How It All Ends: No Holds Barred (Pt 5 of 6)

[FenixLites]

@phantomscolts2 personal attacks don't prove your point.

[merowin]

I got a better quote about being an alarmist... or the likes:

The fact that I'm paranoid doesn't automatically mean that there aren't people out there trying to get me...

[youbloodybetcha]

While I appreciate WM42's well thought out video series, I found this particular video to contain a less-than-helpful response. The reaction to "I'm currently on the fence" seemed unnecessarily truculent to me. "WHY DO *YOU* NEED TO DECIDE", in a loud mocking tone, will cause people to either retreat or counter-attack. The reason *I* need to decide is because I'm the one contemplating taking action or not. If you're trying to prevail on me to help in this cause, your tone doesn't help.

[FenixLites]

@youbloodybetcha this is a much later installment and he is assuming you have already watched the other videos. the reason for that approach is simply unless you get a phd in the science you will most likely not completely understand the subject as even people with phds don't completely understand, does that mean that they should be ignored? no they still have a much clearer understanding. at the same time its about risk management and not understanding whether or not it is true.

[btester1]

Video is pure bullshit! Global warming policies are genocide and Murder.

Satan is talking.

[bribeanbabybopdelux]

You have no idea about real history.

Did you know the A-bomb was develloped using occult knowledge.

Did you know that Japan had thrown in the towel months before the first bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, but the good ole US of A kept the war going until the bomb was ready to be dropped. Twice!

You dont because you trust the history you have been spoon-fed, and it has served you well-so far. Just like your science.

You have no clue of what you are saying and the implications of your aurgument.

[shodanxx]

who are you to decide ?

simple, the most important person in the democratic process

the voter

the person that will suffer the consequence of his decisions

if you don't convince him your only alternative is to try and shortcut the decision making of the governement (lobby)

until you convince the majority of the voters that what you say is true they will not act

you can bash them over the head with logic all you want

if they don't B E L I E V E, it will not happen

[shodanxx]

irreversible harm ?

where do you think all that carbon was before it turned into fossil fuels ?

why do you think we have evidence of megafauna of epic proportions, where do you think they got the food to evolve so big

that carbon used to be in the atmosphere and the earth was so full of life that such big creatures could survive

even if all the fossils fuels were mined and burned, how long do you think that damage could last ?

it's obvious the environement has had worse and it recovered

[communistpianist]

@shodanxx

Yeah, but it took millions of years to recover from each cycle.

Good job.

That's what mass extinctions are. And if global climate change happens, we have to wait millions of years for your theory to pass. In the mean time, if the world starts flooding we'll blow each other up with nukes within maybe a year, at max a century just to satisfy your guessing. I don't know what other people think, but I say that maybe a million years is more than a century.

Nice going, shodanxx.

[Quantum024]

It scares me that governments may not act because they are worried more about votes in the short term to risk long term investment - that is possibly why the government has clamped down and it lets the public debate continue.

[TheMathDoctor1]

I've noticed that some of the comments here say nothing- they are just babble. There is no debate here. So far he seems to be the only one making any point here. The opposing responses mostly just sound ignorant.

[killeasykill]

the gouverments are thinking for their self welfare and the rest can die . So why should we try to prevent the chaos thats about to happen in fact we should do anything us normal ppl can do so the priveliges will fail to save their self

[jokidder]

And where do you suggest one to "look it up"?

One of "this guy"'s main points is that we shouldn't believe him, but to take another look at the case for ourselves.

[FrameSticker]

Google/other search engines, papers, books, magazines... whatever you fancy, mate.

[alexkvaskov]

dude, he presents links and tells you what to google. plus he doesn't have the time (and he's already put his heart and soul into this project) so you shouldn't be lazy and do some digging around

[insanezenmistress]

58 sec = squirl thinking. some of us are no longer sheep, a few have become squrils

[thesimulacre]

Stop citing the atomic bomb already. It did not stop Hitler. Soldiers with machine guns, bombers and whatever did. The Manhattan Project was indeed started under threat (from ONE person, originally) of imminent German development of said technology, but where the logic fails is when we wonder why, if it was so imminent, did it only happen for us? If there was a rush, where was their bomb? If the war was over, WHY did we still drop that sh-- on people? PEOPLE?

DON"T USE THAT ANALOGY. Thank you.

[thesimulacre]

Cute metaphors and blah blah money talk... redesigning the infrastructure of the 1st and 2nd world to either a)accomodate the shift to sustainable energy and/or b)physically shrink the distance most people and their resources have to travel is not just "spending some money." To redesign and re-tool agriculture to focus on local and non-homogenous. To remove profit-incentive from necessary services. To turn all of our non-recycled waste into a usable form for us our our biome before dumping it...

[dezldummi]

Funny.. I believe 9/11 was an inside job.. that there were aliens at Rosewell... but I can't imagine this is a conspiracy theory.. then again, maybe a global depopulation wouldn't be such a bad thing in the long run... maybe it's the best hope for long term survival of humanity.....

[wwickeddogg]

?

The death of all human beings is the best hope for long term survival?

?

Kill yourself?

Seriously global warming has killed off all oxygen breathing life on Earth 5 times in its history so I'm not that excited about trying to survive number 6.

[iwishiwasagenius]

If Climate Change is real, I hope the skeptics die some horrible deaths when they learn that they screwed us all over. See you in hell or in the near future whichever one I get to first!

[TheRealArchAngel]

Job Security of Scientist and so forth isn't the Issue, it's whether Climate Change has anything to do with Human released CO2 and the Data seems to show that there is Climate change at the same time that Humans are dumping more and more CO2. I say lets get down to Zero Co2 emmisions, Scrub and Reclaim Co2 from the Oceans and Air to Show the Evironuts that we are still gonna be getting warmer and erratic in Weather CAUSE IT ISN'T THE CO2!!!

[TempestStormwind]

And what is the evidence behind your claim that the scientists who say it's CO2 are dead wrong?

For that matter, what about the important nature of falsifiability (which is what he talks about in part 1 and part 6 of this very video)? Your statements are extremely absolute.

[TheRealArchAngel]

The Data Is right there in the NAS,AAS, and ICCP reports...all perfectly supporting the preconceived "fact" that Co2 from Human emissions is causing Climate Change via speculation based on correlated data and bias and not true scientific objectivity. Most "scientist" are formally or still are activist and tree and I am living proof the "piece of paper" that say I am a Scientist too doesn't lend in any more or any less credibility when speaking with you...lol

[TheRealArchAngel]

pfft. Most "scientist" are environmental activist or tree huggers giving them bias.

[11reggie22]

So we're right, then, with the name-calling and all?

[TheRealArchAngel]

Name calling? As much as I tease "Environut"...I actually am for harnessing nature without hurting it if possible...a "tree hugger" if you will. Real difference is I am a Practicalist not an Idealist and KNOW we can't give up technology, move back into caves,and sing Kum-bye-yah until we go extinct within the first Month...lol. Alternative is "Cleaner" Technology which can include a cleaner way to harness the power of Oil and Coal since about 90% of everything around you oil/coal made or powers

[11reggie22]

Where exactly does he say that we need to go back to living in caves? I was just saying that you obviously don't have a rebuttle, so you call us biased tree-huggers.

[TheRealArchAngel]

Rebuttle to what? "Defering to authority" that "must be right" cause they are the "smart ones". The Pope and any priest will be happy with that statement that "they are right" and you must submit to thier authority without questioning their "authority" over you...lol. I'm a Scientist, but it doesn't mean anything I say or claim is necessarily credidible. Enviromental Science is techniclally a Philosiphy Major like Cosmology and Evolution and not "Hard Science".Carbon Dioxide can't "deflect" heat

[11reggie22]

There are (Quick count)at least seven things wront with this post

4one (two&three) the first three things in quotations. Can only be described as "what?"

4four: comparing religion to science is a fools errand

4five: I'm a man of god, so I don't listent to a thing the pope says. If you free-studied the bible at all, neither would you. This doesn't have anything to do with science, I just thought I'd say it.

4six: He says science is always up to scrutny repetedly over the videos.

[TheRealArchAngel]

P.S. I am a Biased "tree Hugger". Only difference is i'm a practicalist, not an Idealist.(why chop down a tree to make a fire if you can take it's fallen branches and loose bark?). The Myth that Carbon Dioxide can Asorb,deflect,or irradiate heat was made to show that carbon Dioxide is "Evil". In truth Carbon Dioxide is a COOLANT. run it pressurized through a spigot and it turns to "Dry Ice" at room tempature. It rapidly expands and cools in the heat exchange in alternative refrigeration/Aircon

[11reggie22]

4seven: you missed the point of the videos entirely. He says that we need to do something about Global Warming, not that it exists (although he cites some pretty strong evidence that it does, in fact, exist). He keeps saying that the dangers of not doing so far outweigh the risks of doing so. He convinced even me, an over-anylitical oddball with Aspergers. I agree with the other guy too. If you can show me evidence that this is false (peer reviewed, hardcore evidence what the are you doing here?

[dmeistar]

remember the part about falsifiability? of course if you assume this is true, then you can completely dismiss anything the scientists say.  what do you base this claim on? who WOULD you believe?

[TempestStormwind]

If you're a scientist and can dispute the process being carried out by the climatologists, either through bad procedure or through counterevidence, then why in blazes are you writing derisive YouTube comments instead of publishing in the peer-reviewed literature, where such debate belongs?

And if you're not a scientist, I have to ask you: Why don't you cite your evidence directly? Without citations, all you're doing is gumming up the debate with poorly-supported claims.

[TheRealArchAngel]

AH. Is there a Debate? I thought I was enjoying wonderingmind42's lecture and repeating CO2 isn't responsible to Global Warming because 1) Heat is asorbed by earth,rock and Ocean (not reflected), 2) Air is then heated via COnvection from area below (not reflected of top of Air or magically asorbed by CO2) and 3) Inert Co2 rides up with Water Vapor and rains down on plants and 4)The Oceans are warmer from plankton darkening it causing warmer Air and sea currents melting the polar caps.

[TheRealArchAngel]

As far as the Scientist Crack..exactly. It's one thing to collect data and make observations, it's quite another to speculate or make theories on what the data means. There is no debate among the "real" Scientist. The AAAS and NAS reports are from the group but not all members are signing off on the thing as "100% Gospel" as the way CO2 is supposedly changing Climate is just misinformation at best and Hokey Thoery at worse.

[myerharrell]

I would like to know more about the people that provided evidence and made this decision. Someone with a better knowledge of WWII please eliminate my concern. The lead paint and mercury-in-fish analogies seem to hold more water since they are broader and I cannot see any benefit to an individual scientist or the scientific community at large to make such public claims.

[TheRealArchAngel]

AAAS? A $1500 lifetime Membership fee is all you need for the little plaque and card(A Degree in Science or actually knowing something about a particular field of Science isn't necessary). NAS is a $35 a Year "Club" and, again, you don't need a degree of any sort or comprehensive knowledge in the field you want to babble about. I never joined them but I was a part of Carl Sagan's Planetary Sociaty with our main gaol convincing world governments that space travel can be worthwile..lol.

[TheRealArchAngel]

**I would like to know more about the people that provided evidence and made this decision.**

The makers of the NAS, AAAS and ICCP reports are people. ALL The reports are Opinions, suggestions,conclusions, and recommendations of People. There is correlated data in there showing the relation between CO2 and Earth's temperature but I myself would have prefered wonderingmind42's Pirate population graph in there for all the "Hard Science" any reports had makig Carbon Dioxide the "Villan"

[TempestStormwind]

You just flat-out admitted you'd prefer a comfortable fiction to the laws of physics.

If two things are correlated, and our understanding of physics provides a mechanism by which one can lead to the other, then we speak of cause and effect.

Pirates and GW are anticorrelated, but there's no mechanism.

CO2 and temperature are correlated, and radiative physics provides the link.

And you'd choose the pirates. Doesn't that send a flag up about your reasoning?

[TheRealArchAngel]

There is NO "Hard Science" in those reports, just Correlated Data and opinions. "Laws of Physics" have often had to be corrected because it is Theory not "Hard Science". Carbon Dioxide Rapidly expands in the presence of Heat, that's "Hard Science". Released from a pressurized tank to room tempature it turns to "Dry Ice", that's "Hard Science",Carbon Dioxide condenses in cold,"hard Science". That it "reflects","irradiates",or "asorbs" heat (to Where?!) is Environut Gospel to make it "evil".

[TempestStormwind]

Actually, it's been hard science since before 1896, when Svante Arhennius published papers taking its (then-established) heat-trapping property and extrapolated it the globe.

To put this in perspective, the Ideal Gas Law (which is intermittedly the basis of your claims, or direct disprove of your claims, depending on what you're saying) was formalized in the 1830s.

So, evidently, if it's from the early 1800s, it's 'hard', and if it's newer, it's Gospel?

[TheRealArchAngel]

Problem here is the Heat retaining property of Air is because of water vapor/humitity levels and not carbon dioxide levels Asorbing,reflecting,or irradiating heat. This is why a Desert with no humidity but the same Carbon dioxide level as everywhere else gets so cold so quickly at night but there can be warm muggy nights in Vegas with High humidity. Even if Carbon dioxide had the "magical properties" to make it "evil" it could never give back more heat then the Ocean,ground,or sun puts into it

[TempestStormwind]

Look, let's put it this way:

GHGs are transparent to light, but less transparent to heat. The earth is opaque to both. When sunlight hits the earth, the earth warms up, radiating heat outwards. GHGs are less transparent to heat than light, so they absorb some of it and reradiate it -- in part, back to the earth. This works if you're talking H2O or CO2.

H2O is a feedback, not a forcing (tinyurl com/w6hmb), meaning it doesn't change climate unless climate changes first. CO2 IS a forcing.

[TheRealArchAngel]

Okay. So why is it that whether I have a cup of water or a pot of water that water boils at the same temperature at the same elevation, but according to your "gospel" More Carbon Dioxide can break the laws of Thermal Dynamics and "reflect","irradiate",or "absorb" or otherwise pull more heat out of it's ass then the heat sources gave it? Likewise, if Carbon dioxise is the Heating component, then why is there Weather instead of a Uniform tempature as Carbon Dioxide is a Uniform gas?

[TempestStormwind]

No, it means that heat that escapes from the system is returned to the system because the extra CO2 isn't as transparent to heat.

The blanket analogy's really good here. If I put a blanket over a heating element (and it catching fire isn't a concern), then the air above the heating element is going to be warmer than without the blanket, as less hot air escapes even if you input the same heat.

I'd like to hear what you think of this:

tinyurl com/22gfv5

[TempestStormwind]

No, it means that heat that escapes from the system is returned to the system because the extra CO2 isn't as transparent to heat.

The blanket analogy's really good here. If I put a blanket over a heating element (and it catching fire isn't a concern), then the air above the heating element is going to be warmer than without the blanket, as less hot air escapes even if you input the same heat.

I'd like to hear what you think of this:

tinyurl com/22gfv5

[TheRealArchAngel]

And exactly how does Carbon Dioxide hold more heat in the air with increased volume then the surface below gives it? The desert is 140 degrees because the Sand is putting 140 degrees of heat into the air above it, so the air above it can hold up to 140 degrees based on humidity levels. And if a patch of the the Ocean is putting out 90 degrees of heat into the Air, extra Carbon Dioxide won't make it go over 90 degrees (91.5 degrees by the "Gospel" of "evil Carbon Dioxide")

[TempestStormwind]

Heat is energy, not temperature.

Here's how it works, in a nutshell: Sunlight passes through the atmosphere and hits the surface, which reflects some of it (albedo) and absorbs the rest, converting that into heat. (This happens at different rates on land and in the ocean.) The heat then radiates out, part of it getting "trapped" by GHGs, radiated partially back to the surface.

Now, what happens when the GHG concentrations increase enough to "trap" more heat?

(Re: Deserts. tinyurl com/2c9xmq)

[TheRealArchAngel]

**Now, what happens when the GHG concentrations increase enough to "trap" more heat?**

Can 1 gallon of water set at 212f degrees absorb more heat the 1 cup of water?

Can Air heated in the oven to 400f Degrees absorb 1.5 more degrees, amagically making the air tempature 401.5f degrees, by adding mor Carbon Dioxide gas into the oven? This "magical property" you are giving Carbon Dioxide breaks the laws of thermal dynamics even if Carbon dioxide didn't run like a vampire from sunlight when heated

[TempestStormwind]

You're repeating yourself. How can any debate go forward if you refuse to address my points?

I've linked this before:

tinyurl com/22gfv5

I'm still waiting for your response to it. You can even do it in your home if you want.

[TheRealArchAngel]

You said "Sunlight passes through the atmosphere and hits the surface,which reflects some of it (albedo)and absorbs the rest,converting that into heat.(This happens at different rates on land and in the ocean.) The heat then radiates out,part of it getting "trapped" by GHGs,radiated partially back to the surface.". Which part of me saying that your belief that increase Carbon Dioxide volume can asorb more heat then the surface gives it breaks the laws of thermal Dynamics didn't you get?..lol

[TheRealArchAngel]

I mean again, I wish Carbon Dioxide had that "voodoo" potential cause if a >004% increase can magically raise the heat absorbed by Air so that a 90f Degree sufrace can cause the Air to raise to 91.5F Degrees then we can put Air with a 50% Carbon Diodixe ratio in it in a contaner between the sunlight and a surface that reflects (0f Degrees and have a "solar Furnace" that reaches 1950F Degrees....lol. Free Point Energy...Yippie!!!

[TempestStormwind]

None of this is belief. If you increase GHGs, then more heat is trapped. This doesn't break thermodynamics at all -- all that happens is it preserves heat.

The blanket analogy works, substituting chemical energy from your food in place of the sun's energy and body heat for radiated heat. The blanket is similar to the GHGs.

Why do you continue to pretend even when the evidence conflicts your belief? Are you interested in getting to the truth, or are you interested in preserving your beliefs?

[TheRealArchAngel]

Beliefs? You are the one claiming Carbon Dioxide in the "tinyurl com/22gfv5" isn't corrupted by Carbon Dioxide's love of water/water vapor causing faster humidity. And "Weather Models" rarely ever take Precipitation and the water vapor that Carbon Dioxide rides up into the Atmosphere on into account. Carbon Dioxide infused water evaporates more willingly but doesn't condense into clouds as easily thus more Water vapor then clouds thus the 1-2 degree more then usual temperature and less clouds

[TheRealArchAngel]

The actual Science of the matter doesn't really matter nor is it wonderingmind42 point. His point is we should belief people who are smarter then us and follow their recomendations to get "big Brother" to make the neccesary policies and laws that will in theory "make life better"(gov slave),but in truth with make the price of Oil,grain and Tech go up...with Gas reaching $8 a gallon as "Big Brother" taxes,fines and regulates industry who still will do business as normal and pass cost to customers

[TheRealArchAngel]

"Real Change" will happen when everyone refuses to buy a Gasoline Engine Car and Demands either an Electric or Hydrogen Car. The only reason why the Hybrids came out was because the cost of gas was so high from previous "government intervention" that people chose not to buy a new SUV causing Detriot's "BOTTOM line" to hurt. To Save their ASSets, they scrabled to give customers what they were always just sitting on. Oh, and if you are connected to "the Grid" & they use Coal then you are at fault

[TheNatealator]

Well, how are you going to convince enough people to boycott combustion engines? You say that gov't intervention is bad, but then you point out an example where it actually caused change. I didn't make you say it.

[TheNatealator]

And anyways, how can the "big brother" potentially created by policies to stop/slow GCD/AGW be possibly be worse than what is going on under the current administration? Warrantless wiretaps? Illegal prisons? Torture? Tell me how stopping GCD through public policy will create something worse than that. The impetus is on you to prove your claim that the role of a gov't that is stopping GCD would be more invasive than the role of the current gov't.

[TheNatealator]

No, you missed the point. WM42 wants "action". He hasn't called for gov't action (IIRC), but has only quoted an exec from *Exon* calling for mandatory regulations. Are even the corporations pro-"big brother", now?

[TheNatealator]

Sorry, I will correct myself. I have watched the videos out of order. Having just seen HIAE: The Solution 2/4, I see he does call for political action. He does this because he feels gov't is the only organization that can move fast enough and have enough scope. Can boycotts alone be enacted fast enough (if at all?) and still be large enough to affect the kind of corporations and people that are doing the most to harm the environment?

If so, start your own Manpollo Project, or join his.

[thesimulacre]

No one seems to understand accountability anymore. If even Exxon is call for action... calling who? Superman? It's you asshole! Get with the program. I'm not a corporate entity but I at least know that what I do makes a difference in every moment, and is the solution to the buck that has been passed all around the world.

[TempestStormwind]

Let's begin.

1) Those flasks are sealed and hold no liquid water. There is no way to vary the water vapor concentration in them.

2) Climate models *do* take water vapor into account, and have since the earliest calculations (Arrhenius, 1896).

3) Water Vapor IS NOT A FORCING IN AND OF ITSELF. It has such a short residency time that it needs something else to kickstart the temperature rise first.

tinyurl com/w6hmb is a great summary.

4) Your claim on CO2 affecting clouds is unfounded.

[TheRealArchAngel]

5) Glass traps heat, and 1-2 degree difference in environmental temperature averages from a .004% change in volume of Carbon Dioxide over 100 degrees is as dubious a 5F Degree change in a pure Carbon dioxide environment in a tabletop experiment.

There is something called a "margin of Error" in Real Science and 1-2 or even 5f degrees doesn't mean jack shit to the Earth's 4 billion year history of Enviromental Change...lot of the 8f,20f, and 900f Degree swings before Humans and below 300ppm CO2

[TheRealArchAngel]

Pfft. (Sorry, got distracted booing Simon on American Idol). A 1f,2f, or 5f degree change in 100 years is dubious considering the Earth has swung from "Iceball Earth" to "Infernal Earth" and everywhere between with Carbon Dioxide never going above 300ppm, and way before humans started dumping the shit into the Air. Doesn't meen we shouldn't

[myerharrell]

I am a very warm warmer, but I am concerned about the analogy of the Manhattan project scientists. If a claim (whether true or not) about the Nazis' development of the atomic bomb justified the Manhattan project, doesn't the possibility exist that a small group's bias outweighed scientific truth (consciously or not) to create jobs and funding for this vanguard experiment?

[waspbloke]

I am sensing that you are running out of sceptics at this stage. You've either intellectually bludgeoned them into docile submission or they've retreated back into their cave to lick their wounds.

[ShalomYal]

I just discovered your posts today and I've been watching for hours! BRAVO and THANKS!!!!

I'd love to see you tackle human population growth with this much vigor and intellectualism. I'd watch. Immagine trying to reduce/end climate change on a planet with 9-12 billion people. Well it is on its way

[TempestStormwind]

While it's not him talking about it, WonderingMind did provide a rather dire lecture on that very subject on his account, titled The Most IMPORTANT Video You'll Ever See.

I liken climate change to a tsunami, with our addiction to growth (population, economic, consumption, etc.) as the earthquakes causing it. Even if we deal with the wave, we'll still have to deal with the quakes -- but ignoring the wave makes the quakes that much harder to deal with.

[ShalomYal]

I do see the 9 billion population as an equal tsunami--- We went past sustainability back in the 1980's and 2X that population will doom us all --- for it will be this additional 3 or 6 billion people who will want the electricity

[KID433321]

exactly