re-upload: "Climate Deniers Love the 70s! -- The Remix" by greenman3610

[Finlandcitizen]

Might I ask from you, Kurtilein.

Do you yourself see the diffrence between Climate Skeptics and Climate Deniers?

[kurtilein3]

finlandcitizen:

climate deniers call themselves climate skeptics, while others call them climate deniers, and the actual skeptics often debunk the claims of climate deniers, just like they debunk the claims of HIV-deniers or holocaust deniers.

note that HIV-deniers probarbly also dont call themselves deniers, maybe they even use the term skeptics, the same appears to be true of holocaust deniers.

[Finlandcitizen]

But you see the diffrence between a person who would debunk the whole warming of the past 50 years and a person that would believe that while Co2 causes warming (especially with feedback), there is some evidence and reason to doubt that the future Co2 based warming isin't going to be within the reach of a disaster?

[kurtilein3]

if you make a claim that goes something like "i think there is some evidence and reason to ... ..."

then you are either able to present those reasons and to present that evidence, or you are being intellectually dishonest. and thats exactly what those people do. they make that claim, they KNOW that they dont have reasons and dont have evidence, so they dont even attempt to convince any scientists. they directly approach journalists, political leaders, and the public.

[kurtu5]

>so they dont even attempt to convince any scientists. they directly approach ... the public.

You could say the same about central media. Rupert Murdock's empire brings the discussion to the people. At every turn the people are sold on global... climate change.

[kurtilein3]

central media doesnt pretend to be scientific.

unlike pseudo-scientists, that SHOULD submit their ideas to peer-review in the form of research papers but WONT, corporate media (most times) doesnt claim to be scientific. but corporate media will never bring the discussion to the people without simplifying the topic beyond recognition, omitting important details that might be uncomfortable for one of their many big advertisers.

[MissGreenslime]

@kurtilein3

Jasper Kirkby, a British experimental particle physicist currently with CERN, Switzerland presents a lecture in which cosmic rays show a strong correlation with global temperature over short and long time periods. He is currently involved in research on their effects on clouds at CERN..

google 1181073: Cosmic rays and climate

Kirkby originated the idea for the Tau-Charm Factory, an accelerator now under construction as BEPC, most recently, the CLOUD experiment at CERN.

[kurtilein3]

and this is convincing for you, just because one scientist says it?

its not convincing for me, because i am unaware of the evidence he presents to back up his claims. also, this is definitively not mainstream science. also, i dont see a mechanism that would link cosmic rays to global temperatures.

[MissGreenslime]

@kurtilein3

It is being sponsored by CERN. It doesn't get any more mainstream than that. He presents the evidence in the video.

Co you mean that Kikby isn't attached the the mainstream political (criminal) cabal around the CRU and Realclimate condemned by Wegman ?

What has happened is that a bunch of politically motivated numbskulls have conviced themselves that fixing the science is a 'good thing'.

[kurtilein3]

you underestimate the resilience of the peer-review process.

you also dont seem to be aware that science is a global thing. the UK government may claim whatever it wants, unless they submit it to peer review it just doesnt count. scientists around the planet know how to ignore everything that hasnt been published, they do it all the time. publish or die. you didnt publish? i dont talk to zombies.

once its published, scientists from japan or south africa can falsify it.

[MissGreenslime]

@kurtilein3

Margaret Thatcher (an extreme right wing politician) built the Hadley Centre to promote agw. The political history of AGW is almost completely British - Kyoto and Copenhagen were run by the British government.

Enron and BP strongly promoted Kyoto and the IETA l (emissions trading) lobbied for a Copenhagen deal. They represent the oil companies and banks.

Carbon credits and trading us what this is all about.

[kurtilein3]

you are confusing the scientific world with the world of politics.

reality doesnt change just because some politicians talk. scientists still observe the same reality, no matter how much bullshit politicians may spread.

carbon credits and carbon trading is, if done correctly (which the lobbyists fight hard) a possible solution. a carbon tax would be another solution, a solution that is much more difficult to corrupt than carbon trading.

[MissGreenslime]

@kurtilein3

Scientists are little wage slaves who do what they are told. Climate science is totally corrupt.

*

We portray peer review to the public as a quasi-sacred process that helps to make science our most objective truth teller. But we know that the system of peer review is biased, unjust, unaccountable, incomplete, easily fixed, often insulting, usually ignorant, occasionally foolish, and frequently wrong."

Richard Horton, editor of the British medical journal The Lancet,

[MissGreenslime]

@kurtilein3

Yes, he is a top particle physicist at CERN, and you are a cool dude who has met Amy Goodman. You are probably right.

Democracy Now is sponored by the Ford Foundation. They are really left wing.

LOL !!

[treeplanter99]

@erg

i don't like denier either i much prefer the term idiot

[ergdf54g45g5h76j8kug]

i just love that you people call it "climate deniers", linking them to holocaust-deniers/nazies.

What a rational debate, linking your opponent to nazism. Its really mature.

[deprofundis442]

@ergdf54g45g5h76j8kug

Nobody is linking it to holocaust deniers just because we say "denier". We use that term because it is something you either accept or deny, as it's just as accepted by scientists today as evolution.

[wistals2deniks]

I am linking you to the new holocaust of dead brown and poor people who died because of biofueles and will die because of new carbon cuts in our agriculture. And everyone one Kopenhagen who did not agree with you was either harassed of physically attacked.

[dechha1981]

Scroll down, someone else in the comments of THIS VERY VIDEO diectly associated Concern for the Environment with Left-wing politics, and then went on to associate those things with acceptance of Gays, and Homophobia is just one of the many things Republicans and Neo-Nazis have in common.

Therefore, I fail to see a problem.

[kurtilein3]

ergdf54g45g5h76j8kug:

lol. if you think that there is a connection between the word "denial" and the german nazi regime, then rest assured: there is none. you are paranoid. they are only being called "climate change deniers" because they deny climate change. which requires you to deny about as much as a holocaust denier needs to deny, but the connection to the holocaust really isnt the point. there also are HIV-deniers for example, they deny that it causes aids.

[xXAkridXx]

I disagree. To understand the science of the climate is very complicated, the layman can pretty much only take scientist word for it. While the holocaust has mountains of direct observable evidence for it.

Having knowledge of what a group of people did on a massive scale a few decades ago is much easier than having knowledge of how the entire Earth climate functions over thousands of years.

[kurtilein3]

XXakridXX:

recentlyx a guy has been swimming at the north pole. SWIMMING!

the polar ice caps are almost gone. this is evidence that takes denial.

also, the properties of CO2, and that it does indeed absorb infrared radiation, can be shown in any lab. just fill a glass box with CO2 compared to other gases and find out, observe it, yourself.

[xXAkridXx]

Really? The Ice caps are melting huh? And this process was triggered by the industrial revolution? So we gauge our effect on the climate over a few hundred years?

I don't know it's making me more skeptical.

[kurtu5]

Actually the holocaust is very similar. The Jews seem to claim that only they suffered. China lost 10-20 million. 24 million for Russians. 62-78 million total.

But if you point this out, you are an antisemite.

[xXAkridXx]

That's not the same as flat out denying it happened.

[danielnz1]

The only people who "question this science" are people who are too ignorant to read the relevant peer reviewed research papers themselves and compare it to the data set in use. 97% of qualified academics are in agreement about anthropogenic global warming; the inability for hacks to agree with their interpretation of the data; and their ability to extract sensationalist sound-bites, has no bearing on this.

[kurtilein3]

daniel:

in his most recent video, at the end where you see this crazy guy running around shouting misconceptions about climate change in public, the source appears to be "wearechange". thats the 911 truther crowd. if its really them moving to the next topic they can be deluded about, then you know what kind of research you can expect. i think this will be the next big playground for all the conspiracy-loons.

[danielnz1]

O level geography explains all, warmer wet air, meeting cold air means more snow. We get more wet air as the world in general gets warmer! So it's hardly out of pattern at all. Whats typically expected when complex systems change are increasingly violent events like now! Right now, severe heat-waves and bush fires in Aussie this summer, while Israels having its greatest winter swimming condition but running out of fresh-water!

[danielnz1]

As a fairly rational person I agree that the globe is warming at a rate not seen in human history. I also agree that the polluting effect of the industrialised nations is the majority cause. Furthermore, I think that it is grossly negligent and criminal not to harness all the free energy the sun, the wind and sea provide.

[kurtilein3]

greenman36210 also has a video about water vapor on his channel ;)

[kurtilein3]

greenman3610....  not 36210.

[xXAkridXx]

Every time I hear "climate change" I immediately think of the political left and I don't want to hear anymore.

[kurtilein3]

well, then their propaganda worked, and you (so far) didnt bother to actually look at what the scientists say.

then you would realize that you are confusing "the political left" with "the best science we have".

[xXAkridXx]

Green this green that, drive a gay car be a douche bag bla bla bla.

As for what scientist say, I usually accept what most scientist say, but for some reason man made climate change arguments always feel pushy like a used car sales man.

Anyway I don't care, it's probably going to get or cold regardless of what we do anyway.

[deprofundis442]

@xXAkridXx

Then that's a problem you should probably overcome. Science doesn't take sides in politics and it shouldn't even be brought up in these types of discussions. It winds up being the red herring argument for those who can't argue with the science by making people think this is some political issue.

The funny thing though, is that liberal deniers often label it a far right thing.

[xXAkridXx]

Oh yeah those damn far right environmentalist. I've heard so much about them. Boy wont that Right/Green group shut up /sarcasm

[kurtu5]

Climate change has created the carbon credit market. It seems to me that this is another speculative market and we will have a bubble.

Oh and believe them when they say "climate change". The market needs your support.

[kurtilein3]

kurtu5:

thats why people that actually care about the climate would prefer a carbon tax. no risk of "bubbling" if you just make it a tax.

i wonder how much longer the united states will categorically block all efforts to tackle the problem on a global level.

[kurtu5]

Thanks for replying.

I am simply saying that this whole business seems less about the environment and more about fear, uncertainty and doubt, so that we accept government intercession.

If the environment was the primary concern, then why is there next to little discussion about habitat destruction and energy independence.

The climate scientists claim to have foundational knowledge on the atmospheric and geologic principles. Claims that predict how Earth's climate will react to various...

[kurtu5]

...inputs, such as; carbon, CFCs, aerosols, methane, water vapor, incident solar flux, urban albedo, and etc.

If the claim that the human input into the carbon cycle will cause warming beyond natural levels is true, so then would be the claim that aerosols will cool the planet.

So why no discussion on geo-engineering? If aerosols are seen as risky, then why not orbiting sun shades, that double as powersats? Why the focus on carbon and not methane?

I think its because we are being scammed.

[kurtilein3]

no discussion on geoengineering, because there is no method of geoengineering where scientists dont see the risk of it being either ineffective or going majorly wrong. fertilizing the oceans could wipe out all life in the deep seas, because carbon sinks down and captures the oxygen down there, which the animals need to survive.

also, there are many things mainstream media just wont talk about. going after methane would mean going after meat production, many advertisers there.

[kurtu5]

Carbon sequestration is a type of geoengineering.

Carbon is the boogey man de jour. And like you said, there is no talk about methane. And the consensus among the consensus is that even if we stopped carbon emissions, the problem will still exist.

Im my estimation, its a scam.

[kurtu5]

P.S. Its hard to be clear and concise.... By habit destruction, I mean by land development not warming.

And by energy independence, I ask why do we spend trillions for fight for oil, but not trillions to make solar powered homes? We spend a bunch on talking about carbon, but only a token on solar power or nuclear.

[kurtilein3]

"And by energy independence, I ask why do we spend trillions for fight for oil, but not trillions to make solar powered homes?"

that really doesnt make sense. other governments are aware that they need to reduce their dependence on fossil fuels, and they work very hard to come up with alternatives. alternatives that dont destroy natural habitats, as organic fuel would, because organic fuel provides incentive for poor countries to replace their forests with plantations.

[Glacies12]

My favorite decade was the 90's...cus that's when I was born <.<