Global Warming Skepticism: The Freedomain Radio Interview with Warren Meyer

[TqMURDOCK]

After weeding through all the ideological banter I managed to find 12 assertions of fact. All of them wrong, although interestingly two were preceded by accurate descriptions of basic science.

I posted a list of rebutalls at the SkepticalScience page on Facebook (can't seem to post the link to it - I guess YouTube and Facebook don't like each other)

[destronia123]

LOL! It's called the Industrial Revolution, idiots! At no other time in earth's history has so much sequestered carbon been released into the atmosphere. Stupid deniers.

[15hmael]

Global warming skeptic , Dr. Richard Muller, set up the Berkley Earth Surface Temperature (B.E.S.T) project funded by Bill Gates and the Koch brothers among others to deal with the problem of the urban heat island effect, unfit weather stations etc. Anthony Watts stated,"I'm prepared to accept whatever results they produce, even if it proves my premise wrong." Guess what? The results coincide with the climate science data you laugh at. Oh.. and Watts, didn't accept the results.

[sfk2001]

@15hmael spot on lad spot on

[Adlasyn]

"There are lies, there are damn lies, and then there are statistics."

[ProtoCosmos]

Also, Stef, I recently watched a documentary on YT about " Global Dimming" ( which I didn't hear being addressed in this discussion).Supposedly it effects our measurements of climate change. It suggests a rather disturbing quandary ... that we're becoming dependent on man-made atmospheric pollution to stave off even far greater warming. If you're familiar with it, or if you could check it out, I'd be interested to hear what you'd have to say about it.

[ProtoCosmos]

Also, Stef, I recently watched a documentary on YouTube about " Global Dimming" ( which I didn't hear being addressed in this discussion).Supposedly it effects our measurements of climate change. It suggests a rather disturbing quandary ... that we're becoming dependent on man-made atmospheric pollution to stave off even far greater warming. If you're familiar with it, or if you could check it out, I'd be interested to hear what you'd have to say about it.

[ProtoCosmos]

It's interesting that you guys take issue with the term "Global Warming Deniers" , yet when referring to your dissenters, you're perfectly fine with using the term " Alarmists". There are less than virtuous motives on both side,right? Some commenters take exception to the " Better Safe Than Sorry" mentality, but to me it seems wise to treat the dissenting side of your arguments with more consideration, for we do not have a spare Earth on which to conduct the experiment.

[OldSchopenhauer]

@ProtoCosmos  Because it is alarmism.

[ostralopithicus]

As a scientist, I'm rather offended that AGW is considered science at all. Science is a multi-part process. The first is to propose a hypothesis, the second is to find experimental ways of attempting to prove the hypothesis wrong. Over time, if the hypothesis survives repeated serious attempts to prove it wrong, then we call it a theory. AGW, taken altogether, is untestable. Therefore it is NOT science. It is at best statistical analysis. Bad statistical analysis at that.

[sfortuna]

Screw climate change - there are myriad other easons to get off fossil fuels There is no question the $900Bn fossil fuel industry is diametrically threatened by a FREE forms of renewable energy. Irregardless the cause of climate change there is NO DOUBT that eventually any finite resource will run out over time. Can you grow oil or coal? Does it reproduce in the earth? Does it have trace elements of mercury and Time to plan for an alternative is BEFORE the well runs dry.

[somecomputergeek]

Using scare tactics to "prove" global warming is disgusting.

However, there is propaganda, like Al Gore and 10/10 and all the environmental fascists out there, and then there is the science. It is completely irresponsible that the IPCC and other government-funded agencies are exaggerating the potential danger of AGW, but to deny AGW at this point is akin to denying evolution. Sorry, but the science is in.

[fakeham]

watch?v=yLYqzIhhT6o

Climate change is real but it is not the most important problem facing us now, the biggest problem now is Peak Oil.

[ostralopithicus]

@fakeham I tend to think that AGW is government propaganda to deal with peak oil fact. Energy underlies all economic activity. As energy production declines, government revenues will rapidly decline. How best to deal with these declines than to invent another big bogeyman to scare people into giving more money to government.

[Darusdei]

yeah.. it's a tax scam, love way the yank thinks...

[SoapClawtooth]

Global warming is caused a number of things:

1) We're still coming out of a mini ice-age.

2) There's a hole in the magnetosphere through which cosmic rays are leaking and impacting against the ionosphere causing (proportionately) an increase in ionized particles such as carbon-14.

3) Because of this the ice is melting. Because the ice is melting it means that less sunlight is being reflected back by the ice and is, instead, being absorbed by the sea - heating it up.

[ozzycriss]

Viking Age farm settlements in Greenland = the planet used to be warmer . And guess what the vikings did nt own cars , or did they ?

Propoganda works very well on the weak minded , use soviet style mantras and slogans over and over and the weak can be trained to parrot anything .

Calling peole deniers is a old tatic , ie smear someones point with a nasty term/word

[15hmael]

@ozzycriss If your referring to the medieval warming period (shown in figure 7.1c on p. 202 IPCC First Assessment Report of 1990) from Dr .H.H. Lamb's initial work, the data was collected from northern Europe and primarily central England . Mann's work a decade later used data from the entire Northern Hemisphere.The result, medieval hump gone, and the famous hockey stick appears.Climate skeptic , Dr.Muller ,confirmed this data earlier this year to the chagrin of his supporters.

[jakelamotta456]

Even if we accept the fact that the best way to deal with the problems that global warming might lead to is not to cripple the economy but the opposite. Isn´t that a way of treating the symptoms rather than the disease? I mean, yeah it´s probably good for poor nations over the next 50-100 years but after that than? I guess you can hope for more efficient energy sources that won´t pollute as much, stuff like fusion, more efficient fission, solar power etc.

[dazedandconfucius]

Haha "...when lots of people build stuff, it starts to get warmer..." - shooting yourself in the foot there stefbot!

[MarmaladeINFP]

I have a problem when a single dissenting scientist is used as disproving a theory. Of thousands of climatologists involved in active research, 97% support the theory of anthropogenic global warming. Yes, there is 3% who don't support it, but 3% is a very small number. 97% agreement is very strong agreement. Personally, think it's not reasonable to assume that the 3% are right while the 97% are wrong.

[mmortal03]

Anthropogenic global warming isn't being denied in this video.

[MarmaladeINFP]

It isn't being denied. The discussion just seemed to be overly critical without adding much insight or something like that. It seems like everyone thinks their opinion is worth more than the opinions of scientists who've studied the subject for decades. I don't know if the scientists are right about everything, but I do know that they know more than I do about this. I know the scientists know more than Stef and know more than this reporter.

[wreagfe]

Agreement does not constitute truth.

The agreement you cite is form the IPCC, and it's all in the name isn't it. I might point you to the P in the acronym. Without any conspiracy theories but just simple sociology and public choice, one can easily make the case that the alarmist policy proposals, somehow moderated by advancing science (which is why forecasts in IPCC reports get less extreme), have nothing to do with the actual content of the science.

[MarmaladeINFP]

Nope, it's from Peter Doran at the University of Illinois. Anyways, the IPCC doesn't have any of its own data. It merely reports on the data from other organizations. Also, the scientists who contribute data to the IPCC don't get paid for participating.

The IPCC, like all scientific institutions, is inherently conservative in it's conclusions. This means the IPCC may underestimate climate change. Wikipedia has a good discussion of this in the IPCC article.

[wreagfe]

Intergovernmental Panels can use scientific research findings, yes. But these are not scientific institutions by itself, but foremostly run by politicians who have entirely other goals than finding the truth. A commission that contributed to the IPCC report from my country were watermelons/political activists; I'm almost certain that is not a unique occurrence. Furthermore, isn't it such a coincidence that the IPCC reports coincides perfectly the marxist-environmentalist critique of capitalism?

[wreagfe]

And then I'm not even debating the contents of the science. Furtermore, a lot of these so-called climatologists are not even scientists in the most broad sense; or would you call astrologists scientists? The scientific dissent maybe comes not from within climatology (which I doubt; as an economist I hear day in day out that economics says deficit spending will get us out of the recession) but from the more fundamental disciplines such as astronomy, geology etc etc.

[MarmaladeINFP]

The problem with denialists in general is that they never debate the contents of science. They simply deny it.

Now you've proven how uninformed/misinformed you are. The 97% consensus of climatologists is entirely based on active researchers. These aren't politicians or scientific theoreticians.

There is no reason to doubt that scientific dissent comes from within climatology. All you have to do is a little research and you'd know it was a fact. W/in the AGW consensus there is disagreement.

[wreagfe]

Maybe I didn't express myself well enough; my only point is that when you analyze anything but the contents of the science one can already have serious doubts about the institutional arrangement of the IPCC, its intentions et cetera. You only want to seem to claim that your position is a moderate and full-informed position; well actually it is not; it is a rather extreme position which should be accepted or otherwise the other side is denialist. Btw I didn't see you debate the contents...

[MarmaladeINFP]

My original point was a survey that showed a consensus of active climatology researchers support the theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming. You're the one that brought up IPCC because you thought that is where I was getting my information from but you were wrong. Having serious doubts isn't a problem as science is built on skepticism. I'm not claiming to be fully informed but I am claiming to be moderate in that I'm not denying the consensus of most experts who have done decades of research.

[ashane77]

@MarmaladeINFP

Where is your evidence about this "97%" figure?

A "consensus" isn't proof of anything, either.

And, the point of this vid was to dispute the doomsday scenarios that alarmists like Gore and his moronic followers predict if we don't do as they say.

Politicians and special-interest groups are SO desperate to get us to believe this nonsense...SO much time/money have been spent trying to convince us and shut up dissenters...doesn't that bother you?

[MarmaladeINFP]

@ashane77

tigger. uic. edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final­. pdf

/watch?v=WDSvqsr_k-M

benjamindavidsteele.wordpress.­ com/2010/04/11/meteorologists-­less-support-of-global-warming­-why/

benjamindavidsteele.wordpress. com/2010/03/08/denialism-skept­icism-isnt-a-river-in-egypt/

benjamindavidsteele.wordpress. com/2010/02/08/denialism-anti-­intellectualism-agw/

benjamindavidsteele.wordpress. com/2009/12/01/climate-change-­scandalous-e-mails-and-wendell­-berry-2/

[MarmaladeINFP]

The IPCC isn't a scientific research institution. That is the point. It's purpose is to review the data. But it is a scientific institution in that it's operated by scientists. All of the research is peer-reviewed and all of the data is further reviewed before being included in IPCC reports. Many scientific institutions conibute. You offer no proof but only conjecture. Also, any scientific data will end up supporting some ideological view. Facts are facts. What they support is another matter.

[ostralopithicus]

@MarmaladeINFP Firstly, where do you get those numbers? Secondly, it was about three percent that had the combination of intelligence and courage to fight the American revolution. I suspect that it's generally a small number of people with the combination of intelligence and courage who speak up about fraud/violence/coercion in any society. Popularity is not equal to validity.

[ostralopithicus]

@MarmaladeINFP Popularity is not validity. It's always a small percentage with the combination of courage and intelligence who step forward to put forth the unpopular idea. The mainstream media is owned by a tiny few oligarchs who broadcast information for the profit of those few oligarchs. They have the power to popularize whatever they desire.

[MarmaladeINFP]

@ostralopithicus Only someone who doesn't understand the scientific method would conflate popularity with scientific consensus. I understand that conspiracy theories are popular with people like you, but I don't see much point in discussing conspiracy theories. If you don't trust most of the scientific data because you believe it's 'popular' and instead prefer to remain in ignorant paranoia, there is no point in trying to have a rational debate with you.

[MarmaladeINFP]

The criticisms in this video are fair, but the overall argument isn't convincing. Science isn't dependent on individual measurements and so isolated criticisms aren't meaningful. Meta-analysis of peer-reviewed articles show support for global warming contributed by human activity. Of thousands of climatology researchers from around the world, 97% agree that the termperature is increasing and human activity is contributing. I'm sure these thousands of scientists have considered these criticisms.

[nurbSoldier]

If there is one thing i could advise, Stefan, when referring to how fewer government regulations create a better market, instead of saying "because of LACK of regulations" you could say "because of the absence of burdensome regulations..." or "because of the absence of excessive regulations..."

[nurbSoldier]

The reason being is that the word 'lack' implies something that should be there, but is not.

For example, "the starving children lack food" or "the homeless man lacks career opportunities" or "the ski slopes lack enough snow for skiiing"

[ashane77]

The most frustrating problem I run into when dealing w/Goron's true believers is that they say stuff like:

"Well, even if manmade global warming is a little overblown, its still a good idea for us to get off of fossil fuels."

"Its better to be safe than sorry."

And similar garbage...as well as those who refuse to even consider they've been misled by alarmist scientists, politicians, and media figures. Maybe it'll take economic devastation to get people's priorities straight.

[stefbot]

Sure, but that is of course true of any scare story - "Give me a million dollars or your head will explode in 10 years..." :(

[davenetdog]

You do not have to worry about the environment.

There is absolutely nothing , NOTHING you can do short of moving the Sun or Earth's orbit, that can have an effect on the the climate.

Not even a Thermonuclear War will change the climate. Basically a waste of time.

[kingfugazi]

I just read H.D. Thorea's "Paradise (To Be) Regained" (1843) he's questioning the value of society's the NEW attraction to mechanical power. Anyway, he writes "....,we may have got such reserves accumulated power as to run the earth off its track into a new orbit, some summer, & so change the tedious vicissitude of the seasons?" If you haven't read it check it out, its like 15 pages.

[kingfugazi]

I think hot or cold life will find ways to survive. I don't think humanity can continue our previous course of evolution with all the 'new' substances we now develope in. Humans developed to what we are because what we ate & where lived.Both have completely been altered, but we are still subjects to them, so to speak.Call it pollution, doesn't matter. If we WERE to stop RIGHT NOW, whats already here will be for 1,000s of years. & our decendents will evolve from them into whatever. HOMO POLLUTUS

[pondman27]

@kingfugazi

It is not the mightiest that will survive, neither is it the most intelligent. It is those that can adapt that will prosper.

Nothing is constant & nothing has a beginning or an end.

[kingfugazi]

Very well said, pondman27.

[Muftobration]

I ran out of space in my first comment box; here's the rest of what I want to say:

As with most (or all) things, the truth is somewhere in the middle of the two popular extremes. Climate change is not going to destroy the world in a giant flood in the next fifty years, nor is it non-existent; rather, climate change is real and slight. We seem to influence it to an extent.

For an excellent video series that is very scientific and neutral, check out potholer54's series entitled "Climate Change."

[razoorsharp]

Also we may be lucky and stoke up the ovens even more cause the sun is dead. almost no hot sun spots last year and declining. it will rise eventually, you may have noticed there are more people frozen to death last year and this year in europe since decades.

Global warming?? it's been bloody cooling for 5 years!!! Stoke up those ovens more and more and run those diesel tanks, planlife will grow faster, it's a little warmer for a while and crops grow like crazy on more Co2 (3x natural ammount)

[razoorsharp]

Climate change is a political idea. yeah CO2 does warm the earth, but the disaster model itself which they take to compare the situation is.. (hold your laughter.. VENUS! yes folks the IPCC scientists are actually comparing earths atmosphere with venus in the CO2 issue.

1 word..... biological organism.. Teehee.

Foolish ipcc

Co2 is only better for us. yes on venus it's a disaster, here it's absorbed. not enough plant to absorb now. more co2 that will change rapidly! deforestation be damned

[capgains]

got me to look. it worked!

[capgains]

key point: "people do not just outright lie. where's the greater truth on each side"

[pondman27]

I received a report today, that since the end of WWII, the powers that be (!!) have presided over the slaughter of 30million people.

This agenda is designed to kill.

Thank you guys for an extremely thoughtful interview, I apologise if I pre-empted a few points. Be well & look forward to the next 200 years for your decendents, the veils of deceit are falling away.

[kingfugazi]

Yup, 20 mill estimated dead from Cold War. Sh!t this decade already saw 1.3 in Iraq, unknown in Afghanistan, Sudan and thats not even natural disastered milked for profit at the expense human aide. Plus the pharmaceutical deaths, just in U.S. over 100,000 annually. Truth betold the 'common folk' sustain it all by submitting even 1%. We raise up leaders to kill us. A SUICIDAL SOCIETY. Leaders only reflect the people.

[gosmokesome]

suicidal because we feel terrible because we have horrible morals

[pondman27]

War, population reduction & global hegemony are the forces behind this scam. Western technologies are not designed to empower, like usury, they inflict dependence & slavery.

The African Nations will embrace a technological revolution that re-instates individual sovereignty, WE IN THE WEST MUST DO THE SAME & dismantle the control that eminates from the core of beleif that dictates some have privelage while others are slaughtered.

Too much NOIZ

[pondman27]

The dominant influences over what is manifest within the light of our atmosphere, especially into the manner in which clouds are formed is beautifully illustrated by this:

watch?v=EpDDqGqN16s

This work was suppressed by the alarmists, I wonder why?

[pondman27]

45:00

Sorry guys, but this is painful. It is true that clouds buffer ground temperatures, cooling them during the day & warming at night. But clouds from space are what colour! Thats right, they are white & so add to albido.

WE all like to bathe in the rays of the sun, buut on a cloudy day, the moisture content, increased potential of winds & breezes combine to provide cooling.

This is even more extreme during & after rainfall, when the re-evaporation of water from surfaces cools them to.

[pondman27]

41:40

Conversley we could also speculate that due to increased atmospheric energy that melts the ice, also causes more water to evaoprate from warmer climbs (esp. oceans). This increased atmospheric water, yields more clouds (the other dominant albido effect).

[pondman27]

40:28

The theory of tipping points assumes an enclosed system. The earth is no such thing, it is constantly in dynamic flux with each input of energy creating an almost equal and opposite force.

Water, the source of all living things is the translator of incoming radiation. The formation of clouds, the densest atmospheric gas & the most overwhelming in mass, is also a dipole (H+ H+ & O-) Now consider the interactions on the electromagnetic spectrum. Its all in the seed (cloud).

[pondman27]

The most alarming of energies that have the capacity to perturb the energy exchange mechanisms within the atmosphere have a great deal to do with geo-engineering & the deployment of ionospheric heating devices. See HAARP

[pondman27]

CO2, we are told absorbs the infra red. Hmmm... given its molecular weight, how much energy is it capable of absorbing? Since its mass is higher than surrounding gases, the vast majority descends to the earth, the little that is left (measured in parts per million or millimeters in a kilometer cannot hold that energy. It is a gas, not a solid. Sure it will be excited by those energies, but by that process re-releases the energy.

Research clouds, how they manifest.

[jlgilesrivera]

Pondman27, why do you ignore my comment about the mercury problem in Canada? What do you have to say about it?

The perennial ice is melting in an alarming rate. LOOK AT THE SATELLITE PICTURES that NASA has to offer.

Cut the theories for a moment (whatever they are), open your eyes, and SEE the empiric evidence.

[pondman27]

@jlgilesrivera

The events occuring within the Alaska region are the key to the anomolies you describe. I taje you are aware of the increased vulcanism taking place at the moment.

The mention of mercury, is however very significant in other ways. Mercury, well recognised as being a universal toxin, that is openly now advocated for injection into infants.

I monitor at very regular rates, the extent of ice & snow cover, but I am also well aware of who controls NASA.

[jlgilesrivera]

Are you suggesting the satellite images where you can clearly see the disappearance of gigantic iceshelves are photoshoped by NASA?

I´m not asking you who controls NASA. I only want to know if those images are real or not. (What evidence you´ve got if you say they aren´t?) If they are real, then there is no doubt the shelves are melting at an alarming rate.

[pondman27]

@jlgilesrivera

Not at all, the calving of ice from the peninsula is a seasonal event. It is these images that have been deployed to boulster the theory. But if you go & look at the antacrtic base stations, you'll find that they have to keep rebuilding them, why? because they are getting buried in snow & ice.

Check a little further & you will find that the antarctic ise has been growing.

[pondman27]

@jlgilesrivera

I should also ask, why you advocates of AGW never give due consideration to the most powerful local source of energy, or for that matter, why you fail to learn of the influence of an even greater influence, the cosmos itself.

It really is quite funny the way, that through reliance upon a corrupted information system, you would rather place your reliance upon international agencies & thier sponsored cohorts who would use taxation! Its a scam friend, to deplete humanity/

[pondman27]

The "Al Gore ithms". Anyone that has worked with a spreadsheet, nows the subtleties of number juggling.

The strongest signals that we can observe as to what the climate will do, is to be close with the living within the natural world.

Solat activity is currently quiet with the influence of the galactic winds bringing in increased quantites of matter & energy. This is cyclical over vast periods of time, but currently the cause of Aquarius! bringng changes in weather. But there is something else

[jlgilesrivera]

Climate change is REAL. Inuits in Canada are having problems with mercury intoxication due to the high concentrations of that element found in the belugas. The mercury comes from the perennial melted ice, and has been increasing since the 90s. It´s FACT. It doesn´t matter how much evidence u r presented with, photos of icebergs melting, or if the CO2-temperature rise relation has been proved. Your childish denial somehow becomes a banner of "freedom". Typical, coming from an Ayn Rand follower.

[pondman27]

@jlgilesrivera

I am amazed when entries such as your appear in the midst of one of the most extensive cold periods we are currently experiencing.

THe stupidity of suggesting that the planets biosphere is so fragile, completely ignores the oeverall energy equations.

Temperatures have been anything but constant over the past 1,000 years. The Medieval warm period, the Maunder minimum.

The dominant temperature influencing gas is water & the quantity of cloud cover. Clouds are not what you think

[Nebbyker]

Wouldn't say that our weather system is all that stable...every few thousand years it goes through tremendous changes....such as most glaciers in temperate areas are little over 5,000 years old, that can be measured rather accurately with ice layer counting....also little over 10,000 years ago mammoths roamed siberia so there had to be tons of vegetation to support elephants that far north...so yea going hotter and colder is natural, but how fast the weather should change is debatable.

[pondman27]

@Nebbyker

There was indeed a great change at the end of the halocene. The extinction event in those times has left huge swathes of the destruction that occured.

[order9066]

Excellent discussion. Thank you.

[rongrite]

Yes, i think, CO2 is 1.5 time heavier than air.

It should be found in higher concentrations at a greater curvature, in the atmosphere.

There should be more of it,

closer to the ground, than high up in the atmosphere. If, the wind didn't blow it around.

[61shirley]

From what i can tell the CO2 has got caught in light and is weighing down the electromagnetics of the earth which has caused a reality surge in the space time matrix. thus global warming

[rongrite]

The AGW argument seems to be,

that the sudden flash of light (rise in CO2)

causes the tungsten to heat up, (the Earth)

which will cause electricity to run down the wire

and turn on the switch.

A rise in CO2, follows a rise in global temperatures, (the switch)

The sun is behaving strangely, though, lately,

like never before in recorded history. The sunspot cycle, which has been extremely accurate, has fallen out of its' predicted pattern. And this will effect the entire solar system.

[61shirley]

we are nature, what we do nature does. Power plants are nature, cars and planes are nature. The climate can sort its self out, it always does, it regulates its own balance. Nature knows exactly whats shes doing and where she wants to be and humans are the catalyst for that. Maybe we have been plucked out of biology by nature for a purpose, to build power stations, to build space ships and to seed the universe. Give your self over to the full force of the howling Tao

[worryphree]

I like you! However, I disagree that polluting is o.k. I KNOW anthropogenic global warming is a hoax, though. The reason humans are dysfunctional is because the human/angelic dna template got hijacked by Annunaki to create a slave race to mine gold. Reference: the Sumerian tablets, Essene, Zulu, L. Ron Hubbard, Celts, Cathars, Azurites, Hopi, etc, etc. These groups have been attacked because they hold the true history of the human race. Study how these groups have been persecuted in history.

[61shirley]

@worryphree i like you also. i am aware of the Annunaki and their operations and i feel like an idiot because i agree with you. i need to sort out my position. i tend to go with terence mckennas view of psychoactive plant use boosting human evolution and self conciousness. Over!!!!

[worryphree]

Copy that, 61shirley. Terrence McKenna was(is) a mega-genius. You might also enjoy Neil Slade. Neil is all about activating higher brain function for enhanced creativity and intuitive discernment. Anthropogenic global warming is NOT TRUE. Any time somebody tries to get you to BE AFRAID and tell you how you need to get with their PROGRAM, or else...! they are manipulating you through your basic survival instinct, which is housed in the reptilian portion of the brain. Activate frontal lobes!

[61shirley]

Brilliant!!!!! Ill check into him i think i need higher brain function. Man made climate change is to daft to laugh at. Check out my upload on my main page, i had flippin police at my door for filming in town.

Nice talkin to you, i might see you again sometime

[EFC100t]

Good vid thanks you guys are so much more compelling then the Al Gore crowd, most of them dont' even seem to care about anything but pushing thier agenda.

[rongrite]

The new economic system that will be imposed through public relations, will be, sort of like, everybody, working as hard as they can, to make the minimum payment, on their overdrawn carbon-credit card.

...and if you can't make that minimum payment, you can't buy, or possibly even sell,

anything. It's a pity it didn't warm up, cause now we got to put up with all these draconian changes, in

every facet of our lives. for a defunct reason that has been so obviously fabricated.

A.G.W.

[mcompany97]

Water Vapor is a much bigger factor in warming than CO2, but nobody wants to talk about that.

[Valelacerte]

Isn't it rather human to accept the theory that requires no change or action on our part?

if we accept the idea, that our massive, and ever increasing, consumption, pollution, and population, is having no influence on climate, then we don't have to do anything. Whereas if we consider the billions of vehicles, power stations, factories, and limited resources, we might have to stop reproducing and consuming at such a frightening rate.

What are the ethics and morality concerning consumption?

[sharperguy]

I'm actually wondering what a good free market solution would be to the current view of global warming if it was proven to be true.

I'm sure there would be one.

[EvolFighter]

What's the rise in human population's relationship to this argument?

Learning about the information around global warming, what does the yellow sky above Los Angeles or Delhi mean with regard to human health? Aside from the effects of the atmosphere above these large metropolises leading to global warming, are the places where there are high CO2 emissions good places for people to live?

[freesk8]

Hey Stef, this is a great show!

This stuff really needs to get out there.

Now that we know that the sky is not falling, why not do a show on another impending disaster: the possibility of the collapse of the US dollar, or hyperinflation?

You could interview Peter Schiff, Jim Rogers, or some Austrian school economist.

[zoticus1]

carbon dioxide is a result of the living creatures recycling other life.

It is neutral in the earth cycle

Plants cannot emit more than they consume,same for humans

DUH!

[PsyogiBottoms]

Yeah - If only it was Carbon Monoxide = then maybe we could have something real.

But CO2? The building blocks of life on Earth?...yeah...pretty weak.

[anakin005]

Well according to Danny Glover, the earthquake in Haiti was caused by global warming!

[anarkoFred]

Glover really said that ?! lol ! Where did you find that ?

[ks100001]

I think many actors have the same problem. If someone doesn't tell them what to say, they tend to say really stupid things.

=)

[DCLugi]

As an actor I can tell you that you are correct. Even this was written for me. Even that...and that...

[ks100001]

Aw... I did say *many* actors - not all actors. =)

[603881]

great audio stef, thanks for the show

[Entropy56]

With careful editing (zooming), you could eliminate Warren rocking in his chair.

[deadman12078]

Gave the vidoe a nice relaxed feeling. I was rocking in my chair the entire video. :)

Thank you for the interview.

[adorianvlad]

The best example of the unreliability of the data resulted from the research on the global temperatures is, if you remember in the 90's the ozone hole above Antarctica which was proven insignificant since there is no more such a problem, since the ozon layer has been since, recovered by itself.

Science research on a global scale has no credibility whatsoever.

Scientists can't seem to be able to figure out whether drinking coffee is good or detrimental for someone's health.

[chris3443]

5 stars

[garym33]

Just started watching and maybe I should wait to post, but I saw a report last week that out of the 13,000 "scientists" that agree with the climate change theory, only 35 or so were climatologists, the rest were scientists but from other disciplines. And now this guy is a background in mechanical and aerospace engineering. It kinda has a little less hitting power, can we not here from a climatologist that has a disagreement with the current theory.

[lukeev]

@garym333 Thing is, I imagine most climatologists are paid on government salaries/grants — which are going to those researching climate change, thus incentive is towards alarmism. For example, the IPCC wouldn't EXIST if they basically concluded "there's nothing to see here, folks!" They're only paid if climate change is a real & scary prospect, so they'll take the money & subtly manipulate the data. The funding is 99% biased in one direction, so the sceptics have an immediate uphill battle.

[MarmaladeINFP]

That is a possibility, but it equally applies to many other areas of research. Most medical research could be considered alarmist. The area of research that gets the most funding is military-related and it is entirely motivated by fear. Even so, there is a more obvious weakness to your argument. There are climatologists from around the world funded by diverse organizations public and private. It would take a vast conspiracy to get all of these climatologists to be biased in the exact same way.

[Xaeryx]

Dr William Schlesinger (a biogeochemist and proponent of the IPCC) has claimed that only around 20% of IPCC panel members have had any dealing with climate science. Not to mention the very director of the IPCC is an economist with knowledge of railway engineering. It's madness!

[zalida100]

Hi Garym33 - It depends who writes the "report" you read.

If you're looking for a climatologist - lookup John Christy or Bob Carter on you tube. they have given many good lectures.

Lord Christopher Monckton is a pretty good speaker too on the subject.

AS for scientists agreeing - if you do some reading/viewing you'll find out what those numbers actually are.

lukeev has given you a good response about how the "machine" works.

Have fun

Cheers

[1schwererziehbar1]

instant favorite.

[worryphree]

The ACTUAL climate data shows a cooling trend for the past 16 years. Arctic ice has actually INCREASED. Al Gore's film was shot full of holes in a UK court that found many factual errors. Now, the coldest winter in Great Britain in 30 years, and record low temps in many places. The elite ruling families of earth(Illuminati) want to impose global carbon tax as a stepping stone to one world govt. Attendant to this will be a world army, world bank, world police, a cashless society with a...

[worryphree]

...microchipped population, connected to a global computer network. These microchips will be implanted under the skin, and will contain all personal data, such as medical records, bank info., etc. This is about tracking every move you make. If you dissent, they simply turn off your credit. You cannot buy food. The good news is you don't have to go along with it. Be very skeptical of ANY govt. pronouncements. Remember the swine flu scare? Look at the ingredients of the vaccine and research it.

[JejuLee]

@worryphree

Amazing that we continue to allow disinformation (of all kinds), thus enabling the psychopaths (Goldman Sachs employees and their peers) to profit by it.

You have to love the way China handles some things; I think we should just execute anyone determined to be misinforming the public for their own private profit. Simply execute them. Go China!

[worryphree]

...a cashless society, with microchipped population, tied to a global computer network. This means the tracking of every step you take. Every purchase of goods and services will be handled by credit, via the chip. Any dissenters will simply have their credit turned off, and will not be able to purchase food. Under the Lisbon treaty, the main funding of govt. will be a "carbon tax." Does that seem like a good motive to discredit GW skeptics? TV is hypnotism!

[lukeev]

Great video Stefan!

[Ueichen]

long video is loooooong

but interesting

[RLore18]

I can't believe your first video on the climategate conference wasn't enough to debunk climate change. So after the whole thing is shown to be a political feeding trough everyone still asks "well I dunno maybe it's real?" XD

[regresseur]

English, please.

[garytheagnostic]

It's good to hear an actual scientific opposition to global warming instead of your typical far right fundy screaming foul. There is a lot of merit to what Warren is saying. However, manbearpig is real though. XP

[TehGhoul]

@garytheagnostic Yeah it would be nice if Stef remained a little bit more objective in his videos. Still this one was good.

[regresseur]

There's no good reason to be objective over the religion that is global warming.

A global warming alarmist on the Climategate e-mails: "They're being taken out of context." LOOK FAMILIAR??????

[regresseur]

Thanks for letting everyone know that there is "a lot of merit" to what Warren Meyer says in this video. You are significant.

[takotheoktopus]

@garytheagnostic

Warren Meyer isn't a published climate scientist, his so called scientific research is suspect. He cherry picks in order to support a preconceived position. He doesn't even attempt to gain an understanding of the state of the science on this issue without exposing his biased. 98% of people actually working on the problem agree. The body of evidence has been thoroughly studied and analyzed in peer review journals by more then a thousand credible scientists in related fields

[pondman27]

@takotheoktopus

Given that the advocates of CO2 induced AGW (athropological globla warming) are to be found within the industries & academic institutes that receive reward fro promoting it, the claim that the body of evidence produced by such entities has lost its validity.

The climate changes, that is not in question. But the insanity to claim that a trace gas is responsible is tantamount to denying the existence of the sun & cosmos.

[ToastMyBoy]

Yeah! :-)