try to imagine that the national academy and nasa are aware that cavemen did not have suvs. ask yourself if that is really a rational objection to the science, or just an indication of something you have not learned.
the ice ages came and went due to orbital factors, described here -
@greenman3610 Also warming periods came and went without man's influence. Try to imagine not only orbital factors but Solar factors. Remember co2 is a mere result of warming caused by our Sun. Meanwhile our Planet still cools abruptly.
There were forest fires before humans existed, ships sank before Pearl Harbor was bombed, so what? Just because A caused B doesn't mean that B is always caused by A. CO2 and warming are a positive feedback loop. More CO2 means more heat which produces more CO2. Sometimes heating is caused by other forces so CO2 lags. In other cases CO2 is the main force so temperatures lag. Try looking for and UNDERSTANDING sources that disagree with you before posting such nonsense.
@facelessone86 More rubbish spouted from a dim wit. Try looking up negative feedback and try to understand what that means to the climate system. Your positive feedback loop in a chaotic climate system is utter nonsense. When do we burn up then? LOL
Please present a link to a recent peer reviewed paper that shows negative feedback effects in climate change.
There are plenty that show positive feedback.
Try Vostok ice core provides 160,000-year record of atmospheric CO2; JM Barnola, D Raynaud, YS Korotkevich" 2011
or
Positive feedback between global warming and atmospheric CO2 concentration inferred from past climate change; M Scheffer, V Brovkin - Geophysical Research Letters, 2006
@Herecomesthefatlady Oh I am blinded with science NOT . Anyone with a little common sense will realise that clouds provide a negative feedback to the system. No pal review required. Please to back and reponder the insignificant effects of the minor trace gas (co2). I really get the feeling that I am dealing with a bunch of lunatics. Have you any idea of the magnitude of the other forces driving the climate? The trace gas is so insignificant that it is not even worth a mention.
Not a single peer-reviewed paper to back up your opinion.
Opinion is not science.
By the way, "Observational and model evidence for positive low-level cloud feedback, AC Clement, R Burgman, 2011" and several other papers show that clouds have a net positive feedback on warming.
Also by the way, a trace of something can be very potent. Try a glass of water with a trace of strychnine in if you don't think so.
@Herecomesthefatlady No research gravy train mentioned , just honest science. We are dealing with the climate system and not a living organic being, therefore there is no comparison and to me a frace gas is a trace gas. It cannot be the primary driver of our climate, please don't make me laugh. Will you stop parroting scientific shite!
@Herecomesthefatlady You are a parrot! why don't you do some thinking for yourself? and stop letting others do the thinking for you. I take back the scientific. Pure shite will do for some of these excuses for papers.
@8thRRFS roughly 75,000 years ago there was what is called the 'toba catastrophe'. a large volcanoe going off in indonesia. in theory this could have spewed trillions of tons of SO2 into the atmosphere cooling off the planet. it may have stayed suspended in the atmosphere for tens of thousands of years. eventually it would have rained out and alowed the planet to warm again. this is only one theory but is a good one.
Geez, Michael Coren has climate discussion on his show? I guess he's serious about importing the rightwingnut agenda to Canada ( except he's a pope-worshipper, not an evangelical )
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...
Latest news on NOVA-Dinosaurs thrived in Alaska, even though it was closer to the north pole than today. 70 million years ago the average temperature in alaska was 40 degrees warmer than today, clearly indicating a cooling trend in the bigger picture-millions of years trump 120 years all day long. Another nail in the g.w. myth coffin. Have a nice day. R.I.P. G.W. 2011!
@greenman3610 Need for history lesson watch nova-arctic dinosaurs and learn how much hotter the earth was 70 million years ago, and even hotter 200 million years aga, obviously in the big picture the earth is cooling. Your arrogance will bring u down!
Interesting how this video invites rational dialog, and then paints all people who aren't immediately on board with the man made climate change as greedy, selfish people. The tie-in with with the phantom of the opera at the end perfectly reflected this. I am neither greedy nor selfish, but I do require more data before I come to such a conclusion. If you'd actually create a legitimate forum where we could all sit down and really talk about it, you might help people see your side. Just sayin.
I'm just sayin, the most highly visible voices in the climate denial community, are, as demonstrated by inarguable variance between their statements and reality as shown here, either ignoramuses, or liars, or both.
If you want to have a discussion, start by justifying the behavior you see in this video.
@greenman3610 You've already painted me into a side by ordering me to defend a position that you've already gone to great attempts to marginalize and demean. So I'm not going to do as you ask. I'm not saying that these people aren't liars, or crooks. I'm sure there's all kinds of political agendas at play on both sides. I do believe that the earth is experiencing climate change, but I don't believe that man is the biggest cause. I still think we need to find new sources of fuel, though.
@therealdrv The biggest thing for me to put a big question mark on the man-made climate change issue are all the articles I've read and pictures I've seen of all the other planets of our solar system also showing signs of climate change. This suggests that the main influence of global warming is the Sun. So maybe that's true. Maybe it's part of the denial system, but the point is I don't know for sure. So I can't come to a conclusion without more data. If you're curious, just do some googling.
@greenman3610 I respect your position, but I do feel it important to point out that you still aren't inviting any sort of discussion or dialog. You're just telling me that I'm wrong. In my opinion, this is why the fight is as bitter as it is. I don't judge you, man. I just read different information than you. Maybe I AM being duped... maybe I'm not. I am simply being open. In the end, we shall find out the truth... so I personally don't feel any need to pick a side on this issue. Take care.
You made a statement that you think there is warming on other planets, and therefore maybe there is a solar component.
You can hear one of the leading climate scientists answer that question here.
watch?v=L2m9SNzxJJA
you, like the congressman here, might not like the answer, but it is what it is.
You can search youtube for someone who will feed your denial, and you 'll find them, but if you expect me to tell you some fib so you'll feel better, I'd say try Oprah.
@greenman3610 You don't need to be insulting, Mr. Greenman. I've done nothing to attack your position, or you. I'm simply remaining open-minded. I don't quite understand your hostility at such a position, but being a douche bag really isn't going to help steer me into your camp. Good day.
@greenman3610 Actually, it's your snooty attitude behind what you were sharing that turned me off. All of your little oprah, and bamboozle remarks were unnecessary. I would have been more open to your video link and feedback if you'd actually been a helpful person about it. But seem to get your kicks out of being an ass, and treating me like an enemy, so why the heck should I really listen to anything you say? Seems like the only comments you really want ones that fully agree with you. Sad.
@greenmanbucket Obviously you've never been on a debate team, or learned people skills, or how to effectively make points & counterpoints, or learned how to communicate information to make it accessible to people who don't already swoon to your condescending ego. I appreciate your apology, but your attitude doesn't piss me off. It just makes you look like a jackass. Especially when I've been consistently polite & professional and I would have been open to your info if you hadn't been a jackass.
So what is your solution, war with China ? Humans will continue to burn petroleum fuels and cut down rain forests. The genie is out of the bottle and WE WILL REAP THE WHRILWIND. The gold is control
By now it's apparent to the world that global warming due to manmade CO2 was nothing but a scam. I feel sorry for those who invested their reputation on the scam.
@txsray1 That's gotta be one of the most obviously self-delusional comments I've ever read. Keep saying it to yourself over and over again and maybe - if you convince enough people - it will become true, right? Wrong, sorry.
This German-Indian guy is just parroting the politically correct B.S.
CO2 has nothing to do with climate change! It has to do with photosynthesis!
Without CO2 we would all die!
Mojib Latif needs to check out Piers Corbyn! Unless Mojib accounts for the Sun as the dominant forcer, he will always have to add the exponential upward trend in order to fit the theory wile trying to explain the actual data.
I don't think any reputable scientist has tried to claim that we won't have cold, snowy winters. Bare in mind that most scientists consider an increase in yearly temperature of a few degrees to be very bad. For them to claim that there won't be snow would be hyperbole.
A number of liberal media outlets are fond of that kind of Hyperbole. But then, lets call it what it is: don't try to attribute the statements made in nonscientific sources to scientists.
The climate has changed on the planet for billions of years.In the seventies they said there would be global cooling,now it's global warming.If global warming was real most scientists would be on the same page,but their not.In a few billion years you will see some real climate change when the sun fries the earth(of course we will kill each other before then)but whatever.It's just more scaremongering to introduce another tax by the ruling elite.Doom and gloom works a treat.Pay up slaves!
It’s never been about "saving the planet" and it’s not about clean air or water, it IS about control. Control of how you live your life, the food you eat, the # of kids you can have, the house you can live in & the job that you are allowed. The ECO elitist will still live in their mansion, fly their private jet and have a 20x higher electric bill than you do. They will not stop their life style. Their agenda is “We can run your life better and more efficiently than you so shut-up"
@Rovinpiper when point out the trillions that he wants spent on a bogus problem of AGW greenman brings up extraneous factors that have to to be refuted. The "green" technologies that he wants to use to replace our present energy sources can on do the job and are extremely expensive and will force a sever reduction in the standard of living.
Denmark uses far less energy per capita, gets 20 percent of its energy from wind, and has a standard of living that most Americans would find comfortable, if not enviable. They are consistently polled as being the happiest people on earth, and Forbes magazine has named the country "the best place to do business in the world" twice, ahead of the US.
Meanwhile, you need only look at the US economy to see what addiction to fossil fuels has done to us.
The 20% number is only the peak power it has been as low a 5% and averages 10% over the last 5 years. The tax rate of Demark is the highest in Europe and runs between 50 to 60%. The subsidy for wind power is ~500M per year and makes each wind worker subsidized to the tune of $140,000. This economic distortion by the government pushes 100’s of business out and 1000’s never to start. So let’s keep the buggy whips, wind generators, industry going no matter what it costs the tax payer
I missed the part where you refuted the view of 97% of climate scientists that global warming is real and anthropogenic. (Doran, 2009) and (Anderegg, 2010)
I also missed where you refuted the view of a majority of economists that global warming poses a threat to the economy. (Institute for Policy Integrity, Economists and Climate Change: Consensus and Open Questions)
Global warming itself threatens to reduce our standard of living, why do you think renewable energy is worse?
Do you mean the earths temps will be back at the time before the Little Ice Age that’s great! The Holocene warm period, a prolonged warming period than was warmer and longer then the Medieval Warming Period, was a great time of development for knowledge, technology and the Human condition. Northern Canada and Siberia will be opened up to farming, development and settlement. An ice free North West passage would save billions in transportation costs. Bring on the warming!!!
@Rovinpiper The economic divisions of CATO and Heritage do agree with me that having tens of millionsof acres of land that won’t be in a permanent icebox will raise food for billions of more people and provide an expand living space for them is a good thing. The Canadian grain belt extends to the permafrost line and has been producing grain for decades.
your 97% number is completely bogus and includes a majority of scientist that dispute AGW
Exposing bear rock or melting peat bog does not equate to opening up productive farm land - and we will potentially be losing production in some of the most productive grain belts in the world - see recent weather in Russia, Iowa, Argentina and Australia.
Also, the decline of "hide the decline" fame, applies to high latitudes in the Northern Hemisphere. It's still poorly understood but the decline in the growth of trees is believed to be linked to drought, which may be GW induced, and/or nitrogen deposition, which is a result of the burning of fossil fuels.
So, the poverty of the soils AND the same wastes that cause the warming will attenuate any benefits from new land being opened by global warming.
The CATO Institute and the Heritage Foundation are conservative think tanks. I'm not impressed that they agree with you.
The paper that I cited shows US economists in general disagreeing with you and the your think tanks. It's titled "Economists and Climate Change: Consensus and Open Questions"
I got my 97% figure from two papers published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences and EOS Transactions, American Geophysical Union. Did you read them? Why are they bogus?
@Rovinpiper you have quoted far left wing sources that or Theodore Kaczynski or James Jay Lee use. There are over 10K scientist that are on record apposing AGW.
The grain belt at present extends into Canada goes for 100's of miles north of the US border. being able to extend that going area to the Arctic circle would open up would give Canada equal production capacity that the US has now.
Are you Canadian? I'm American and I see a lot of us who are going to lose out in this thing. Norfolk, VA is squeezed between sea level rise and land subsidence. The US southwest has a chronic water crisis. Oyster farmers are experiencing losses from ocean acidification. That and warming cause increased bleaching in reefs near FL and around the world. Reefs support the fisheries upon which a great many people and economies depend.
It's more about slavery. The globalists nations (the west) want to get a total monopoly on oil, and at the same time outlaw the building of nuclear reactors in poor countries. It's a desperate bid to re-establish the sort of economic control they used to have by currency manipulation. With the collapse of the dollar they had to find some other way to impose their control on the world.
97% of scientists agree with AGW theory (Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change; Doran, 2009), (Expert Credibility in Climate Change; Anderegg, 2010), and
@AndroidPolitician Ive tried and greenman has my emails which show my frustration with these people....You can tell them til you are blue in the face....they will still call you things like a "tree hugging communist".
Nah if you keep hammering them with "bahaha wow way to use the same 7 countries and incorrectly reading the Holocene Temp Variations, you look like the biggest idiot"
they'll crack.
Make sure to first point out that the "Medieval Warm Period" was way cooler then now, though!
@AndroidPolitician Well minus the insults...lol...I do tend to do that. But ....I picked a tough bunch of nuts to crack....Fox News viewers.....*sigh*....Stupid on those boards is a biblical plague.
oil will run out in 100 yrs...go home, chill out, smoke a spliff....computer models are CRAP and will show what ever you tell them to show. climate gate showed a manipulation of data. Wikileaks has shown a manipulation 3rd world countries. if the world was at 3,000ppm of co2 the temp would rise a max of 3 degrees, if anything. ive spent alot of my life studying geology, dont waste youre time global warming is a religion not a SCIENCE....a religion for people that don't understand SCIENCE!
Relevent industries have opposed all sorts of environmental protection. Whether its pollutants that cause acid rain, lead in gasoline that caused brain and neurological damage to children, CFCs that were damaging the protective ozone layer, cancer causing asbestos or formaldahyde, deforestation, health dangers of tobacco or CO2 that causes global warming, big industry has spent millions of dollars muddying the scientific discussion of these issues.
from "The Discovery of Global Warming" by Spencer Weart
*
the greenhouse gas effect was first proposed by Joseph Fourier in 1824, proven to exist by John Tyndall in 1858, and quantified by Svante Arrhenius in 1896.
*
But for Rush Limbaugh and the Republicans, tea baggers etc., Global Warming is just an agenda cooked up by Al Gore and other liberals. Oh, excuse me - socialists.
Wow! lots of ill informed comments here. For starters, if Al Gore and his socialist buddies must have a time machine. How else did they get scientists all the way back to 1824 to conspire with them on the green house effect.
Seriously. Science isn't decided by you and your friends sitting around the campfire, tavern, kitchen or whatever, giving your opinions on climate change. It isn't decided by right wing tv and radio talk show hosts. And it isn't decided by politicians.
Wow! lots of ill informed comments here. For starters, if Al Gore and his socialist buddies must have a time machine. How else did they get scientists all the way back to 1824 to conspire with them on the green house effect.
Seriously. Science isn't decided by you and your friends sitting around the campfire, tavern, kitchen or whatever, giving your opinions on climate change. It isn't decided by right wing tv and radio talk show hosts. And it isn't decided by politicians
GLOBAL WARMING IS REAL!! YOU HAVE TO PAY MONEY IF YOU WANT TO RUN BECAUSE YOU EXHALE TOO MUCH CO2!!!! YOU CAN'T DRIVE YOUR CAR!!! AND WE NEED TO KILL PEOPLE IN ORDER TO SAVE THE EARTH!!!
Sit on this one: youtube.com/watch?v=eO7lpuGa2pM They just came out admitting there is NO CLimate problem, just a way to redistribute our wealth.... in other words, to take YOUR money through taxation to send it to Africa and China and INDIA .... where these morons make deals to line their own pockets. Well, ot's been nice...
I'm reminded of the scare stories we were taught in school in the early 1970s. Then we were told the world's oceans would be "fished out" within 30 years, that "acid rain" meant the death of most tree species within our own lifetimes, and that all the world's oil would be entirely gone by the year 2000. That pollution was leading to global **cooling**.
Guess how all those turned out.
My favorite is Carson's "Silent Spring", that claimed pesticides meant the deaths of all the world's birds.
Notice the sleight of hand here? Just where does that blue line come from, wiggles and all, after 2010? How is it "derived from the 20th century" and projected forward a hundred years? How does one "predict" variability and present it as data? How does one add one curve to another and get the same exponentially rising slope you started with?
you did not listen to the video. That curve is not meant to be a prediction, but an example of what natural variation might look like, based on past experience.
Please re-watch the video. If you have further questions, let me know.
It would be nice if people like yourself could actually see some benefit in warming temperatures and higher CO2 levels. First off land based plant life is chemically starved of CO2 today, molecular biology today shows us that plants can tolerate (and grow sustantially more) in an atmosphere with higher CO2 concentrations. During the jurassic period, the entire planet had substanitally more biodiversity and plant life with substantially higher CO2 concentrations.
The only crock here is people like yourself promoting CO2 as some sort of pollutant, its one of natures most required molecules. More plant growth would also help with global starvation. From what i've read, in journals like nature, real world temperature data collected by satellites actually show the opposite of warming is occuring, which pretty much negates what all your bullshit models predicted.
people like myself, and the national academy of science, and, by the way
the American Institute of Biological Sciences.
sorry, I didn't make the science. We've had a hundred years of investigation of these issues, and history shows that rapid changes of this type lead to extinction events.
I don't need to justify myself or my opinions, its based on my training as a Plant molecular biologist. I don't claim to be a meteorologist, but i probrably have a better understanding of the scientific method than you, and in short models don't mean shit, real world data is what matters.
The biggest crock is that graph showing projections up to 2100. There are NO DATA, only computer models, that can justify that ever-increasing slope of the curve.
@jelink22 You got that right my friend. More accurate climate models are required. But just mentioning that fact somehow makes me a denialist to the brainwashed. This isn't science.
Please see the Climate Scientists' Register that the International Climate Science Coalition have created & has been endorsed by 137 climate experts since June 2010:
tinyurl[dot]com/2es3rqx
The Register states:
“We, the undersigned, having assessed the relevant scientific evidence, do not find convincing support for the hypothesis that human emissions of carbon dioxide are causing, or will in the foreseeable future cause, dangerous global warming."
97% of all homosexuals prefer homosexuals as partners. 97% of all corrupt government employees prefer corrupted government employees as partners. 97% of published climate scientists prefer published climate scientists as partners.
@PissedFechtmeister Maybe people say climate denier, because reason 1.. Any sane person will know what they mean (then again there is loads os idiots who believe fox news). Reason 2.. Since replies have to be less then 500 characters explaining things that only a moron would argue over is a waste of characters.
@nigelelsass It's been a politicized issue since the late 80s to early 90s. Your attempt to score some sort of victory based on a quibble with dates is laughable, but very typical of leftists in this movement.
@greenman3610 Lol! Found *your* video impossible to understand? Yes, I'm sure you imagine yourself to be so superior to your fellow human beings that we don't stand a chance of comprehending your high-minded works. Must be fun living in your make believe world.
@greenman3610 How accurate is that graph where you fit the temperature data to a line? Does anybody think that the temperatures are increasing linearly (statiscally speaking)?
Do you realize that this right-wing opposition is characterstic of the US and does not reflect the world as a whole? Thanks God, we right wingers abroad are intellectually not as narrow as US ones. I recommend the speech of Margareth Thatcher on global warming. The huge majority of right wing scientists acknowledge Anthropogenic Global Warming.
@applefrog111 : You mean like the work of Pierre and Marie Curie, Joseph Fourrier, Coulomb, Lavoisier, Becquerel, etc? not big fan of them however I respect scientists
I apologize i was joking, making fun of climate deniers who basically say one small part of a video is not entirely accurate thus everything said is inaccurate.
@PissedFechtmeister You clearly don't understand hilarious jokes, sigh. Nobody denies climate (I don't know maybe a conspiracy theorist) What i was referring to was a person who doesn't believe in global warming.... Are you happy now?
@applefrog111 Another strawman since just about everybody believes in global warming. I think the phrase you're looking for in Anthropogenic Global Warming Skeptic (the use of the word "denier" is used to conjure images of Holocaust Denier).
Actually, I prefer denialist, which includes the connotation of holocaust denier and racist, as well as rhyming with "nihilist", which is also appropriate.
Watch these comments long enough, and you'll see why I feel that way.
There's no shortage of nutjobs who will lie to you on the internet, but the harsh truth is that 97 percent of actual, working, publishing climate scientists tell us there is a problem.
I report that. The video here is a perfect example, in that I play the actual words of the scientists, alongside the obvious distortions.
@greenman3610 97 percent eh? Funny because 97 percent of all statistics are made up. But even if it is true, it's meaningless. Scientific truth is not decided by votes.
@PissedFechtmeister actually you were correct to disbelieve gm on his comment. the doran poll question asked if man significantly changes the climate. in science significant means being able to be measured and unlikely to be random chance. it doesn't specify there is a problem. it doesn't specify a source. it doesn't specify most or at least half or even a large amount. it is a worthless question that people have been making up meanings for every since
@capemall He claims it's 97% of climate scientists, but it's only 97% of the 77 who responded in the question who also publish at least 50% of their work in climate science.But like I said, it wouldn't even matter if 100% of the people on the planet believed it. truth is not determined by a popularity contest. The only reason to think that humans are responsible are the computer models, and the models are inadequte in many ways.
@greenman3610 My claim is based on the survey that you mentioned. I Googled it and read it. Anyone can do the same. Out of the 3146 scientists surveyed 82% agreed that humans impact is a significant factor in climate change. The 97% figure comes from the scientists who self-identify as climate scientists and have published at least half their papers in the past 5 years on climte science. There were only 79 of them and two didn't answer the question. Of the remaining 77, 75 agreed.
I never said a lot of people do, i was just referring to the people who do, All my posts with exception to the last to have been more or less jokes anyway, i doubt anyone really would take my comments seriously in this case at least.
@greenman3610 I think it's unfair to say that when most of the people you talk about (Whatever you wish to call them) are probably not racist, i think the racist ons just stand out more, also for some reason racists are attractedToTheInternet
I'll tell you another secret. Notice how all left wingers are usually skinnier smaller, more effeminiate? ITs cos the're failed women!!! Rejected by nature!
I note you write in French. They can surrender to your arguments then, like they surrender to everything else.
Also, I want to set the record straight and tell you a secret. Us right wingers really hold the environment in contempt, and we have big egos, so we want to crush the environment along the lines of our willpower. We don't care if this stuffs everything up or how many species go extinct. I just wanted you to know this.
@greenman3610 I wanted you to know so you could winge about it in another video since you have made about 80 videos moaning about this non issue. I wanted to give you something else to moan, possibly cry about, with the metrosexual French. Just remember. Us big boys with big toys are gonna shoot up the environement and we aren't going away neither! ahahaha.
You know what the consequence is? The US will be hate for 2 or 3 centuries and will have therefore extremely low chances of survival as a nation... please proceed, it will be highly amusing for the republican party to "score higher" in number of direct and indirect deaths than the USSR commie party and the third reich combined....
the philosophy inherent to the last minute is not one apparant in the attitudes of AGW hysteria promotors. The CRU sought to marginalize dissenters and keep full statistical data from view of their peers.
Even the labelling of the opposition as "deniers" shows you are not willing to review the facts.
Oh and GREED was an interesting term. You mean like Al Gore?
i would like to see a graph of temperetures over a period of 100,000 years and not a stupid pointless graph over 100 like this one.. 100 years is a mere blip in the life of this planet any one with half a brain can see this. the earth goes threw many cycles..... it warms.....it cools.... explain the ice age and why it decliened !!! stop being so thick people
I guess I need to post an advisory that posters should probably watch all the videos before posting, so as not to make idiots out of themselves like you just did.
take a look at a graph showing more than just 100 years of information. it is insane to think you can use 100 years of info to predict the future climate. we are actualy in a cooling cycle at the moment expect colder temps for 20 to 30 years. you will see. then you will be the idiot
I don't know of anyone using "100 years to predict future climate".
The IPCC Chapter 6 on climate history goes back 55 million years.
Listen to Richard Alley's lecture to the American Geophysical Union, "The Biggest control knob", which covers a billion or so years.
The National Academy of Science has a downloadable book of earth history called the "Origin and Evolution of Earth", that covers 4 billion years or so.
He won't read. Millions like him won't read. I've debated constantly, and I've even met people who flat out tell me (after I've debunked denier point after denier point) they don't care because they think they'll be dead before it gets too bad. Ironically, people who admit this sort of stuff to me are exactly the kinds of people who complain about big government and spending because they care so much about future generations lol.
I met a man yesterday who was collecting signatures to get the Libertarian Party on the ballot this fall. He argued for zero government involvement in the lives of citizens.
.
When I asked him to consider the need for government to protect the people of Appalachia against the likes of Massey Energy, he actually said (loudly), "I don't CARE about those people!" Further comments reinforced his selfish views.
This just in:
Real science is determined by what doesn't make david222444 laugh. Who needs peer-review when you have a system like that?
facelessone86 2 months ago
Wonderful work Greenman. Thank you.
Herecomesthefatlady 2 months ago
@Herecomesthefatlady
you're welcome.
plenty more to come.
greenman3610 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
How did the last ice age end 10K years ago? Were the cavemen driving around in their SUVs putting out too much co2? Just asking.
8thRRFS 4 months ago
@8thRRFS
try to imagine that the national academy and nasa are aware that cavemen did not have suvs. ask yourself if that is really a rational objection to the science, or just an indication of something you have not learned.
the ice ages came and went due to orbital factors, described here -
watch?v=L2m9SNzxJJA
and
watch?v=8nrvrkVBt24
greenman3610 4 months ago
@greenman3610 OK global warming/global cooling is caused by astronomical phenomena, not human activity. Thank you for agreeing with me.
8thRRFS 4 months ago
@8thRRFS
the problem for you is, we can observe those orbital dynamics, and we know they are not responsible for current warming. see
watch?v=L2m9SNzxJJA
greenman3610 2 months ago
@greenman3610 Also warming periods came and went without man's influence. Try to imagine not only orbital factors but Solar factors. Remember co2 is a mere result of warming caused by our Sun. Meanwhile our Planet still cools abruptly.
david222444 3 months ago
@david222444
There were forest fires before humans existed, ships sank before Pearl Harbor was bombed, so what? Just because A caused B doesn't mean that B is always caused by A. CO2 and warming are a positive feedback loop. More CO2 means more heat which produces more CO2. Sometimes heating is caused by other forces so CO2 lags. In other cases CO2 is the main force so temperatures lag. Try looking for and UNDERSTANDING sources that disagree with you before posting such nonsense.
facelessone86 2 months ago
@facelessone86 More rubbish spouted from a dim wit. Try looking up negative feedback and try to understand what that means to the climate system. Your positive feedback loop in a chaotic climate system is utter nonsense. When do we burn up then? LOL
david222444 2 months ago
david222444
Please present a link to a recent peer reviewed paper that shows negative feedback effects in climate change.
There are plenty that show positive feedback.
Try Vostok ice core provides 160,000-year record of atmospheric CO2; JM Barnola, D Raynaud, YS Korotkevich" 2011
or
Positive feedback between global warming and atmospheric CO2 concentration inferred from past climate change; M Scheffer, V Brovkin - Geophysical Research Letters, 2006
Herecomesthefatlady 2 months ago
@Herecomesthefatlady Oh I am blinded with science NOT . Anyone with a little common sense will realise that clouds provide a negative feedback to the system. No pal review required. Please to back and reponder the insignificant effects of the minor trace gas (co2). I really get the feeling that I am dealing with a bunch of lunatics. Have you any idea of the magnitude of the other forces driving the climate? The trace gas is so insignificant that it is not even worth a mention.
david222444 2 months ago
david222444
Not a single peer-reviewed paper to back up your opinion.
Opinion is not science.
By the way, "Observational and model evidence for positive low-level cloud feedback, AC Clement, R Burgman, 2011" and several other papers show that clouds have a net positive feedback on warming.
Also by the way, a trace of something can be very potent. Try a glass of water with a trace of strychnine in if you don't think so.
Herecomesthefatlady 2 months ago
@Herecomesthefatlady No research gravy train mentioned , just honest science. We are dealing with the climate system and not a living organic being, therefore there is no comparison and to me a frace gas is a trace gas. It cannot be the primary driver of our climate, please don't make me laugh. Will you stop parroting scientific shite!
david222444 2 months ago
david222444
I'll only stop referencing scientific papers when you stop typing on a computer that came about as a result of "scientific shite".
Herecomesthefatlady 2 months ago
@Herecomesthefatlady You are a parrot! why don't you do some thinking for yourself? and stop letting others do the thinking for you. I take back the scientific. Pure shite will do for some of these excuses for papers.
david222444 2 months ago
@8thRRFS roughly 75,000 years ago there was what is called the 'toba catastrophe'. a large volcanoe going off in indonesia. in theory this could have spewed trillions of tons of SO2 into the atmosphere cooling off the planet. it may have stayed suspended in the atmosphere for tens of thousands of years. eventually it would have rained out and alowed the planet to warm again. this is only one theory but is a good one.
vengencefrom1979 3 months ago
Geez, Michael Coren has climate discussion on his show? I guess he's serious about importing the rightwingnut agenda to Canada ( except he's a pope-worshipper, not an evangelical )
bannor99 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
Latest news on NOVA-Dinosaurs thrived in Alaska, even though it was closer to the north pole than today. 70 million years ago the average temperature in alaska was 40 degrees warmer than today, clearly indicating a cooling trend in the bigger picture-millions of years trump 120 years all day long. Another nail in the g.w. myth coffin. Have a nice day. R.I.P. G.W. 2011!
harp1925 6 months ago
@harp1925
need for a history lesson.
never fear:
watch?v=uE6at2IEUOU
watch?v=ZGFAWzjO378
greenman3610 6 months ago
@greenman3610 Need for history lesson watch nova-arctic dinosaurs and learn how much hotter the earth was 70 million years ago, and even hotter 200 million years aga, obviously in the big picture the earth is cooling. Your arrogance will bring u down!
harp1925 5 months ago
Interesting how this video invites rational dialog, and then paints all people who aren't immediately on board with the man made climate change as greedy, selfish people. The tie-in with with the phantom of the opera at the end perfectly reflected this. I am neither greedy nor selfish, but I do require more data before I come to such a conclusion. If you'd actually create a legitimate forum where we could all sit down and really talk about it, you might help people see your side. Just sayin.
therealdrv 7 months ago
@therealdrv
I'm just sayin, the most highly visible voices in the climate denial community, are, as demonstrated by inarguable variance between their statements and reality as shown here, either ignoramuses, or liars, or both.
If you want to have a discussion, start by justifying the behavior you see in this video.
greenman3610 7 months ago
@greenman3610 You've already painted me into a side by ordering me to defend a position that you've already gone to great attempts to marginalize and demean. So I'm not going to do as you ask. I'm not saying that these people aren't liars, or crooks. I'm sure there's all kinds of political agendas at play on both sides. I do believe that the earth is experiencing climate change, but I don't believe that man is the biggest cause. I still think we need to find new sources of fuel, though.
therealdrv 7 months ago
@therealdrv The biggest thing for me to put a big question mark on the man-made climate change issue are all the articles I've read and pictures I've seen of all the other planets of our solar system also showing signs of climate change. This suggests that the main influence of global warming is the Sun. So maybe that's true. Maybe it's part of the denial system, but the point is I don't know for sure. So I can't come to a conclusion without more data. If you're curious, just do some googling.
therealdrv 7 months ago
@therealdrv
"warming on other planets" -- see here. You are being bamboozled.
watch?v=BSXgiml5UwM
greenman3610 7 months ago
@greenman3610 I respect your position, but I do feel it important to point out that you still aren't inviting any sort of discussion or dialog. You're just telling me that I'm wrong. In my opinion, this is why the fight is as bitter as it is. I don't judge you, man. I just read different information than you. Maybe I AM being duped... maybe I'm not. I am simply being open. In the end, we shall find out the truth... so I personally don't feel any need to pick a side on this issue. Take care.
therealdrv 7 months ago
@therealdrv
You made a statement that you think there is warming on other planets, and therefore maybe there is a solar component.
You can hear one of the leading climate scientists answer that question here.
watch?v=L2m9SNzxJJA
you, like the congressman here, might not like the answer, but it is what it is.
You can search youtube for someone who will feed your denial, and you 'll find them, but if you expect me to tell you some fib so you'll feel better, I'd say try Oprah.
greenman3610 7 months ago
@greenman3610 You don't need to be insulting, Mr. Greenman. I've done nothing to attack your position, or you. I'm simply remaining open-minded. I don't quite understand your hostility at such a position, but being a douche bag really isn't going to help steer me into your camp. Good day.
therealdrv 7 months ago
@therealdrv
If telling the truth is what you call douche baggery, then that's me.
Again, I'm sure you can find plenty of nice people to lie to you.
greenman3610 7 months ago
@greenman3610 Actually, it's your snooty attitude behind what you were sharing that turned me off. All of your little oprah, and bamboozle remarks were unnecessary. I would have been more open to your video link and feedback if you'd actually been a helpful person about it. But seem to get your kicks out of being an ass, and treating me like an enemy, so why the heck should I really listen to anything you say? Seems like the only comments you really want ones that fully agree with you. Sad.
therealdrv 7 months ago
@therealdrv
obviously you've never had a football coach.
"you're mean, therefore nah nah nah I can't hear you."
People are already dying from this, and the toll in the future will be potentially in the billions.
I'm setting you straight, and it pisses you off. sorry.
greenmanbucket 7 months ago
@greenmanbucket Obviously you've never been on a debate team, or learned people skills, or how to effectively make points & counterpoints, or learned how to communicate information to make it accessible to people who don't already swoon to your condescending ego. I appreciate your apology, but your attitude doesn't piss me off. It just makes you look like a jackass. Especially when I've been consistently polite & professional and I would have been open to your info if you hadn't been a jackass.
therealdrv 7 months ago
@therealdrv
actually I'm very good at debate, because I always come armed with the facts.
It does make some people angry at me.
What I wouldn't be good at, would be, like, selling used cars.
I just can't lie to people that way.
sorry.
greenman3610 7 months ago
that graph superimposition is the scariest thing i've seen in a while.
Plomomedia 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I present The Quick Glance Guide to Global Warming Part A:
Denial: oi52.tinypic.
com/35d2nie.jpg
Oceans: oi53.tinypic.
com/35b9g08.jpg
Thermometers: oi52.tinypic.
com/2agnous.jpg
Ice: oi52.tinypic.
com/2upvlvm.jpg
NikFromNYC 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I present The Quick Glance Guide to Global Warming Part B:
Earth: oi56.tinypic.
com/16ifevq.jpg
Authority: oi54.tinypic.
com/dny4nt.jpg
Prophecy: oi54.tinypic.
com/2hq5tae.jpg
Psychopathy: oi52.tinypic.
com/i56fsg.jpg
NikFromNYC 8 months ago
So what is your solution, war with China ? Humans will continue to burn petroleum fuels and cut down rain forests. The genie is out of the bottle and WE WILL REAP THE WHRILWIND. The gold is control
LerdoBurgerPimp 9 months ago
By now it's apparent to the world that global warming due to manmade CO2 was nothing but a scam. I feel sorry for those who invested their reputation on the scam.
They have now lost all credibility.
txsray1 11 months ago
@txsray1
It think this video makes it perfectly clear who is scamming and being scammed.
greenman3610 11 months ago
@txsray1 That's gotta be one of the most obviously self-delusional comments I've ever read. Keep saying it to yourself over and over again and maybe - if you convince enough people - it will become true, right? Wrong, sorry.
vicweb1978 11 months ago
@txsray1 You wouldn't be a ray of light from Texas by any chance? You know, like Dubya.
vjwebster 11 months ago
@greenman3612
This German-Indian guy is just parroting the politically correct B.S.
CO2 has nothing to do with climate change! It has to do with photosynthesis!
Without CO2 we would all die!
Mojib Latif needs to check out Piers Corbyn! Unless Mojib accounts for the Sun as the dominant forcer, he will always have to add the exponential upward trend in order to fit the theory wile trying to explain the actual data.
I make a prediction here!
We'll have 10yrs of cold and snowy winters!
judomagyar 11 months ago
@judomagyar
I don't think any reputable scientist has tried to claim that we won't have cold, snowy winters. Bare in mind that most scientists consider an increase in yearly temperature of a few degrees to be very bad. For them to claim that there won't be snow would be hyperbole.
A number of liberal media outlets are fond of that kind of Hyperbole. But then, lets call it what it is: don't try to attribute the statements made in nonscientific sources to scientists.
Kotszu 11 months ago
The clouds climate cooled by more in 2000 and Severn than a have warmed for whole of the 28th century
JonThm 1 year ago
The climate has changed on the planet for billions of years.In the seventies they said there would be global cooling,now it's global warming.If global warming was real most scientists would be on the same page,but their not.In a few billion years you will see some real climate change when the sun fries the earth(of course we will kill each other before then)but whatever.It's just more scaremongering to introduce another tax by the ruling elite.Doom and gloom works a treat.Pay up slaves!
wageslave333 1 year ago
@wageslave333
"seventies global cooling" nonsense
see here
watch?v=XB3S0fnOr0M
greenman3610 1 year ago
It’s never been about "saving the planet" and it’s not about clean air or water, it IS about control. Control of how you live your life, the food you eat, the # of kids you can have, the house you can live in & the job that you are allowed. The ECO elitist will still live in their mansion, fly their private jet and have a 20x higher electric bill than you do. They will not stop their life style. Their agenda is “We can run your life better and more efficiently than you so shut-up"
cupera1 1 year ago
@cupera1
spending trillions of dollars on wars for oil, however, is all about freedom, right?
greenman3610 1 year ago
@greenman3610 with the 10's of trillions spent in this country on the war on poverty and made the problem worse.
watch THE MURDEROUS REIGN OF SADDAM HUSSEIN and listen to all the Iraqis that asked "what took you so long/
cupera1 11 months ago
@cupera1
sorry. people don't buy the Bush/Cheney line anymore, we know too much.
Cheney told us that WMD were real, and that climate change is not. People are waking up to the reality.
greenman3610 11 months ago
@cupera1
War on poverty? Saddam Hussein?
How did you get so preposterously off-topic?
Rovinpiper 10 months ago
@Rovinpiper when point out the trillions that he wants spent on a bogus problem of AGW greenman brings up extraneous factors that have to to be refuted. The "green" technologies that he wants to use to replace our present energy sources can on do the job and are extremely expensive and will force a sever reduction in the standard of living.
cupera1 10 months ago
@cupera1
Denmark uses far less energy per capita, gets 20 percent of its energy from wind, and has a standard of living that most Americans would find comfortable, if not enviable. They are consistently polled as being the happiest people on earth, and Forbes magazine has named the country "the best place to do business in the world" twice, ahead of the US.
Meanwhile, you need only look at the US economy to see what addiction to fossil fuels has done to us.
greenman3610 10 months ago
The 20% number is only the peak power it has been as low a 5% and averages 10% over the last 5 years. The tax rate of Demark is the highest in Europe and runs between 50 to 60%. The subsidy for wind power is ~500M per year and makes each wind worker subsidized to the tune of $140,000. This economic distortion by the government pushes 100’s of business out and 1000’s never to start. So let’s keep the buggy whips, wind generators, industry going no matter what it costs the tax payer
cupera1 10 months ago
cupera
I missed the part where you refuted the view of 97% of climate scientists that global warming is real and anthropogenic. (Doran, 2009) and (Anderegg, 2010)
I also missed where you refuted the view of a majority of economists that global warming poses a threat to the economy. (Institute for Policy Integrity, Economists and Climate Change: Consensus and Open Questions)
Global warming itself threatens to reduce our standard of living, why do you think renewable energy is worse?
Rovinpiper 10 months ago
@Rovinpiper
Do you mean the earths temps will be back at the time before the Little Ice Age that’s great! The Holocene warm period, a prolonged warming period than was warmer and longer then the Medieval Warming Period, was a great time of development for knowledge, technology and the Human condition. Northern Canada and Siberia will be opened up to farming, development and settlement. An ice free North West passage would save billions in transportation costs. Bring on the warming!!!
cupera1 10 months ago
cupera
Economists don't seem to agree with you (Institute for Policy Integrity, Economists on Climate Change: Consensus and Open Questions).
Canada had most of its soil pushed south into the United States by glaciers, that's part of why we have the corn-belt. Soils don't develop overnight.
What's the benefit of ocean acidification?
What does sea-level rise mean for low-lying, agricultural river deltas already facing salinization problems?
Rovinpiper 10 months ago
@Rovinpiper The economic divisions of CATO and Heritage do agree with me that having tens of millionsof acres of land that won’t be in a permanent icebox will raise food for billions of more people and provide an expand living space for them is a good thing. The Canadian grain belt extends to the permafrost line and has been producing grain for decades.
your 97% number is completely bogus and includes a majority of scientist that dispute AGW
cupera1 10 months ago
@cupera1
CATO and Heritage? Credibility here is not high.
Exposing bear rock or melting peat bog does not equate to opening up productive farm land - and we will potentially be losing production in some of the most productive grain belts in the world - see recent weather in Russia, Iowa, Argentina and Australia.
greenman3610 10 months ago
greenman,
Quite right.
Also, the decline of "hide the decline" fame, applies to high latitudes in the Northern Hemisphere. It's still poorly understood but the decline in the growth of trees is believed to be linked to drought, which may be GW induced, and/or nitrogen deposition, which is a result of the burning of fossil fuels.
So, the poverty of the soils AND the same wastes that cause the warming will attenuate any benefits from new land being opened by global warming.
Rovinpiper 10 months ago
The CATO Institute and the Heritage Foundation are conservative think tanks. I'm not impressed that they agree with you.
The paper that I cited shows US economists in general disagreeing with you and the your think tanks. It's titled "Economists and Climate Change: Consensus and Open Questions"
I got my 97% figure from two papers published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences and EOS Transactions, American Geophysical Union. Did you read them? Why are they bogus?
Rovinpiper 10 months ago
@Rovinpiper you have quoted far left wing sources that or Theodore Kaczynski or James Jay Lee use. There are over 10K scientist that are on record apposing AGW.
The grain belt at present extends into Canada goes for 100's of miles north of the US border. being able to extend that going area to the Arctic circle would open up would give Canada equal production capacity that the US has now.
cupera1 10 months ago
cupera
Are you saying that the National Academy of Sciences and the American Geophysical Union are far-left sources?
Where are your 10k scientists? One such list is addressed here: watch?v=Py2XVILHUjQ
Rovinpiper 10 months ago
cupera
Are you Canadian? I'm American and I see a lot of us who are going to lose out in this thing. Norfolk, VA is squeezed between sea level rise and land subsidence. The US southwest has a chronic water crisis. Oyster farmers are experiencing losses from ocean acidification. That and warming cause increased bleaching in reefs near FL and around the world. Reefs support the fisheries upon which a great many people and economies depend.
Rovinpiper 10 months ago
@greenman3610
It's more about slavery. The globalists nations (the west) want to get a total monopoly on oil, and at the same time outlaw the building of nuclear reactors in poor countries. It's a desperate bid to re-establish the sort of economic control they used to have by currency manipulation. With the collapse of the dollar they had to find some other way to impose their control on the world.
Txsray 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@cupera1
As you said: "It’s never been about "saving the planet" and it’s not about clean air or water, it IS about control"
That's true at the top levels of the scam chain.
Further down it's about grants and sponsors and publicity.
Txsray 10 months ago
wageslave
Predictions of an imminent ice age in the 1970s were only by a handful of scientists.
It's explained here: watch?v=XB3S0fnOr0M&feature=channel_video_title
97% of scientists agree with AGW theory (Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change; Doran, 2009), (Expert Credibility in Climate Change; Anderegg, 2010), and
Rovinpiper 10 months ago
Every time I hear Becks voice or see his face...I wanna puke!
Dt0x75 1 year ago
Santa Claus has become a terrorist. Do you believe that too? Bed wetters!
elbuggo 1 year ago
@elbuggo
stop talking smack about Santa
greenman3610 1 year ago
@greenman3610
Could you debunk the Holocene Temperature Variations myth?
Apparently climate deniers keep incorrectly reading the graph to mean that the black line stops below the temperature of 8000 years ago
when it's clear that it's over 0.5 degrees today whereas it was less then 0.5 degrees 8000 years ago.
Thanks!
AndroidPolitician 1 year ago
@AndroidPolitician Ive tried and greenman has my emails which show my frustration with these people....You can tell them til you are blue in the face....they will still call you things like a "tree hugging communist".
Dt0x75 1 year ago
@Dt0x75
Nah if you keep hammering them with "bahaha wow way to use the same 7 countries and incorrectly reading the Holocene Temp Variations, you look like the biggest idiot"
they'll crack.
Make sure to first point out that the "Medieval Warm Period" was way cooler then now, though!
AndroidPolitician 1 year ago
@AndroidPolitician Well minus the insults...lol...I do tend to do that. But ....I picked a tough bunch of nuts to crack....Fox News viewers.....*sigh*....Stupid on those boards is a biblical plague.
Dt0x75 1 year ago
oil will run out in 100 yrs...go home, chill out, smoke a spliff....computer models are CRAP and will show what ever you tell them to show. climate gate showed a manipulation of data. Wikileaks has shown a manipulation 3rd world countries. if the world was at 3,000ppm of co2 the temp would rise a max of 3 degrees, if anything. ive spent alot of my life studying geology, dont waste youre time global warming is a religion not a SCIENCE....a religion for people that don't understand SCIENCE!
0pocketpenis0 1 year ago
@0pocketpenis0
We await your publication, and your Nobel.
greenman3610 1 year ago
@0pocketpenis0
keep posting - you demonstrate just how utterly moronic some meme parrots truly are.
Thnaks for you help.
grawillers 1 year ago
Those media scum-bag whores. Shameful.
MsTarantala 1 year ago
Read
"Climate Cover-Up: The Crusade to Deny Global Warming" by James Hoggan with Richard Littlemore
*
"Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming" by Naomi Oreskes and Erik Conway
*
"Scorcher: The Dirty Politics of Climate Change" by Clive Hamilton
He outlines the decade-long, coal-industry funded campaign in Australia to deny climate science
*
sailRichard 1 year ago
Relevent industries have opposed all sorts of environmental protection. Whether its pollutants that cause acid rain, lead in gasoline that caused brain and neurological damage to children, CFCs that were damaging the protective ozone layer, cancer causing asbestos or formaldahyde, deforestation, health dangers of tobacco or CO2 that causes global warming, big industry has spent millions of dollars muddying the scientific discussion of these issues.
*
sailRichard 1 year ago
from "The Discovery of Global Warming" by Spencer Weart
*
the greenhouse gas effect was first proposed by Joseph Fourier in 1824, proven to exist by John Tyndall in 1858, and quantified by Svante Arrhenius in 1896.
*
But for Rush Limbaugh and the Republicans, tea baggers etc., Global Warming is just an agenda cooked up by Al Gore and other liberals. Oh, excuse me - socialists.
sailRichard 1 year ago
The greenhouse effect - over 100 years of science.
Fourier calculates colder earth without an atmosphere (1824)
Tyndall discovers relationship between CO2 and long-wave radiation (1859)
Arrhenius calculates global warming from anthropogenic CO2 (1896)
Chamberlin models global carbon exchange including feedbacks (1897)
Callendar predicts global warming increase catalysed by CO2 emissions (1938)
Revelle predicts inability of oceans to sequester anthropogenic CO2 (1958) "
sailRichard 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Wow! lots of ill informed comments here. For starters, if Al Gore and his socialist buddies must have a time machine. How else did they get scientists all the way back to 1824 to conspire with them on the green house effect.
Seriously. Science isn't decided by you and your friends sitting around the campfire, tavern, kitchen or whatever, giving your opinions on climate change. It isn't decided by right wing tv and radio talk show hosts. And it isn't decided by politicians.
sailRichard 1 year ago
Wow! lots of ill informed comments here. For starters, if Al Gore and his socialist buddies must have a time machine. How else did they get scientists all the way back to 1824 to conspire with them on the green house effect.
Seriously. Science isn't decided by you and your friends sitting around the campfire, tavern, kitchen or whatever, giving your opinions on climate change. It isn't decided by right wing tv and radio talk show hosts. And it isn't decided by politicians
sailRichard 1 year ago
Comment removed
Billywask 1 year ago
GLOBAL WARMING IS REAL!! YOU HAVE TO PAY MONEY IF YOU WANT TO RUN BECAUSE YOU EXHALE TOO MUCH CO2!!!! YOU CAN'T DRIVE YOUR CAR!!! AND WE NEED TO KILL PEOPLE IN ORDER TO SAVE THE EARTH!!!
Billywask 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Sit on this one: youtube.com/watch?v=eO7lpuGa2pM They just came out admitting there is NO CLimate problem, just a way to redistribute our wealth.... in other words, to take YOUR money through taxation to send it to Africa and China and INDIA .... where these morons make deals to line their own pockets. Well, ot's been nice...
turbomango 1 year ago
Comment removed
turbomango 1 year ago
And man was responsible for the Little Ice Age, that lasted from the 15th to the 17th centuries.
All before the Industrial Age. Before fossil fuels.
That's what you claim, huh?
Get a grip, sheeple.
quaffer22 1 year ago
@quaffer22
Clarification;
you claim that variances in the weather, are the fault of man-kind.
Let me also add, that Viking's once grew crops in Greenland, but were forced to leave because the climate changed. Their fault?
Now, Greenland is experiencing yet another change in climate, hundreds of years later. Their fault?
Witten history cannot be debunked by biased science !!
Weather change is CYCLICAL. Written history proves it.
quaffer22 1 year ago
@quaffer22
"Witten history cannot be debunked by biased science !!"
You should be aware that the "historical" data come exclusively from Europe, it's not a worlwide measurement of temperature.
There was a temperature graph plotted on those conditions you've mentioned, that yielded a Medieval temperature warming.
It was latter dismissed when gatherded worldwide data from biological markers of temperature increase, which showed the IPCC famous graph.
bluesrockfan36 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I'm reminded of the scare stories we were taught in school in the early 1970s. Then we were told the world's oceans would be "fished out" within 30 years, that "acid rain" meant the death of most tree species within our own lifetimes, and that all the world's oil would be entirely gone by the year 2000. That pollution was leading to global **cooling**.
Guess how all those turned out.
My favorite is Carson's "Silent Spring", that claimed pesticides meant the deaths of all the world's birds.
ttowntom 1 year ago
Notice the sleight of hand here? Just where does that blue line come from, wiggles and all, after 2010? How is it "derived from the 20th century" and projected forward a hundred years? How does one "predict" variability and present it as data? How does one add one curve to another and get the same exponentially rising slope you started with?
jelink22 1 year ago
@jelink22
you did not listen to the video. That curve is not meant to be a prediction, but an example of what natural variation might look like, based on past experience.
Please re-watch the video. If you have further questions, let me know.
greenman3610 1 year ago
@greenman3610
It would be nice if people like yourself could actually see some benefit in warming temperatures and higher CO2 levels. First off land based plant life is chemically starved of CO2 today, molecular biology today shows us that plants can tolerate (and grow sustantially more) in an atmosphere with higher CO2 concentrations. During the jurassic period, the entire planet had substanitally more biodiversity and plant life with substantially higher CO2 concentrations.
4BIOLOGY 1 year ago
@4BIOLOGY
The only crock here is people like yourself promoting CO2 as some sort of pollutant, its one of natures most required molecules. More plant growth would also help with global starvation. From what i've read, in journals like nature, real world temperature data collected by satellites actually show the opposite of warming is occuring, which pretty much negates what all your bullshit models predicted.
4BIOLOGY 1 year ago
@4BIOLOGY
people like myself, and the national academy of science, and, by the way
the American Institute of Biological Sciences.
sorry, I didn't make the science. We've had a hundred years of investigation of these issues, and history shows that rapid changes of this type lead to extinction events.
That's reality.
greenman3610 1 year ago
@4BIOLOGY
Before you bother asking,
I don't need to justify myself or my opinions, its based on my training as a Plant molecular biologist. I don't claim to be a meteorologist, but i probrably have a better understanding of the scientific method than you, and in short models don't mean shit, real world data is what matters.
4BIOLOGY 1 year ago
@4BIOLOGY
climate science is not based on models.
Co2 is good for plants in controlled situations like greenhouses, where co2 is a limiting factor.
Put as much co2 in the sahara desert as you like, you won't grow anything.
Too much water, for instance, or too little, makes a difference, as do insect pests and other variables.
"co2 is plant food crock"
watch?v=g093lhtpEFo
watch?v=vFGU6qvkmTI
also, see here for real world effects of AGW
watch?v=Qbw8FDMW3KM
greenman3610 1 year ago
@greenman3610 co2 is a plant's version of oxygen, it isn't a polutant! if co2 is a polutant then oxygen might as well be too
Billywask 1 year ago
@Billywask
co2 is plant food crock
watch?v=g093lhtpEFo
watch?v=vFGU6qvkmTI
greenman3610 1 year ago
@4BIOLOGY i like you lol
Billywask 1 year ago
@4BIOLOGY
Of course, during the Jurassic Period, sea level was 200+ feet higher.
Small details like that matter.
greenman3610 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Of course, everything after 2009 on that graph came straight out of his ass.
oldollie 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Of course, everything after 2009 on that graph came straight out of his ass.
oldollie 1 year ago
Of course, everything after 2010 on that graph came straight out of his ass.
oldollie 1 year ago
The biggest crock is that graph showing projections up to 2100. There are NO DATA, only computer models, that can justify that ever-increasing slope of the curve.
jelink22 1 year ago
@jelink22
the graph was not meant to be a prediction. watch the video again.
climate science is not based on computer models, it is based on observations from paleo climate data, and current real world information.
We generally expect that the planet will continue to behave in the next 100 years the way it has in the last 4 billion.
greenman3610 1 year ago
@jelink22 You got that right my friend. More accurate climate models are required. But just mentioning that fact somehow makes me a denialist to the brainwashed. This isn't science.
bigboy45454545 1 year ago
I hate Glenn Beck.
quidproquo2004 1 year ago
Thanks for this.
reafdaw01 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Please see the Climate Scientists' Register that the International Climate Science Coalition have created & has been endorsed by 137 climate experts since June 2010:
tinyurl[dot]com/2es3rqx
The Register states:
“We, the undersigned, having assessed the relevant scientific evidence, do not find convincing support for the hypothesis that human emissions of carbon dioxide are causing, or will in the foreseeable future cause, dangerous global warming."
Tom Harris
ICSC
TomHarrisICSC 1 year ago
The thing I don't understand is why you still defend obvious lies. It's better to be stupid than believe a lie.
AutomaticAwesome 1 year ago
@AutomaticAwesome
So, you're like, righteous about being stupid?
Unfortunately, the stupider you are, the more lies you believe.
greenman3610 1 year ago
97% of all homosexuals prefer homosexuals as partners. 97% of all corrupt government employees prefer corrupted government employees as partners. 97% of published climate scientists prefer published climate scientists as partners.
jag10 1 year ago
Keep shining the light...
DudeThinking 1 year ago
@DudeThinking
will do
greenman3610 1 year ago
"Climate denier" has got to be the most idiot term I've ever heard. Nobody denies that there's a climate. Nobody denies that the climate is variable.
PissedFechtmeister 1 year ago
@PissedFechtmeister Maybe people say climate denier, because reason 1.. Any sane person will know what they mean (then again there is loads os idiots who believe fox news). Reason 2.. Since replies have to be less then 500 characters explaining things that only a moron would argue over is a waste of characters.
KrunchyJD 1 year ago
You guys politicized this issue from the beginning. Now you complain when other people join in the politicization?! Idiot.
OutlawTomFantastic 1 year ago
@OutlawTomFantastic : The beginning... you mean the work of Joseph Fourrier?
or since Svante Arrhenius in 1896??? during the work of Charles David Keeling?
Please BEFORE CALLING OTHERS IDIOTS, Please give some elements to back your claims. That will be much appreciated, thanks!
nigelelsass 1 year ago
@nigelelsass It's been a politicized issue since the late 80s to early 90s. Your attempt to score some sort of victory based on a quibble with dates is laughable, but very typical of leftists in this movement.
OutlawTomFantastic 1 year ago
@OutlawTomFantastic
obviously you either did not watch the video, or found it impossible to understand.
I recommend glenn beck dot com, which I am sure you will find less challenging.
greenman3610 1 year ago
@greenman3610 Lol! Found *your* video impossible to understand? Yes, I'm sure you imagine yourself to be so superior to your fellow human beings that we don't stand a chance of comprehending your high-minded works. Must be fun living in your make believe world.
OutlawTomFantastic 1 year ago
@OutlawTomFantastic
Not fun.Not superior. Just accurate.
Try it. In the long run, you'll sleep better.
greenman3610 1 year ago
@greenman3610 How accurate is that graph where you fit the temperature data to a line? Does anybody think that the temperatures are increasing linearly (statiscally speaking)?
PissedFechtmeister 1 year ago
@OutlawTomFantastic
Actually, the video is very easy to understand.
Right wing opinion makers pretended that the German scientist resiled from his opinion. He didn't. They lied. What's hard to understand about that?
(Unless you're just another right wing crank who gets his "science" from the Fox noise machine). Are you?
DukeIrritable 1 year ago
@OutlawTomFantastic:
Do you realize that this right-wing opposition is characterstic of the US and does not reflect the world as a whole? Thanks God, we right wingers abroad are intellectually not as narrow as US ones. I recommend the speech of Margareth Thatcher on global warming. The huge majority of right wing scientists acknowledge Anthropogenic Global Warming.
nigelelsass 1 year ago
Glenn Beck is full of shit.
seltian 1 year ago
Don't forget to vote for Greenman on the Brighter Planet contest...
.
brighterplanet. com/project_fund_projects/138
robhoneycutt 1 year ago
French subtitles....That instantly makes everything ever said invalid.
applefrog111 1 year ago
@applefrog111 : You mean like the work of Pierre and Marie Curie, Joseph Fourrier, Coulomb, Lavoisier, Becquerel, etc? not big fan of them however I respect scientists
nigelelsass 1 year ago
@nigelelsass
I apologize i was joking, making fun of climate deniers who basically say one small part of a video is not entirely accurate thus everything said is inaccurate.
Also making fun of the French is fun. :)
applefrog111 1 year ago
@applefrog111 Wait, who has denied that the climate exists? You left wingers are delusional.
PissedFechtmeister 1 year ago
@PissedFechtmeister
Are you saying that people are to smart to deny climate? Have you seen congress(USA). I think you are the one in denial.
applefrog111 1 year ago
@applefrog111 Seriously, name one person who has ever denied that the climate exists.
PissedFechtmeister 1 year ago
@PissedFechtmeister You clearly don't understand hilarious jokes, sigh. Nobody denies climate (I don't know maybe a conspiracy theorist) What i was referring to was a person who doesn't believe in global warming.... Are you happy now?
applefrog111 1 year ago
@applefrog111 Another strawman since just about everybody believes in global warming. I think the phrase you're looking for in Anthropogenic Global Warming Skeptic (the use of the word "denier" is used to conjure images of Holocaust Denier).
PissedFechtmeister 1 year ago
@PissedFechtmeister
Actually, I prefer denialist, which includes the connotation of holocaust denier and racist, as well as rhyming with "nihilist", which is also appropriate.
Watch these comments long enough, and you'll see why I feel that way.
greenman3610 1 year ago
@greenman3610 Sounds like AGW is a religion for you. Kill the heretics! So now I know your videos are crocks of shit.
PissedFechtmeister 1 year ago
@PissedFechtmeister
That's what passes for deductive reasoning among deniers.
Thanks for making my point.
greenman3610 1 year ago
@greenman3610 You're clearly a fanatic. Why should I believe a word you say?
PissedFechtmeister 1 year ago
@PissedFechtmeister
Don't believe me.
Believe the guys who actually do the science.
There's no shortage of nutjobs who will lie to you on the internet, but the harsh truth is that 97 percent of actual, working, publishing climate scientists tell us there is a problem.
I report that. The video here is a perfect example, in that I play the actual words of the scientists, alongside the obvious distortions.
You apparently prefer the lie.
Only you know your motivations.
greenman3610 1 year ago
@greenman3610 97 percent eh? Funny because 97 percent of all statistics are made up. But even if it is true, it's meaningless. Scientific truth is not decided by votes.
PissedFechtmeister 1 year ago
@PissedFechtmeister actually you were correct to disbelieve gm on his comment. the doran poll question asked if man significantly changes the climate. in science significant means being able to be measured and unlikely to be random chance. it doesn't specify there is a problem. it doesn't specify a source. it doesn't specify most or at least half or even a large amount. it is a worthless question that people have been making up meanings for every since
capemall 1 year ago
@capemall He claims it's 97% of climate scientists, but it's only 97% of the 77 who responded in the question who also publish at least 50% of their work in climate science.But like I said, it wouldn't even matter if 100% of the people on the planet believed it. truth is not determined by a popularity contest. The only reason to think that humans are responsible are the computer models, and the models are inadequte in many ways.
PissedFechtmeister 1 year ago
@PissedFechtmeister
please document your claim.
google
doran climare survey
for the most significant study, involving
3,146 scientists who responded.
greenman3610 1 year ago
@greenman3610 My claim is based on the survey that you mentioned. I Googled it and read it. Anyone can do the same. Out of the 3146 scientists surveyed 82% agreed that humans impact is a significant factor in climate change. The 97% figure comes from the scientists who self-identify as climate scientists and have published at least half their papers in the past 5 years on climte science. There were only 79 of them and two didn't answer the question. Of the remaining 77, 75 agreed.
PissedFechtmeister 1 year ago
@greenman3610 Where do you get the patience for these jackasses?!!
JVbin 1 year ago
@JVbin
I have kids.
greenman3610 1 year ago
@PissedFechtmeister
I never said a lot of people do, i was just referring to the people who do, All my posts with exception to the last to have been more or less jokes anyway, i doubt anyone really would take my comments seriously in this case at least.
@greenman3610 I think it's unfair to say that when most of the people you talk about (Whatever you wish to call them) are probably not racist, i think the racist ons just stand out more, also for some reason racists are attractedToTheInternet
applefrog111 1 year ago
Great vid. So what's with all this "cock of the week" thing? Where did that phrase come from?
8DX 1 year ago
I'll tell you another secret. Notice how all left wingers are usually skinnier smaller, more effeminiate? ITs cos the're failed women!!! Rejected by nature!
CasanovaDave 1 year ago
I note you write in French. They can surrender to your arguments then, like they surrender to everything else.
Also, I want to set the record straight and tell you a secret. Us right wingers really hold the environment in contempt, and we have big egos, so we want to crush the environment along the lines of our willpower. We don't care if this stuffs everything up or how many species go extinct. I just wanted you to know this.
CasanovaDave 1 year ago
@CasanovaDave
uh....That's not a secret...
greenman3610 1 year ago
@greenman3610 I wanted you to know so you could winge about it in another video since you have made about 80 videos moaning about this non issue. I wanted to give you something else to moan, possibly cry about, with the metrosexual French. Just remember. Us big boys with big toys are gonna shoot up the environement and we aren't going away neither! ahahaha.
CasanovaDave 1 year ago
@CasanovaDave: Oh please do it...
You know what the consequence is? The US will be hate for 2 or 3 centuries and will have therefore extremely low chances of survival as a nation... please proceed, it will be highly amusing for the republican party to "score higher" in number of direct and indirect deaths than the USSR commie party and the third reich combined....
nigelelsass 1 year ago
@CasanovaDave
Tu pourrais écrire ça en français, s'il te plaît?
flug747 1 year ago
@flug747 Il á dit, "Ma mére a née dans un caddie." XD
JVbin 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
the philosophy inherent to the last minute is not one apparant in the attitudes of AGW hysteria promotors. The CRU sought to marginalize dissenters and keep full statistical data from view of their peers.
Even the labelling of the opposition as "deniers" shows you are not willing to review the facts.
Oh and GREED was an interesting term. You mean like Al Gore?
batvette 1 year ago
i would like to see a graph of temperetures over a period of 100,000 years and not a stupid pointless graph over 100 like this one.. 100 years is a mere blip in the life of this planet any one with half a brain can see this. the earth goes threw many cycles..... it warms.....it cools.... explain the ice age and why it decliened !!! stop being so thick people
tommygf333 1 year ago
The ice age has been explained.
I guess I need to post an advisory that posters should probably watch all the videos before posting, so as not to make idiots out of themselves like you just did.
watch?v=hWJeqgG3Tl8
greenman3610 1 year ago
take a look at a graph showing more than just 100 years of information. it is insane to think you can use 100 years of info to predict the future climate. we are actualy in a cooling cycle at the moment expect colder temps for 20 to 30 years. you will see. then you will be the idiot
tommygf333 1 year ago
I don't know of anyone using "100 years to predict future climate".
The IPCC Chapter 6 on climate history goes back 55 million years.
Listen to Richard Alley's lecture to the American Geophysical Union, "The Biggest control knob", which covers a billion or so years.
The National Academy of Science has a downloadable book of earth history called the "Origin and Evolution of Earth", that covers 4 billion years or so.
Do a little reading. It's good for you.
greenman3610 1 year ago
@greenman3610
He won't read. Millions like him won't read. I've debated constantly, and I've even met people who flat out tell me (after I've debunked denier point after denier point) they don't care because they think they'll be dead before it gets too bad. Ironically, people who admit this sort of stuff to me are exactly the kinds of people who complain about big government and spending because they care so much about future generations lol.
LoryLandskipper 1 year ago
@LoryLandskipper
.
I met a man yesterday who was collecting signatures to get the Libertarian Party on the ballot this fall. He argued for zero government involvement in the lives of citizens.
.
When I asked him to consider the need for government to protect the people of Appalachia against the likes of Massey Energy, he actually said (loudly), "I don't CARE about those people!" Further comments reinforced his selfish views.
substanti8 1 year ago
@substanti8 : small government, big oil !!!
nigelelsass 1 year ago
Latif, while brilliant, should take toastmasters to work on his