the other hand there are 'countless' scientists using scientific evidence and facts to show where the original 'countless' group got it wrong. This is why appealing to consensus is illogical.
But, let's just forget about them, you seem pretty sure.
How about you give me your best, top of the line, 100% rock-solid proof that global warming is occurring and that it is caused by man.
the problem may be that so many scientists want a "piece of the science pie" money, that they now argue among themselves.
Personally, I'm becoming more and more sure that, whatever 'terminator line" there is for gone too far, can't fix it fast enough, was reached sometime in the sixties.
But, for one science to deny another science from being a valid input is just politics. And politics won't fix anything.
you claim to cite sources yet where is your source for the insane statement that the sun has not been a significant factor in the last 50 years ? I agree with FrankensteinFinance this is a filthy video !
if you hated this one, you'll hate the updated version even more. (in which I get further confirmation from the author of the study that is so often misquoted)
watch?v=8nrvrkVBt24
As to the sun, solar irradiance has been flat or declining since the 1950s, that is well known. You can start by googling
Recent oppositely directed trends in solar climate forcings and the global mean surface air temperature
." sometimes express by the words "Aryan perfection",so that this entirely new contemporary 'climate science' of theirs was adopted widely, outdoing in terms of number those previous adherents of their then there, no less famous, science of "phrenology"........"
"Like the Populists, Dorothy and her troop discovered that they had the power to solve their own problems and achieve their own dreams. The Scarecrow in search of a brain, the Tin Man in search of a heart, the Lion in search of courage actually had what they wanted all along.
When the Wizard's false magic proved powerless, the Wicked Witch was vanquished by a defenseless young girl and her little dog. When the Wizard disappeared in his hot air balloon, the unlettered Scarecrow took over as leader of Oz.
It is not about science for this gentleman with his vendeta of simpleton 'one liners'.
Describe who a 'denier' is professional or otherwise. I thought the people who are not entirely in agreement with anthropogenic climate change were merely sceptics or those who are proceeding to study the evidence further.
sorry, I've cited actual sources, not just called names.
If you wish to be taken seriously, you must be serious. Otherwise, you are merely reinforcing my take on the denier mindset. Total Certainty, zero facts.
by the way, there is an updated version of this filthy video.
@greenman3610 . The FILTHY part is you call sceptics and those still making up their minds "deniers". This is what makes "you" filthy above anything else.
I would think a little more clearly before going around calling people "deniers"
since you rebut nothing in the video, offer no facts, cite no sources, but are nevertheless abusive and dead certain of your own rectitude, you qualify beautifully as a denier, and further support my thesis. Thanks for that.
@greenman3610 ..and so there on that planet during more recent times, some of the beings there who are adherents of the 'freshly baked 'instant' science suggested even their uninitiated "climate scientists" could identify "climate deniers", "climate skeptics" and so on, so that, even the prematurely born, or even those not yet able to accurately distinguish between wet & dry or mama from papa, can expertly identify merely-by-the-odor one of those said ill fated terrestrial beings there.
@greenman3610 ............so that even what they call there a "Climate Model" can play what some of them themselves call a "HAARP".......Stardate eleventy trillion and forty two.......
He never once called skeptics or people who are still making up their minds about global climate change "deniers". In fact, he is saying something completely different. There are so many people who are trying to influence us to be ignorant. These people are the ones he is calling the "professional deniers". (AKA: Politicians) Politicians do this all of the time! They will give half-truths to the public because a, they are paid for it, and b, people want to vote for someone
I think I should clarify this for you, because I don't know if you understood the video. He never once said that the people who are not entirely in agreement with anthropogenic global warming are "deniers". Nor did he say that the people who are proceeding to study the evidence further are "deniers". He is talking about something completely different. Many people are influenced by what some politicians say about this issue, and politicians KNOW that. . .
@crazylaughalot My dear adherent of the anthropomorphic master climate controlling race theology, it would seem we have the beginnings of an Aryan race of super intelligent 'climate scientist' beings that had been baked in the oven previously, hot, ready to fly like roast pigeon into our mouths . lol
Just to clarify: he never once said that the people who are not entirely in agreement with Anthropogenic global warming were "deniers". Nor did he say that those who are proceeding to study the evidence further are "deniers". He is talking about people who KNOWINGLY distort the results of what scientists have been studying. AKA: most politicians! These politicians KNOW that many people do not want to hear about doomsday and other things like that...
Your video states 20 or 30 thousand years before the next glaciation. This is very misleading.
There is a huge difference between Interglacial period and Interglacial optimum period. We are presently in the second longest Interglacial optimum the longest being about 16,000 years which ours is about 11,000 years so far.
Three yrs ago, I had the pleasure of hearing a top cryospheric climatologist speak in our little town. His name was Dr. Waleeb Abdalati, from the Uof Colorado and Nasa and he brought updated photos and data from the Greenland ice sheet. Scary stuff. I had the chance to talk one on one with him. I shared with him that science teachers in my school denied AGW was occurring and shared this denial with the students, eventhough our texts cover it well. He was very upset to hear this.
more and more top scientists in this area are speaking out, and they are very angry that their work has been distorted and ignored. YouTube has a number of good lectures by james hansen, naomi oreskes, stephen schneider, richard alley, and ben santer, to name a few.
Keep up the great vids. We need to help the deniers as much as possible. It's apparent to this science teacher that many deniers seem to be members of another group. This other group likes to worship an imaginary friend in the sky. Seems reality is a hard concept for these folks. I teach in the southern USA and even a few of our science teachers deny reality but also like to deny Evolution as well. Sad
you are on the front lines, and I salute you. My spouse is a teacher as well, and I get asked to speak at a lot of high school and college classes. I think kids are open if you give them the right info and show that it is from trustworthy sources. I've been using the video from Admiral Titley a lot in recent lectures.
@greenman3610 Thanks for the leads. Many of my students are coming into my classroom with severe indoctrination and religious brainwashing, to the point where they won't even listen to what I am teaching them. Many put up a wall to my info that contradicts their Sunday schooling. When I talk of the environmental damage and ecosystem degradation at the hands of humans, they get their panties in a bunch and try to tell me god gave us these resources to use. It's frustrating to witness.
@greenman360 how ironic that You tell someone to check the science! While I'd enjoy pwning your ignorance I'd sooner try to reason with a creationist. Reduce CO2 emissions: kill youself!
please, pwn away. we encourage the citing of actual evidence here in comments, as I have in my videos. by the way, you may have missed the update to this video, just out, in which you can see what one of the lead authors of the paper in question says about my analysis.
watch?v=8nrvrkVBt24
look forward to your response. Please don't kill yourself.
Denier of a non scientific theory? Nah, i'll just wait until its a proven fact that human kind are responsible for the global warming. An established carbon tax is not proof, its an exploit of ignorant people. The old "join us or you're going to hell" scare tactic.
Well, you can go to the sites of the American Meteorological Society, Geological Society of America, American Geophysical Union etc to read their statements on climate. For a quick primer, you can review these videos, and follow the links in the descriptions to relevant documents. Note that military and intelligence groups around the planet are making contingency plans for climate change.
"Show me" is kind of a dodge. I have 70 vids. The information is there for those that want it.
@greenman3610 Im not debating that there is a global warming, and im not debating that we contribute with a percentage. I have read reports from acknowledged scientific societies and have yet to see some figures showing what their defenition of "a lot" really is. Man made global warming is a scientific thesis, have you tried to get a statement from the scientific comunity confirming man made global warming (where we are the main contributor) as a scientific Theory based on fact?
google American Geophysical Union, position on climate:
"The Earth's climate is now clearly out of balance and is warming. Many components of the climate system—including the temperatures of the atmosphere, land and ocean..are now changing at rates and in patterns that are not natural and are best explained by the increased atmospheric abundances of greenhouse gases and aerosols generated by human activity during the 20th century"
@greenman3610 You'r presumtion that im not allready oriented is annoying. I wish nothing more to get rid of fossil fuel but the effect on the climate is a missunderstanding from the beginning, and now the whole world is greatly invested in the whole concept both political and economically. It will take a long time untill the misstake is recognized, regretable becouse there are more urgent matters to attend to. Demonstrate that it is a theory, its the only thing i ask, but i doubt you'll succeed,
my presumption, which you are corroborating, is that your problem is not intellectual, it's psychological.
If you will not take the National Academies of every industrialized country at their word, why in the world would anything I say make a difference?
You have enclosed yourself in a hermetically sealed, fact resistant, logic loop. The information is there for those that want it, and I've spent thousands of hours documenting it, for anyone interested.
@greenman3610 "If you will not take... why in the world would anything I say make a difference?" It wont. And im not enclosed. I just dont think all the facts point in the same direction, and i get very sceptical when every single one of the main stream sources of "scientific fact" fail to report everything that would sugest otherwise, but most important, fails to demonstrate how a 4% increase of CO2 is responsible. And besides.. You are far more invested in your possition then i am in mine.
the increase has been from about 270 ppm last century to 388 ppm now. If that works out to 4 percent for you, then I can see why you shy away from actual scientific sources,. Maybe some remediation is in order before you go on. Consult your local adult education program.
@greenman3610 Humans are responsable for 4% of the total amount, and stop making ad hominem-like comments like that. Do you know why there is less clouds when the sun has more sunspots?
You really need to get your high school diploma before you engage adults in serious conversation. Your reading, writing and arithmetic skills are not ready for prime time.
@PrairieDogged Being swedish IS my excuse for (as you pointed out with you'r sarcastic but irrelevant criticism) my spelling not being top notch. I dont know where you're getting at. I doubt you would prefer having the debate in swedish. If im engaging "adults" I would think is open for debate also in your case.
Peter, would you please TRY AND EXPLAIN how in all the Ice Core data, when CO2 is at HISTORICAL MAXIMUMS, temperature FALLS in every single case? Can you PLEASE explain how when CO2 is a HISTORICAL maximums, there is NOT ONE SINGLE EXAMPLE in the ice Core Data which presents INCREASING temperature?
Please, OH PLEASE, Mr. Scientific Debunker of Deniers, present ANY TEMPERATURE data in the eons of historic data where CO2 INCREASES came before a TEMPERATURE rise of discernible, causal scope.
@greenman3610 No my friend. The video DOES NOT explain why TEMPERATURE always LEADS CO2. And in fact, there IS NO scientifically acceptable way to explain the INVERSION in the CAUSAL TIME ARROW. Real Physics simply DOES NOT permit such foolishness.
Secondly, in EVERY CASE of the Ice Core Data, while CO2 was AT RECORD HIGHS, Temperature FELL. There simply IS NO Feedback mechanism. And any HONEST science-minded person see this and their JAWS DROP and the AGW lie being pushed falsely.
@greenman3610 Clearly the Global Warming concept is dumbed down below the concept of discussion and rational explanation. But I've never found a real Science to be so vapid as the Warmers fairy-tales.
Temp UP, Global Warming. Temp DOWN - again Global Warming. Data supports Global Warming - Ugg Data GOOD. Data disproves Global warming - MUST be some other Galactic force -orbital instabilities, Meteorites, Space Aliens, Spaghetti Monsters - Pick your fantasy. Coincidence is not Science.
LOL! The continued fraud of 'man-made' Global Warming is pathetic. When the TIME-ARROW of causality is ignored by the fools duped into parroting the Global Warming alarmist position, they show they know nothing about causal relationship.
If ONLY they could produce ANY EVIDENCE that CO2 increases in the past CAUSED temperature to rise in an actual FEED-BACK loop, they would have a case. But 1,000,000 years of Ice Core data proves their position to be a fraud.
Are trees, shrubs, food production plants and grasses puking their lungs out over increases in CO2 levels, or are they loving it ? If they are puking, shut your engine off, pay your extra taxes, if they are loving it, I'm loving it too.
@greenman3610 they where the largest pusher of global warming world wide. They bought msnbc to push it further to drum up a little more fear and to get Obama elected "his second largest campaigner" they went to the point of bankruptcy and revived billions of tax payer dollars on no bid green tech.
@greenman3610 I told you global warming is a scam to make billions. GE made over 5 billion in profit last year they did not pay one cent in taxes. They where going bankrupt before obama now Obama gives them no bid "green energy" contracts for billions.
Don't you see the flaw in the first part of your video? There is a 100k year cycle of ice ages. We are already 100k+ years through this cycle. Why is the next ice age 20-30k years away?
There are more than 3 orbital parameters. Milankovitch doesn't even take in to account orbital inclination and actually has poor correlation with the historic temps. I call BS on this "science."
the cycle is not exactly 100,000 years. We came out of the last one starting about 20,000 years ago, and the next would start, all things being equal, in about 20 or 30 thousand years.
the various orbital and axial factors are complex, but the milankovitch theory fits the facts better than any other. suggest you write a paper and submit to the NAS if you have another theory.
If you aren't ready to publish, consider if more study might be in order.
The truth is you are the ignorant one. The consensus now it that Global Elite internationalists hijacked the environmental movement using junk science in order to tax us for breathing, regulate industry and ship industry at subsidy to China and India. This is a total control grab that affects every individuals life. Its NWO plain ans simple, if you want to save the enviroment why are you trying to suffocate plants. And if climate change was true, mother nature would balance it out.
@michalslahor if this is all just some big conspiracy, who is in charge? is it Obama? :)
the next time you start thinking about GLOBAL conspiracies, try this;
get 10 people, any 10, to agree on what they are going to have for lunch. don't let any of them talk to each other though (so it stays secret like your other conspiracy theories) then get them to agree on WHEN to eat.
you don't have to convince the whole planet, just 10 people. let me know how that goes.
I really doubt that the idea of a greener lifestyle would result in the government snooping around...The CIA already did that after 9/11 and they got busted for it.
Well, there wouldn't be problems if the deniers would stop lying about everything. It's quite obvious they'll lie to protect their jobs and their money. After all the lead denyers are folks in government, and politicians-republicans in particular-are bought out by the oil industry. If they would shut up so scientists can work on a definitive answer we would have likely found it by now.
Look, we live on this planet much like everything else. As such we need to respect this planet. I'm no enviornmentalist but it goes without saying that we can land ourselves in pretty hot water if we don't take this seriously. Besides, gas prices are very high right now and we need different forms of fuel. No one's saying get rid of oil entirely, but to make our cars go and to provide power to our homes we need a cleaner alternative. The technology exists but big oil wont let us use it.
A finally an inteligeble post despite being filled with fallacies. Owning and driving a car is not a right, it is a priveledge. As such it's legal to have that taken away proiding there's a good reason for it. Preserving our planet and ensuring the health of all living things is a good enough reason. It's the oil companies who benefit from the lies you've been fed.
Problem is the natural cycle is being accellerated unnaturally. Gobal warming causes the ice caps to melt, raising ocean levels, thus disturbing ocean currents, which alters weather patterns.
Why is anyone who believes strongly in global warming on a computer using electricity? The greatest threats to the planet are technological advances and human population growth, right? So turn off your computer, burn down your house, blow up your car, and go on a killing spree.
No, a killing spree is what societies that are addicted to oil engage in on third world people.
Going to renewable energy is the answer. Climate deniers have tried to keep us tied to 19th century technology, but the logic of renewables is so powerful they are winning out.
Damn near everybody among the public on your side THINKS that, and it's what's taught in every school... almost. Because you use the words "...has always and in every case..." it's technically true that nobody says exactly that.
What *IS* said is that CO2 is the primary cause of AGW.
The 800 yr lag *is* evidence that CO2 is driven by temperature. Warmer leads to ocean out gassing, agreed. I agree it's possible CO2 in turn amplifies temp. But is there evidence?
@twindwick And if your buddy Tim finds himself homeless, perhaps his fellow denier, the 3rd Viscount Brenchley could put him up for a spell - even if he downsized from the 67-room house he used to have some years back.
@twindwick The IPCC chairman is not paid. That aside, there are plenty of rich people on both sides. Gore may be wealthy but have you taken a look at some of the people who were in the oil-lubricated Bush administration?
Lack of snow is global warming and the abundance of snow is global warming. Higher temps and lower temps. Droughts or rain storms, it don't matter to a believer. Everything that is happening in the atmosphere can be traced to global warming because these freaks want to win the contest. Global warming is a lie but you'd never get the freaks to admit it.
The IPCC, RealClimate, Crock, and all the models predict the end of both weather and winter. Look out the window. Whether or not an actual hoax, AGW is obviously wrong.
@greenman3610 Sorry: ...a poor attempt at irony and sounding as ignorant as many denialists. I just discovered you. You're the greatest thing since RealClimate. In some ways, much better. Thanks much. But you're fighting a loosing battle with a huge number of folks who live in a parallel universe. I admire your persistence, intelligence, honesty, thoughtfulness and GREAT videos.
There's a correlation between denialism and a belief in empty tombs & bloody Jesus sacrifice. What'sUWT?
@greenman3610 Final $0.02: ...ignore these nitwits. Your videos obviously reach and influence intelligent, thoughtful people. But the ridiculous ideologues here are like flies at the picnic, the brainless polemic the maggots.
Actually, that's the blog post that brought me here. tnekkc seems oblivious to the reason for his notoriety. I was unaware of paid, professional trolls; interesting.
So whats going on? First they were calling it Global warming. Why not call it that anymore? Oh wait, cause it's fucking freezing. So now you wanna call it climate change. All because of man made CO2. It's trappin so much heat that it's causing sporaddic cold spurts. Lol. Who beleives this crock of bull shit? Men who wish to be women and tree hugging dikes.
@greenman3610 What should be on the Onion is the fact that you think we should further destroy the American economy and deny access to cheap energy for third world countries. Meanwhile China is ramping up production of all these CO2 producing monsters. Man made global warming is nothing more than a scam to push a globalist agenda. Your buddy Al Gore is sitting at the recieving end ready to reap the profits of your misery. MMGW is not proven. If Gore debated the issue he would be destroyed
Respond to this video... If your so worried then how about all the Global Warming believers line up on a cliff like lemmings. Jump off effectively halting your CO2 footprint? That way it will leave more room for the intelligent people to talk about things that matter. Because you know every time you exhale your putting that darned poison into the atmosphere.
global warming alarmist scientists are the deceivers. There the one spreading bullshit, go find climategate and read the emails and Michael Manns hockey temperature stick graph, now who's lying and being fraudulent you bunch of alarmist nazi assholes that's who
vmgqie 5 days ago
@vmgqie
thanks for bringing that up. I have a very popular vid on that.
watch?v=tz8Ve6KE-Us
greenman3610 5 days ago
@greenman3610 you haven't got any popular vid's , you belong to the lunatic fringe and you don't even know it. Just goes to show, you have your head stuck up your own ass
vmgqie 5 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The most astonishing series in youtube history
Search For
"THE GREAT DISASTERS"
eliasmouawad 1 month ago
@Joe2000King so we should take the word of a Journalist about a scientific theory above that of scientists that have actually studied the stuff and published their findings in peer reviewed journals?
can you say confirmation bias?
Aanthanur 2 months ago
Stop this scam. The truth about the time lag here -
watch?v=5gA987Yif7c
TheElasticJesusRez 2 months ago
Milankovitches theory does not follow the ice ages. Even if it did, we are supposedly hitting a steady, warm spot.
These reports could be made very simple. It takes a genius to make simple what a clever fool made complicated. But there was a reason for this. The strawman!
He looks at the data then explains away in three cases offering no proof of his case.
Utter fail.
m1aws 3 months ago
@m1aws in wich scinetific journal have you published your findings?
Aanthanur 2 months ago
@Aanthanur What for? There are 1.3 million peer reviewed papers since 2006. The easy pickings are the one that are on top of the funding tree.
Think of the Milankovitch cycle for once. Worst case scenario for cooling. Now give it 6 months where The North is facing the Sun and is the closest.
This is how well (paid) climate scientists do not understand very simple things. They are the deniers.
m1aws 2 months ago
@m1aws LOL you are nuts
Aanthanur 2 months ago
@Aanthanur Your empirical data being?
I've sat in awe reading about highly respected "scientists" made assertions that have been proven utterly wrong. The Panda is extinct, That Duck billed platypus in this jar is a fraud. The Wright brothers, The speed one can safely be in a train entering a tunnel. The lists go on and on.
AGW is political, the "scientists" are ideologues, there is no balance of fact and not one jot of empirical proof that this planet is warming due to CO2.
m1aws 2 months ago
@m1aws aaah the old "scientists have been wrong in the past, so they are wrong in everything i dislike" canard.
boring nonsense
Aanthanur 2 months ago
@Aanthanur Ahh! The old "scientists wrote peer reviewed papers therefore its true" Canard.
Hansen is a major ideologue on AGW. All his papers on planetary atmospheres are already consigned to the bin when real data came through. All his past theories on GW are wildly off too. Yet reading his wiki page gives me the impression the man is a nut case!
does that make me wrong as well?
m1aws 2 months ago
I really wish you'd talk a bit faster, and using more than one tone.
lindybeige 4 months ago
current CO2 levels are at 390 ppm and rising. it wont be long before antarctica begins to thaw as fast as greenland currently is, which btw is rising out of the sea at a rate of 1 inch per year. when antarctica thaws enough it too will rise out of the sea. it is connected to every tectonic plate around the world and will crack the earths crust. this could well be the 'toba catastrophe' happening again.
vengencefrom1979 4 months ago
It's kind of funny really. When I step on my car's GAS PEDAL, it causes more fuel to the engine, and the car accelerates. When the fuel flow is at a certain level, assuming constant lode, the engine will maintain a speed. And when the FUEL decreases, the RPMs decease. It is as if the FUEL contributes to , or CONTROL the rate of the engines RPMs! Like MAGIC!
If only the increased CO2 ever caused increased Temperature in the past, EVEN held the Temperature HIGH, EVER had positive feedback.
commentcomet1 4 months ago
LOL! Great usage of the 'wicked witch' video clips to show JUST HOW BAD those evil 'deniers' are !
Too bad the bullshit meter pegs every time TEMPERATURE RISES BEFORE CO2 and CO2 is IMPOTENT to keep temperature HIGH.
That's the problem with bullshit claims of the AGW crowd. LOGIC simply does not enter their rhetoric.
IF CO2 WERE a driver in TEMPERATURE, every point in the past where CO2 was at MAXIMUM levels, the Temperature WOULD RISE, not FALL. Oh, wait - the MAGIC 'tipping point'...
commentcomet1 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Carbon tax is a disgusting crime against Humanity. CO2 whether man-made or otherwise doesn't drive global climate, it never has, it never will, the Sun does...
The Great Global Warming Swindle [Full Film]
watch?v=T8KgbUvsC_o
Galv140577 5 months ago
This is funny. We are headed into an ice age. There is no global warming so calm down kids. Do ants control the temperature of your sidewalk? No. So relax
699backstab 5 months ago
@699backstab "Do ants control the temperature of your sidewalk? No. So relax" -- That has to be one of the dumbest arguments I've ever heard against climate change. Congratulations!
TheChristChris 5 months ago
@TheChristChris he means the ants are people.. anyway its not global warming its global climate change, 10,000 years ago the earth was in an ice age, and now its clearly, everything changes over time
N2350 5 months ago
@N2350 *clearly not
N2350 5 months ago
@TheChristChris
stick around. it gets dumber.
greenman3610 3 months ago
all you did was prove that the sun through orbital forcing BEGINS the warming, then the released CO2 only adds to the warming....btw the increased water vapor released during that warming HAS A FAR GREATER EFFECT then the CO2.... for the last 3 years i have been studying both sides of the debate (and fallowing you) so that i have a informed opinion on this very important issue. crock of the week? personally i think you alarmist are mostly just a bunch of crocks peddling lies for your next grant.
HHOANDGMEN2 5 months ago
@HHOANDGMEN2
with all your study, surely you can cite an actual source? (hint - voices in Glenn Beck's head are not peer reviewed...)
greenman3610 5 months ago
@greenman3610 #1 glen beck is completely insane.#2 however for you to compare me to him just shows how professional and/or devout warmist love to start name calling and comparing all AGW deniers to fringe characters like glen beck to try to change the subject when we point out little inconvenient facts like the i mentioned earlier. once any critical thinking intelligent person starts looking at the science and literature of AGW, they typically start questioning the whole theory in the end.
HHOANDGMEN2 5 months ago
@HHOANDGMEN2
On your side, Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Michelle Bachmann.
On my side, National Academy, every major scientific group, US Navy, Nasa.
Just sayin' maybe you should look around and see who you're keeping company with.
greenman3610 5 months ago
@greenman3610
I find it interesting that your video is about a logical fallacy, but your comment about who's on your side is another logical fallacy, the 'appeal to authority'.
It also shows that you reject science, as science is strictly about data and what the data tells us, not counting the number of people who agree with us.
By the way, on your side: Al Gore. That should just about trump anyone you can bring out.
Just sayin'.
andypro7777 4 months ago
@andypro7777
the point of the video is that a scientific paper is deliberately distorted - and I am setting it straight. As a matter of fact, the author of that paper wrote to me that I had it "exactly right'. I'll take it as a plus that the actual, much misquoted expert tells me I have straightened out the lie.
You, apparently are happy with the delusional, distorted version. I try to dig deeper.
This video is update with more info here
watch?v=8nrvrkVBt24
greenman3610 4 months ago
@andypro7777 Al Gore supporting global warming is completley irrelevant. He is not a scientist and therefore he has no authority on the subject. And saying that you believe the scientific consensus is not an appeal to authority because that consensus is backed up by facts. Your just trying to make a provocation. Scientists of NASA, NOA, the U.S Navy have all presented countless examples of evidence in favor of global warming, all of them factually accurate.
TheManMostMysterious 4 months ago
@TheManMostMysterious
First of all, my comment on Al Gore was a DIRECT response to greenman3610 listing Glenn Beck, etc. on the other side of the issue as if that is some kind of argument. I mentioned Gore to show him the folly of his line of argumentation. (you could add Obama, Pelosi, etc just for fun).
Next, appealing to consensus IS a logical fallacy, so it's relevant.
Also, COUNTLESS scientists have also debunked many of the the major points that the AGW crowd makes (cont.)
andypro7777 4 months ago
@andypro7777 1) I'll give you the point about Al Gore. But appealing to consensus is only fallacious when one appeals to consensus for the sake of doing so. If there are facts to back it up it isn't a fallacy. If I were to say "I believe scientists are right about GW because they're scientists" that would be a fallacy. However I would say "I believe scientists about GW because they have presented facts and verifiable evidence". That is not fallacious. And your last point is just plain wrong.
TheManMostMysterious 4 months ago
@andypro7777 2 Now onto your challenge to prove global warming. It is a verfiable fact that the Earth's average temperature is increasing. No credible scientist would deny that. Also, the overwhelming majority of scientists assert that it is man made. If there was no such majority, we would not be having this conversation. A scientific theory needs such a consensus. Direct observation shows that human beings are directly responsible for rising CO2 levels in the atmosphere which triggers a (cont)
TheManMostMysterious 4 months ago
@andypro7777 2 Now onto your challenge to prove global warming. It is a verfiable fact that the Earth's average temperature is increasing. No credible scientist would deny that. Also, the overwhelming majority of scientists assert that it is man made. If there was no such majority, we would not be having this conversation. A scientific theory needs such a consensus. Direct observation shows that human beings are directly responsible for rising CO2 levels in the atmosphere which triggers a (cont)
TheManMostMysterious 4 months ago
@TheManMostMysterious
Wow, so much. I love that you cite as a 'verifiable fact' that the Earth's average temp is increasing when it is in fact DECREASING, and has been since the late 90s. (you must visit older websites).
Otherwise, your entire line of argumentation is just one big long logical fallacy (which is the Al Gore staple, so you've learned that from him). Correlation DOES NOT imply Causation. It's a logical fallacy, and thus CAN NOT be offered up as proof.
Let me simplify it: (cont)
andypro7777 4 months ago
@andypro7777 Oh. You're one of those. haha.
TheManMostMysterious 4 months ago
@TheManMostMysterious
Ah, so we've stopped talking science, facts, and logic, and we're on to the personal attacks. Guess it's all you've got left when your religion crumbles around you.
It's not my first rodeo, it's always where you guys go when someone presents intelligent responses to your unscientific religion and logical fallacies.
Also "absolutely no doubt" among the credible scientific community? You should probably read more. Here's a little teaching on how you 'hockey stick" 97%...
andypro7777 4 months ago
The Doran/Zimmerman survey is widely used by GW zealots to say that 97% of scientists believe in global warming. In actual fact, that was a online survey sent to over 10,000 scientists. A little over 3000 actually responded, and the survey takers then ONLY used 77 of the respondents answers. When 75 of those 77 said they believed, BAM, you've got 97%.
There you go, there's your consensus. Asking over 10K scientists and then only using the responses from 77 of them. Is that 'credible' science?
andypro7777 4 months ago
@TheManMostMysterious
You say that the increased industrialization and burning of coals, etc. has led to increased CO2s and increased temps. This is where you fallacy comes in. Just because those things occur at the same time, doesn't mean one causes the other.
If what you say is true, then explain this to me: How is it that temperatures DECREASED substantially from the 40s to the 70s? If you're right, the increased industrialization should have led to higher temps, right?
andypro7777 4 months ago
@andypro7777 3) a warming effect. This is because of the greenhouse effect. Now it is true that there are some fluctuations in climate with periods of warm and cold but normally these last over spans of decades but we know that the average trend of warming has lasted almost a century. There are only a few things that could cause this. Some say it is because of the sun but scientists know that solar activity has been relatively normal. Now look at human emissions. Since 2006, humans have (cont)
TheManMostMysterious 4 months ago
@andypro7777 4) put in nearly 29 billion tonnes of CO2 per year. You don't need to be a climatologist to know thats a lot of CO2. We know CO2 produces a warming trend and there have been no major, natural causes for rising CO2 levels in recent history and solar output is normal so the only logical answer is human causation. Now, lets look at pre-Industrial times. Before the Industrial Revolution, CO2 levels were stable (we know this by examining ice cores) and so was our Climate, but then (cont)
TheManMostMysterious 4 months ago
@andypro7777 the Industrial Revolution comes along and we start to see the buring of coal and fossil fuels and by examining the ice core evidence, we can clearly see that this is when CO2 levels start to rise. Now compare this with graphs showing warming trends. The rise of human Greenhouse emissions directly coincides with increase in global average temperature. Greenman does a good job of explaining more or less the same thing in other videos. However, he's right in saying that you and (cont)
TheManMostMysterious 4 months ago
@TheManMostMysterious
Or, how about this? If industrialization and increased C02s lead to DEADLY increases in temps, how is it that the Medieval Warming Period was warmer than it is today? I mean, I don't remember a lot of factories and SUVs during the MWP? This is why your logic fails.
You know what else coincides with increase in temps in the last 100 years. Urbanization. And temperature stations being seated closer to urban areas and thus recording higher temperatures.
Food for thought.
andypro7777 4 months ago
@andypro7777 Haha. If you say so.
TheManMostMysterious 4 months ago
@andypro7777 other deniers have made your appeal to authority in believing the lies pushed forward by Glenn Beck and his ilk. There is absolutely no doubt among the credible scientific community that humans are the cause for this warming trend. And if believing scientists is a fallacy, as you so ignorantly claimed, next you're going to tell me that the Earth is flat, gravity doesn't exist, and evolution doesn't occur. Perhaps you just don't like the implications or maybe you're too ignorant to..
TheManMostMysterious 4 months ago
@andypro7777 understand what men with authority on the subject say so you just listened to the dumbed down version presented by the deniers.
TheManMostMysterious 4 months ago
So, on one hand you have 'countless' scientists who you say believe in global warming, and on the other hand there are 'countless' scientists using scientific evidence and facts to show where the original 'countless' group got it wrong. This is why appealing to consensus is illogical.
But, let's just forget about them, you seem pretty sure.
How about you give me your best, top of the line, 100% rock-solid proof that global warming is occurring and that it is caused by man.
I'll wait.
andypro7777 4 months ago
So, on one hand you have 'countless' scientists who you say believe in global warming, and on the other hand there are 'countless' scientists using scientific evidence and facts to show where the original 'countless' group got it wrong. This is why appealing to consensus is illogical.
But, let's just forget about them, you seem pretty sure.
How about you give me your best, top of the line, 100% rock-solid proof that global warming is occurring and that it is caused by man.
I'll wait.
andypro7777 4 months ago
the problem may be that so many scientists want a "piece of the science pie" money, that they now argue among themselves.
Personally, I'm becoming more and more sure that, whatever 'terminator line" there is for gone too far, can't fix it fast enough, was reached sometime in the sixties.
But, for one science to deny another science from being a valid input is just politics. And politics won't fix anything.
Lord knows, they can't even fix themselves.
MisterBoneman 6 months ago
you claim to cite sources yet where is your source for the insane statement that the sun has not been a significant factor in the last 50 years ? I agree with FrankensteinFinance this is a filthy video !
klasurfied 6 months ago
@klasurfied
if you hated this one, you'll hate the updated version even more. (in which I get further confirmation from the author of the study that is so often misquoted)
watch?v=8nrvrkVBt24
As to the sun, solar irradiance has been flat or declining since the 1950s, that is well known. You can start by googling
Recent oppositely directed trends in solar climate forcings and the global mean surface air temperature
greenman3610 6 months ago
@greenman3610
you could also look at
watch?v=LMA9D-ZWwrg
watch?v=PLnJttkhDTM
and
watch?v=QwnrpwctIh4
for more
greenman3610 6 months ago
@greenman3610 Piers Corbyn is a stupid Meteorologist and Astrophysicist Do Not Do Any Research on Him !
klasurfied 6 months ago
." sometimes express by the words "Aryan perfection",so that this entirely new contemporary 'climate science' of theirs was adopted widely, outdoing in terms of number those previous adherents of their then there, no less famous, science of "phrenology"........"
FrankensteinFinance 7 months ago
From "Web of Debt" by Ellen Brown.
"Like the Populists, Dorothy and her troop discovered that they had the power to solve their own problems and achieve their own dreams. The Scarecrow in search of a brain, the Tin Man in search of a heart, the Lion in search of courage actually had what they wanted all along.
FrankensteinFinance 7 months ago
When the Wizard's false magic proved powerless, the Wicked Witch was vanquished by a defenseless young girl and her little dog. When the Wizard disappeared in his hot air balloon, the unlettered Scarecrow took over as leader of Oz.
FrankensteinFinance 7 months ago
Comment removed
FrankensteinFinance 7 months ago
word
LAZARW0LF 7 months ago
@LAZARW0LF
thanks - fyi
there's an updated version of this one, with some new footage and info at
watch?v=8nrvrkVBt24
greenman3610 7 months ago
It is not about science for this gentleman with his vendeta of simpleton 'one liners'.
Describe who a 'denier' is professional or otherwise. I thought the people who are not entirely in agreement with anthropogenic climate change were merely sceptics or those who are proceeding to study the evidence further.
Filthy video.
FrankensteinFinance 7 months ago
@FrankensteinFinance
sorry, I've cited actual sources, not just called names.
If you wish to be taken seriously, you must be serious. Otherwise, you are merely reinforcing my take on the denier mindset. Total Certainty, zero facts.
by the way, there is an updated version of this filthy video.
watch?v=8nrvrkVBt24
greenman3610 7 months ago
@greenman3610 . The FILTHY part is you call sceptics and those still making up their minds "deniers". This is what makes "you" filthy above anything else.
I would think a little more clearly before going around calling people "deniers"
FrankensteinFinance 7 months ago
@FrankensteinFinance
since you rebut nothing in the video, offer no facts, cite no sources, but are nevertheless abusive and dead certain of your own rectitude, you qualify beautifully as a denier, and further support my thesis. Thanks for that.
greenman3610 7 months ago
@greenman3610 ..and so there on that planet during more recent times, some of the beings there who are adherents of the 'freshly baked 'instant' science suggested even their uninitiated "climate scientists" could identify "climate deniers", "climate skeptics" and so on, so that, even the prematurely born, or even those not yet able to accurately distinguish between wet & dry or mama from papa, can expertly identify merely-by-the-odor one of those said ill fated terrestrial beings there.
FrankensteinFinance 7 months ago
@greenman3610 ............so that even what they call there a "Climate Model" can play what some of them themselves call a "HAARP".......Stardate eleventy trillion and forty two.......
FrankensteinFinance 7 months ago
@FrankensteinFinance
He never once called skeptics or people who are still making up their minds about global climate change "deniers". In fact, he is saying something completely different. There are so many people who are trying to influence us to be ignorant. These people are the ones he is calling the "professional deniers". (AKA: Politicians) Politicians do this all of the time! They will give half-truths to the public because a, they are paid for it, and b, people want to vote for someone
crazylaughalot 7 months ago
@greenman3610
crazylaughalot 7 months ago
@FrankensteinFinance
I think I should clarify this for you, because I don't know if you understood the video. He never once said that the people who are not entirely in agreement with anthropogenic global warming are "deniers". Nor did he say that the people who are proceeding to study the evidence further are "deniers". He is talking about something completely different. Many people are influenced by what some politicians say about this issue, and politicians KNOW that. . .
crazylaughalot 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@crazylaughalot My dear adherent of the anthropomorphic master climate controlling race theology, it would seem we have the beginnings of an Aryan race of super intelligent 'climate scientist' beings that had been baked in the oven previously, hot, ready to fly like roast pigeon into our mouths . lol
FrankensteinFinance 7 months ago
@FrankensteinFinance
Just to clarify: he never once said that the people who are not entirely in agreement with Anthropogenic global warming were "deniers". Nor did he say that those who are proceeding to study the evidence further are "deniers". He is talking about people who KNOWINGLY distort the results of what scientists have been studying. AKA: most politicians! These politicians KNOW that many people do not want to hear about doomsday and other things like that...
crazylaughalot 7 months ago
Your video states 20 or 30 thousand years before the next glaciation. This is very misleading.
There is a huge difference between Interglacial period and Interglacial optimum period. We are presently in the second longest Interglacial optimum the longest being about 16,000 years which ours is about 11,000 years so far.
OxAO 7 months ago
i love all your videos, and would like to thank you for speeking slowly for our friends in the south
isrealjason 8 months ago
@isrealjason
there's a lot of people in the north that need things slowed down as well.
greenman3610 8 months ago
Three yrs ago, I had the pleasure of hearing a top cryospheric climatologist speak in our little town. His name was Dr. Waleeb Abdalati, from the Uof Colorado and Nasa and he brought updated photos and data from the Greenland ice sheet. Scary stuff. I had the chance to talk one on one with him. I shared with him that science teachers in my school denied AGW was occurring and shared this denial with the students, eventhough our texts cover it well. He was very upset to hear this.
saxmanchiro 8 months ago
@saxmanchiro
more and more top scientists in this area are speaking out, and they are very angry that their work has been distorted and ignored. YouTube has a number of good lectures by james hansen, naomi oreskes, stephen schneider, richard alley, and ben santer, to name a few.
greenman3610 8 months ago
Keep up the great vids. We need to help the deniers as much as possible. It's apparent to this science teacher that many deniers seem to be members of another group. This other group likes to worship an imaginary friend in the sky. Seems reality is a hard concept for these folks. I teach in the southern USA and even a few of our science teachers deny reality but also like to deny Evolution as well. Sad
saxmanchiro 8 months ago
@saxmanchiro
you are on the front lines, and I salute you. My spouse is a teacher as well, and I get asked to speak at a lot of high school and college classes. I think kids are open if you give them the right info and show that it is from trustworthy sources. I've been using the video from Admiral Titley a lot in recent lectures.
watch?v=T3dcc0mV-n4
watch?v=CBBEyJVj5MY
greenman3610 8 months ago
@greenman3610 Thanks for the leads. Many of my students are coming into my classroom with severe indoctrination and religious brainwashing, to the point where they won't even listen to what I am teaching them. Many put up a wall to my info that contradicts their Sunday schooling. When I talk of the environmental damage and ecosystem degradation at the hands of humans, they get their panties in a bunch and try to tell me god gave us these resources to use. It's frustrating to witness.
saxmanchiro 8 months ago
@saxmanchiro
It is more likely you have a block up and miss understood what they were trying to tell you.
Then you attempt to repeat something that they never said.
OxAO 7 months ago
@OxAO I wish you were correct.
saxmanchiro 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@saxmanchiro
said, "I wish you were correct"
Either you just proven my point and you don't listen or you think it is fine to have a block information
OxAO 7 months ago
My wife says next winter will be freezing, she feels it in her joints. The game is up for you. Cooling is on the agenda.
david222444 8 months ago
@david222444
thank her for her input.
We'll get back to you.
greenman3610 8 months ago
@greenman3610 Next spring would be a good time. In the meantime do not disguard the snow shovel.
david222444 8 months ago
@greenman360 how ironic that You tell someone to check the science! While I'd enjoy pwning your ignorance I'd sooner try to reason with a creationist. Reduce CO2 emissions: kill youself!
jimbocidman 8 months ago
@jimbocidman
please, pwn away. we encourage the citing of actual evidence here in comments, as I have in my videos. by the way, you may have missed the update to this video, just out, in which you can see what one of the lead authors of the paper in question says about my analysis.
watch?v=8nrvrkVBt24
look forward to your response. Please don't kill yourself.
greenman3610 8 months ago
Denier of a non scientific theory? Nah, i'll just wait until its a proven fact that human kind are responsible for the global warming. An established carbon tax is not proof, its an exploit of ignorant people. The old "join us or you're going to hell" scare tactic.
Henkera 8 months ago
@Henkera
the national academy of science, and every relevant science body on the planet, regard human caused global warming as fact.
What exactly are you waiting for? Glenn Beck's endorsement?
greenman3610 8 months ago
@greenman3610 Ok, show me.
Henkera 8 months ago
@Henkera
Well, you can go to the sites of the American Meteorological Society, Geological Society of America, American Geophysical Union etc to read their statements on climate. For a quick primer, you can review these videos, and follow the links in the descriptions to relevant documents. Note that military and intelligence groups around the planet are making contingency plans for climate change.
"Show me" is kind of a dodge. I have 70 vids. The information is there for those that want it.
greenman3610 8 months ago
@greenman3610 Im not debating that there is a global warming, and im not debating that we contribute with a percentage. I have read reports from acknowledged scientific societies and have yet to see some figures showing what their defenition of "a lot" really is. Man made global warming is a scientific thesis, have you tried to get a statement from the scientific comunity confirming man made global warming (where we are the main contributor) as a scientific Theory based on fact?
Henkera 8 months ago
@Henkera
google American Geophysical Union, position on climate:
"The Earth's climate is now clearly out of balance and is warming. Many components of the climate system—including the temperatures of the atmosphere, land and ocean..are now changing at rates and in patterns that are not natural and are best explained by the increased atmospheric abundances of greenhouse gases and aerosols generated by human activity during the 20th century"
for more google
nasa key indicators climate
greenman3610 8 months ago
@greenman3610
the only excuse for not knowing is not WANTING to know.
greenman3610 8 months ago
@greenman3610 You'r presumtion that im not allready oriented is annoying. I wish nothing more to get rid of fossil fuel but the effect on the climate is a missunderstanding from the beginning, and now the whole world is greatly invested in the whole concept both political and economically. It will take a long time untill the misstake is recognized, regretable becouse there are more urgent matters to attend to. Demonstrate that it is a theory, its the only thing i ask, but i doubt you'll succeed,
Henkera 8 months ago
@Henkera
my presumption, which you are corroborating, is that your problem is not intellectual, it's psychological.
If you will not take the National Academies of every industrialized country at their word, why in the world would anything I say make a difference?
You have enclosed yourself in a hermetically sealed, fact resistant, logic loop. The information is there for those that want it, and I've spent thousands of hours documenting it, for anyone interested.
greenman3610 8 months ago
@greenman3610 "If you will not take... why in the world would anything I say make a difference?" It wont. And im not enclosed. I just dont think all the facts point in the same direction, and i get very sceptical when every single one of the main stream sources of "scientific fact" fail to report everything that would sugest otherwise, but most important, fails to demonstrate how a 4% increase of CO2 is responsible. And besides.. You are far more invested in your possition then i am in mine.
Henkera 8 months ago
@Henkera
the increase has been from about 270 ppm last century to 388 ppm now. If that works out to 4 percent for you, then I can see why you shy away from actual scientific sources,. Maybe some remediation is in order before you go on. Consult your local adult education program.
greenman3610 8 months ago
@greenman3610 Humans are responsable for 4% of the total amount, and stop making ad hominem-like comments like that. Do you know why there is less clouds when the sun has more sunspots?
Henkera 8 months ago
@Henkera
You really need to get your high school diploma before you engage adults in serious conversation. Your reading, writing and arithmetic skills are not ready for prime time.
PrairieDogged 8 months ago
@PrairieDogged Thats because im swedish, and it says so on my profile.
Henkera 8 months ago
@Henkera
I didn't know that Swedes were poor at arithmetic.
PrairieDogged 7 months ago
@Henkera
Svante Arrhenius was Swedish, so what's your excuse?
PrairieDogged 7 months ago
@PrairieDogged Being swedish IS my excuse for (as you pointed out with you'r sarcastic but irrelevant criticism) my spelling not being top notch. I dont know where you're getting at. I doubt you would prefer having the debate in swedish. If im engaging "adults" I would think is open for debate also in your case.
Henkera 7 months ago
Peter, would you please TRY AND EXPLAIN how in all the Ice Core data, when CO2 is at HISTORICAL MAXIMUMS, temperature FALLS in every single case? Can you PLEASE explain how when CO2 is a HISTORICAL maximums, there is NOT ONE SINGLE EXAMPLE in the ice Core Data which presents INCREASING temperature?
Please, OH PLEASE, Mr. Scientific Debunker of Deniers, present ANY TEMPERATURE data in the eons of historic data where CO2 INCREASES came before a TEMPERATURE rise of discernible, causal scope.
commentcomet1 9 months ago
@commentcomet1
the video explains how, historically, orbital changes have lead the glacial/interglacial cycle that is recorded in ice cores.
as to temp increasing in response to co2, google
paleocene eocene thermal maximum
a naturally caused climate event that is often mentioned as being most like our own situation.
you can also look at the end permian extinction, a co2 mediated event that almost wiped out life on planet earth.
google
the day earth nearly died
greenman3610 9 months ago
@greenman3610 No my friend. The video DOES NOT explain why TEMPERATURE always LEADS CO2. And in fact, there IS NO scientifically acceptable way to explain the INVERSION in the CAUSAL TIME ARROW. Real Physics simply DOES NOT permit such foolishness.
Secondly, in EVERY CASE of the Ice Core Data, while CO2 was AT RECORD HIGHS, Temperature FELL. There simply IS NO Feedback mechanism. And any HONEST science-minded person see this and their JAWS DROP and the AGW lie being pushed falsely.
commentcomet1 9 months ago
@commentcomet1
well, in talking to the lead scientist on the paper that deniers use to make this claim, he tells me I have it exactly right.
I can only dumb it down so far, friend. You'll just have to watch it till you get it.
greenman3610 9 months ago
@greenman3610 Clearly the Global Warming concept is dumbed down below the concept of discussion and rational explanation. But I've never found a real Science to be so vapid as the Warmers fairy-tales.
Temp UP, Global Warming. Temp DOWN - again Global Warming. Data supports Global Warming - Ugg Data GOOD. Data disproves Global warming - MUST be some other Galactic force -orbital instabilities, Meteorites, Space Aliens, Spaghetti Monsters - Pick your fantasy. Coincidence is not Science.
commentcomet1 9 months ago
LOL! The continued fraud of 'man-made' Global Warming is pathetic. When the TIME-ARROW of causality is ignored by the fools duped into parroting the Global Warming alarmist position, they show they know nothing about causal relationship.
If ONLY they could produce ANY EVIDENCE that CO2 increases in the past CAUSED temperature to rise in an actual FEED-BACK loop, they would have a case. But 1,000,000 years of Ice Core data proves their position to be a fraud.
commentcomet1 9 months ago
Are trees, shrubs, food production plants and grasses puking their lungs out over increases in CO2 levels, or are they loving it ? If they are puking, shut your engine off, pay your extra taxes, if they are loving it, I'm loving it too.
fudgedogbannana 9 months ago
@fudgedogbannana
readers can decide.
google
NASA | Plant Productivity in a Warming World
greenman3610 9 months ago
@greenman3610 Drive down the freeway lately? are the plants and weeds drying up and looking depressed, or are they green and blooming?
fudgedogbannana 9 months ago
@fudgedogbannana
it's called spring
greenman3610 9 months ago
@greenman3610
wow. You're doing "climate research" by looking out your car window when you drive on the freeway.
I'm giving you ignoramus of the week award. Competition here is always tough, but in this case you win going away.
greenman3610 9 months ago
@greenman3610 Yes spring, generation after generation of green growth and blooms 6 feet from freeway traffic in the middle of down town Los Angeles.
fudgedogbannana 9 months ago
Strawman argument = this video.
jag10 10 months ago
@greenman3610 they where the largest pusher of global warming world wide. They bought msnbc to push it further to drum up a little more fear and to get Obama elected "his second largest campaigner" they went to the point of bankruptcy and revived billions of tax payer dollars on no bid green tech.
dieseldudee 10 months ago
@greenman3610 I told you global warming is a scam to make billions. GE made over 5 billion in profit last year they did not pay one cent in taxes. They where going bankrupt before obama now Obama gives them no bid "green energy" contracts for billions.
dieseldudee 10 months ago
@dieseldudee
denialist deduction:
GE makes money. There fore the radiative properties of Greenhouse gases do not apply.
greenman3610 10 months ago
Comment removed
agent0sephiroth 10 months ago
@agent0sephiroth
solutions
watch?v=pSdnycHfLnQ
watch?v=llIbjC49Fjs
watch?v=WO3V2uXTM6k
more coming. I've been delinquent on this, but will catch up. Also discuss on the climatecrocks blog.
greenman3610 10 months ago
Yawn The theory will be rejected in time. The Sun has not been a significant factor in the last 50 years lol. There is nothing to deny.
david222444 10 months ago
btw people there are hidden historical references in 'the wonderful wizard of Oz' but it has to be the 19902 original work, not the derived play.
TrollForTuna 10 months ago
Don't you see the flaw in the first part of your video? There is a 100k year cycle of ice ages. We are already 100k+ years through this cycle. Why is the next ice age 20-30k years away?
There are more than 3 orbital parameters. Milankovitch doesn't even take in to account orbital inclination and actually has poor correlation with the historic temps. I call BS on this "science."
jasesuper 10 months ago
@jasesuper
the cycle is not exactly 100,000 years. We came out of the last one starting about 20,000 years ago, and the next would start, all things being equal, in about 20 or 30 thousand years.
the various orbital and axial factors are complex, but the milankovitch theory fits the facts better than any other. suggest you write a paper and submit to the NAS if you have another theory.
If you aren't ready to publish, consider if more study might be in order.
greenman3610 10 months ago
The truth is you are the ignorant one. The consensus now it that Global Elite internationalists hijacked the environmental movement using junk science in order to tax us for breathing, regulate industry and ship industry at subsidy to China and India. This is a total control grab that affects every individuals life. Its NWO plain ans simple, if you want to save the enviroment why are you trying to suffocate plants. And if climate change was true, mother nature would balance it out.
michalslahor 11 months ago
@michalslahor
Does your consensus also include the evil machinations of the queen of england, the gray aliens, and the lizard people?
"Mother Nature", when her equilibrium has been disturbed in the past, has killed off up to 90 percent of her children.
I'd have a little more humility in predicting exactly what "mother nature" may have in mind.
greenman3610 11 months ago
@michalslahor if this is all just some big conspiracy, who is in charge? is it Obama? :)
the next time you start thinking about GLOBAL conspiracies, try this;
get 10 people, any 10, to agree on what they are going to have for lunch. don't let any of them talk to each other though (so it stays secret like your other conspiracy theories) then get them to agree on WHEN to eat.
you don't have to convince the whole planet, just 10 people. let me know how that goes.
jobaccamasakado 10 months ago
Thanks for your hard work, Greenman.
RichieW 11 months ago
@RichieW
appreciated.
greenman3610 11 months ago
@twindwick
I really doubt that the idea of a greener lifestyle would result in the government snooping around...The CIA already did that after 9/11 and they got busted for it.
NUTCASE71733 11 months ago
@twindwick
Well, there wouldn't be problems if the deniers would stop lying about everything. It's quite obvious they'll lie to protect their jobs and their money. After all the lead denyers are folks in government, and politicians-republicans in particular-are bought out by the oil industry. If they would shut up so scientists can work on a definitive answer we would have likely found it by now.
NUTCASE71733 11 months ago
Look, we live on this planet much like everything else. As such we need to respect this planet. I'm no enviornmentalist but it goes without saying that we can land ourselves in pretty hot water if we don't take this seriously. Besides, gas prices are very high right now and we need different forms of fuel. No one's saying get rid of oil entirely, but to make our cars go and to provide power to our homes we need a cleaner alternative. The technology exists but big oil wont let us use it.
NUTCASE71733 11 months ago
@twindwick
A finally an inteligeble post despite being filled with fallacies. Owning and driving a car is not a right, it is a priveledge. As such it's legal to have that taken away proiding there's a good reason for it. Preserving our planet and ensuring the health of all living things is a good enough reason. It's the oil companies who benefit from the lies you've been fed.
NUTCASE71733 11 months ago
@twindwick
Problem is the natural cycle is being accellerated unnaturally. Gobal warming causes the ice caps to melt, raising ocean levels, thus disturbing ocean currents, which alters weather patterns.
NUTCASE71733 11 months ago
Why is anyone who believes strongly in global warming on a computer using electricity? The greatest threats to the planet are technological advances and human population growth, right? So turn off your computer, burn down your house, blow up your car, and go on a killing spree.
SoakUpAllTheBlood138 11 months ago
@SoakUpAllTheBlood138
No, a killing spree is what societies that are addicted to oil engage in on third world people.
Going to renewable energy is the answer. Climate deniers have tried to keep us tied to 19th century technology, but the logic of renewables is so powerful they are winning out.
see my "solutions" vids
watch?v=pSdnycHfLnQ
watch?v=llIbjC49Fjs
watch?v=WO3V2uXTM6k
greenman3610 11 months ago
@1:42 "Nobody says that".
Damn near everybody among the public on your side THINKS that, and it's what's taught in every school... almost. Because you use the words "...has always and in every case..." it's technically true that nobody says exactly that.
What *IS* said is that CO2 is the primary cause of AGW.
The 800 yr lag *is* evidence that CO2 is driven by temperature. Warmer leads to ocean out gassing, agreed. I agree it's possible CO2 in turn amplifies temp. But is there evidence?
pburto 11 months ago
@twindwick And if your buddy Tim finds himself homeless, perhaps his fellow denier, the 3rd Viscount Brenchley could put him up for a spell - even if he downsized from the 67-room house he used to have some years back.
R4t10n4L 11 months ago
@twindwick The IPCC chairman is not paid. That aside, there are plenty of rich people on both sides. Gore may be wealthy but have you taken a look at some of the people who were in the oil-lubricated Bush administration?
R4t10n4L 11 months ago
Hi, have you done any kind of "debunk" on Piers Corbyn?
SteuartHedington 11 months ago
@SteuartHedington
coming
greenman3610 11 months ago
@greenman3610
Thank you
SteuartHedington 11 months ago
@twindwick
That's because Tim Ball has no record of accomplishment whatever other than being a highly paid liar.
greenman3610 11 months ago
I think science and math run on the left side of the brain and language and music on the right.
This explains why the worse an electrician tested for spelling on the King County aptitude test, the better the electrician he made.
I know a guy who is an engineering supervisor and a small aerospace company that has spelled "of" as "ove".
32 years ago he designed the microprocessor control of the Boeing 767 inter phone and I designed the switching power supply.
tnekkc 11 months ago
I am better at math and science than any professor you ever met.
I have been doing for money, and only when it works, do I get the big $.
Reality is not something liberals want to face.
They went from eliminating discrimination to Affirmative action.
Horrible over shoot.
They went from eliminating NOx to eliminating C02.
Horrible over shoot.
To a liberal it all about a feel good emotion and nothing to do with reality.
tnekkc 11 months ago
@tnekkc Sure, but can you form a grammatically correct sentence?
austingbaby1234 11 months ago
Lack of snow is global warming and the abundance of snow is global warming. Higher temps and lower temps. Droughts or rain storms, it don't matter to a believer. Everything that is happening in the atmosphere can be traced to global warming because these freaks want to win the contest. Global warming is a lie but you'd never get the freaks to admit it.
irritatinglilpryk 11 months ago
@irritatinglilpryk
I'll admit it must be confusing, if you're coming from a third grade science background.
greenman3610 11 months ago
The IPCC, RealClimate, Crock, and all the models predict the end of both weather and winter. Look out the window. Whether or not an actual hoax, AGW is obviously wrong.
Shelama 11 months ago
@Shelama
so it shouldn't be hard for you do document where the IPCC predicts the end or "weather and winter".
I'll wait.
greenman3610 11 months ago
@greenman3610 Sorry: ...a poor attempt at irony and sounding as ignorant as many denialists. I just discovered you. You're the greatest thing since RealClimate. In some ways, much better. Thanks much. But you're fighting a loosing battle with a huge number of folks who live in a parallel universe. I admire your persistence, intelligence, honesty, thoughtfulness and GREAT videos.
There's a correlation between denialism and a belief in empty tombs & bloody Jesus sacrifice. What'sUWT?
Shelama 11 months ago
@greenman3610 Final $0.02: ...ignore these nitwits. Your videos obviously reach and influence intelligent, thoughtful people. But the ridiculous ideologues here are like flies at the picnic, the brainless polemic the maggots.
Keep up the truly excellent work.
Shelama 11 months ago
@Shelama
The brainless comments here are mainly a good excuse to point more serious readers to good source material.
I try not to take it personally. There are, we know, some paid denialist trolls who do this for a living.
then, there are those that are so unbelievably stupid that most likely no one pays them for anything.
see my blog post, google
Funniest. Denier. Posting. Ever.
greenman3610 11 months ago
@greenman3610
Actually, that's the blog post that brought me here. tnekkc seems oblivious to the reason for his notoriety. I was unaware of paid, professional trolls; interesting.
Shelama 11 months ago
@Shelama
I'm quite sure he's not one of them.
greenman3610 11 months ago
@greenman3610
btw, I found Spencer Weart's "The Discovery of Global Warming" to be invaluable.
Shelama 11 months ago
So whats going on? First they were calling it Global warming. Why not call it that anymore? Oh wait, cause it's fucking freezing. So now you wanna call it climate change. All because of man made CO2. It's trappin so much heat that it's causing sporaddic cold spurts. Lol. Who beleives this crock of bull shit? Men who wish to be women and tree hugging dikes.
lamiac2411 1 year ago
@lamiac2411
Wow. The homophobes are out tonight.
for the 'They changed it from Global Warming to Climate Change" nonsense-
see here
watch?v=mqMunulJU7w
greenman3610 1 year ago
@greenman3610 Let me ask you, Rep. Or Dem? Dike or Homophobe?
lamiac2411 1 year ago
@lamiac2411
"Dike or Homophobe?"
Am I on camera? You are from the Onion, aren't you?
greenman3610 1 year ago
@greenman3610 What should be on the Onion is the fact that you think we should further destroy the American economy and deny access to cheap energy for third world countries. Meanwhile China is ramping up production of all these CO2 producing monsters. Man made global warming is nothing more than a scam to push a globalist agenda. Your buddy Al Gore is sitting at the recieving end ready to reap the profits of your misery. MMGW is not proven. If Gore debated the issue he would be destroyed
lamiac2411 1 year ago
@lamiac2411
right, because wars for oil have been great for the economy, and great for third world people.
You are a joke, but not funny enough for the Onion.
greenman3610 1 year ago
@lamiac2411
Don't try to reason with a fundamentalist liberal religious fanatic.
You cannot resolve anything with facts and science arguing with a global warming hoaxer.
The only hope is to make fun of them, so little kids will see them as old bearded ragged men carrying a sign that says "the end is near".
They could care less about scientific method.
They are just in it for the Marxism, and they don't admit that to themselves.
Dealing with the greenman requires Joan Rivers.
tnekkc 1 year ago
Respond to this video... If your so worried then how about all the Global Warming believers line up on a cliff like lemmings. Jump off effectively halting your CO2 footprint? That way it will leave more room for the intelligent people to talk about things that matter. Because you know every time you exhale your putting that darned poison into the atmosphere.
lamiac2411 1 year ago
@lamiac2411
'you exhale Co2" canard - see here
watch?v=WPA-8A4zf2c
greenman3610 1 year ago
Find me a Full professor of Atmospheric science or climatology that thinks global warming is a real Conservative who also...
1) Always votes republican
2) Carries a gun.
3) Believes in God.
4) Has big muscles.
5) Eats meat
You can't.
All you can find is dwarfed democrats that are womanly.
That is because global warming is political and religious and not at all science.
There is an attempt to cloak it in science. But it does not fit.
tnekkc 1 year ago
@tnekkc
[blows soysmoothee on keyboard]
Holy crap - that's some hilarious shit.
Can I post that on my blog?
Do you write for the Onion?
greenman3610 1 year ago
@tnekkc the stupidity of that comment is awesome. Truly epic
treeplanter99 1 year ago