Schneider said one true statement in this clip; "The number of claims made about this topic is absolutely amazing;... the number of them that are right is also not very large".
He was definately talking about the IPCC's claims.
The fact is that ALL IPCC scientists work is suspect, since they are PAID TO FIND A CONNECTION between CO2 and temperature.
All their dodgy work needs to be triple-checked by credible and unbiased scientists.
@1000frolly You have no idea what you are talking about! Schneider played a major role in the IPCC Report...The IPCC Report lags behind by about 5yrs due to all the checks & balances it goes through. The IPCC Report is a very conservative estimate & really does not reflect the entire picture. I know "FACTS" don't matter much to you & the denier crowd but facts do matter to scientist.
-CO2 when doubled causes 1c of warming per century (again SO WHAT)
-There is positive feedback (proven wrong)
-We have dramatic models (Yawn)
The invented hockey stick is not proof of dangerous anthropogenic climate change; so where is the proof? Why are you hiding it, if there is some? We want to test it empirically/scientifically.
If there is none, we all expect you to SHUT UP and STOP ALARMING PEOPLE.
@1000frolly HINT: STOP listening to Talk Radio & FOX "News" & here an idea READ THE SCIENCE! If you do it will shoot down all your absurd claims & frankly ridiculous questions. Or do you enjoy playing the role of a misinformed TOOL? Seriously, I don't say that trying to belittle you I say it because it is obviously true if you really believe the absurd crap you wrote.The SAD part is we will all know in the coming decades that scientist were 100% correct but it will be too late then!
I only watch FOX news if I want a laugh as its mostly garbage.
I have investigated all the science pertaing to AGW and all the evidence I have seen is that a doubling of CO2 will pose no problem at all, perhaps a maximum increase in temps of up to 0.4c.
If the scientists you are speaking about are the ones related to the IPCC, their work must be regarded as suspicious.
Their work should be triple checked by respected, independent scientists before being published.
@1000frolly You have NOT checked any respected science from peer reviewed papers that says, "doubling of CO2 will pose no problem at all, perhaps a maximum increase in temps of up to 0.4c." That is simply NOT TRUE! All IPCC Assessments go through many YEARS of review from more than 2000 scientist & 100s of peer reviewed papers...To say the science behind the IPCC 7yr assessments is "suspicious" is simply WRONG! You need to read about how the IPCC assessment is built!
I know all about the IPCC. They were set up to find a link between CO2 and global warming for political reasons. Guess what, (after $30 billion ) they did.
Their "peer review process" consits of either their friends or THEMSELVES checking their own papers, while at the same time they intimidate journals to prevent alternative views from other scientists from being printed.
Very few of the 2000 are climate scientists; and every one is on the payroll of the IPCC.
@1000frolly Keep writing!The more you write the more you tell me & others you don't have a clue as to what you are talking about! LOL! NO, the IPCC WAS NOT set up to find a link between CO2 & GW.That was done nearly 100yrs ago! "$30 Billion" WTF? The IPCC does not fund research it does however pay for travel expenses when needed. AGAIN, you have been LIED TO & so you think you know what the IPCC is but it is VERY CLEAR you don't! All 2000 IPCC Scientist are in FACT Climate Scientist!
Glad I make you happy; warmists like yourselves need all the encouragement you can get right now, as your Church of Climatology collapses
IPCC;
"The IPCC was established by the World Meteorological Organisation and the United Nations Environment Panel in 1988. From the very beginning its brief was to report on mankind’s influence on climate change"
So its brief was not to investigate IF a link exists, but to report on man's (assumed)infulence on climate change
Absolute nonsense How can you make these redicuous claims when it is so easy to check this on the web?
There were 3,750 contributing scientists to the last IPCC report
Of these, fifty-three authors and five reviewers are all that might generously be said to have explicitly supported the claim of a significant human influence on climate.
In all, then, just 58 scientists agree with the IPCCs claims. And many of these are not climate scientists!
@1000frolly Seriously, where are you getting your info from?? The IPCC annual budget is between 5-7 MILLION not BILLION!! There were more than 2500 scientist/reviewers, more than 800 contributing authors, and more than 450 lead authors...ALL are scientist actively studying the climate! That does not count the scores of climate scientist & hundreds of peer reviewed papers that the IPCC report was built off of! Again, you really don't have a CLUE what you are talking about!!
@Viracocha711 Your claim that "ALL are scientists actively studying the climate" is baloney. The vast majority of the "2,500" are doing work on the so-called effects of man-made climate change and are DEFINATELY NOT climate scientists, this is a lie! This big lie one of the many fables that the IPCC is keen to keep going by repetition.
Of the few climate scientists, the MAJORITY do not agree with the polemic. (see survey of climate scientists conducted by scientists Bray & Hans, 2010)
@Viracocha711 Survey of Climate Scientists by Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch 2010. "Most scientists disagree with positions that are at the foundation of the alarmist case. This survey certainly shows no consensus on the science behind the global warming scare.
When asked questions scientists seem quick to admit their uncertainty. Majorities of climate scientists say they do not believe the scientific claims that underlie the theory and predictions of catastrophic anthropogenic climate change"
@1000frolly WTF? You really don't have a clue, huh? These are results of the Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch 2010 poll."To the question "How convinced are you that most of recent or near future climate change is, or will be, a result of anthropogenic causes?" the responses were 34.6% very much agree, 48.9% agreeing to a large extent, 15.1% to a small extent, and 1.35% not agreeing at all. WHO IS LYING TO YOU? Seriously, how did you get "Most scientist disagree" from those results?
@1000frolly You accuse me of "Cherry Picking" when you got caught LYING? Seriously, it does not bother you to outright LIE? You change the topic with every comment! You contradict yourself in that last two comments...And then post data that does not support the claims you make yet you don't even realize it! WTF? What your data does prove is EVERYONE on the Right & the Left should SHUT THE FUCK UP & listen to what the scientist say & NO ONE ELSE! If need to LIE then U R WRONG!
@1000frolly I knew you were being LIED TO! LOL! I shot down every single post you made & you kept changing the subject! However, our entire conversation is still here for all to see unless you do what other deniers do & erase your comments. If not, then it is easy to see who was posting PURE BS & who was not...Who changed the subject with every post & who shot down those post with facts. Like I said before, with every post you make you are showing just how ignorant you are!
You misquoted me here. I said "Most scientists disagree with positions that are at the foundation of the alarmist case. This survey certainly shows no consensus on the science behind the global warming scare".
When asked about the specific scientific claims behind the theory and predictions of AGW, majorities of climate scientists say they do not believe these.
These responses are a world away from the "99% agreement" that we always hear about.
@1000frolly No I did not "misquote you"...You are drastically misquoting the study! Plus, you are focusing on just ONE study like this when there have been multiple studies like this & everyone of them show a STRONG CONSENSUS! And YES, among CLIMATE SCIENTIST, those who are actively studying the climate & producing papers, there is a STRONG CONSENSUS of around 97%-99%! Forget polls READ THE DAN SCIENCE! Watch the lectures by the Climate Scientist on YouTube Education...THINK!!
I understand the science fully; I have examined both sides.
Unfortunately, one side (yours) is not just about the science. This has lead to many of the old climate scientists and all of the 'new' climate scientists who came into the field recently (once the money was there) cooking the data, trying to validate models, faking graphs to support their hypothesis, trying to discredit any opposing views ect.
This is why folk like yourself have been fooled into believing.
@1000frolly Either send me PROOF of your claims or just shut up because we both know you can't support the absurd claims you have made! I will be waiting!!
@Viracocha711 email 0932158667 " Also, there is no evidence for a decline or loss of temperature response in your data in the post-1950s (I assume that you didn’t apply a bodge here) …
@MrOTLChamp Like I have said in your PM to me & other comments...You need to go learn what CO2 is & its characteristics because if you don't even know the basics, and clearly you don't, how can you understand that every paper you copy & paste from Professional Denialist websites all agree with the consensus! And you clearly don't know that Mann's graph has been replicated by at 12 other studies by different people using different methodologies. Talk to you later.
@Viracocha711 Manns graph was only partially replicated by his colleagues. There is over a thousand peer-reviewed papers saying otherwise. Was there a MWP? Yes, according to data published by 1050 individual scientists from 600 research institutions in 44 different countries ... and counting! What did you have? 12? LMAO
@MrOTLChamp Keep playing the role of a USEFUL IDIOT it does not bother me...I have answered all your NAIVE & UTTERLY IGNORANT comments & questions...Including in great detail why the emails changed NOTHING in the science nor did they in any way show fraud or "bodge" of data. ALL the data was released that applied to the IPCC & no one could find any errors! But you have chosen to ignore the FACTS & adhere to the role of a USEFUL IDIOT. Obviously you like that role so have FUN!
@1000frolly Either send me PROOF of your claims or just shut up because we both know you can't support the absurd claims you have made! I will be waiting!!
Just saw today a documentary on Discovery Science about a scientist who was proud that his aluminium-gallium alloy produced no CO2 emissions. That moron failed to understand in the presentation that aluminum oxide encourages the growth of cancer cells. Other morons have suggested solar panels, disregarding mining operations, wind farms disregarding the chemicals used to protect the blades from corrosion etcetera.
The regression analysis shows correlation between variables, not the cause-effect of a problem. That gets settled through significant scientific experiments. Where are the experiments in Stephens presentation? Any undergrad who didn't skip food safety courses knows that yeasts, bacteria and fungi produce CO2 at high temperatures.
@Researchrules Philosophy is settled ??? Maybe you should read some metaphysics man. Phylosphy is as settled as science in general is because there is no separation between philosophy and science ( or we built an artificial one after the Greeks)
@sossalicious Can you please point out to any more possible approaches in Philosophy apart from the ones which ware developed by Ayn Rand, Schopenhauer, Aristotle, Plato, Diogenes, Xenon, Epicure, Socrates and company. Honestly, is there anything more which could be developed? I doubt. Science however is a different issue altogether.
@Researchrules If you want to go this way let's just say Newton, Einstein, Maxwell, Reynolds, leibneiz etc etc etc (have I said etc) did it all. Although we know that this is not true. Philosophers will admit this themselves : You build a thinking based on premises. You think about ethics, justice, politics, but also determinism vs freedom of action. But you will always have some sort of premise that you have to assume to be true to build your thinking.
@sossalicious Philosophy is based solely on thinking, Science is based on thinking and experiments. From the individualist Rand-ism to the community-focused Confucianism, there are clearly some limits to the possible combinations, just like a political compass.
Unlike that, in Science, interaction between different elements has unexpected combinations.
@Researchrules (suite...) Do we have an answer for moral/ethics, no ! Do we know if everything is determined, no ! A lot has been answered and yet everything has to be answered like in Science.
@sossalicious By all means we have the limits to morality and ethics, unlike in Science where there are still unexpected solutions for Gravity, Unified Theory etcetera.
Well morons, you learned dick. So a professor ignores basic mathematical truisms like y = a*x + b than x = y/a + b' (or b/a). Science is never settled morons. Religion is settled, philosophy is settled, but the basic definition of science states that science is an evolving subject.
There is a quick simple solution to global warming and climate change. It is called Muon Catalysed Fusion. As worked on Star Scientific. NO CO2. NO Greenhouse Gases. NO Toxic Waste. The source is dueterium from the World's Oceans - virtually limitless. It is cheap to produce. WE NEED IT NOW. See the website "Star Scientific Limited", Blog "The Big Picture by Andrew Horvath", Youtube video - "In the Footsteps of Fusion"
He talks about economics but where is the DEPRECIATION OF DURABLE CONSUMER GOODS.
What about the PLANNED OBSOLESCENCE OF AUTOMOBILES?
What about the PLANNED OBSOLESCENCE OF COMPUTERS?
Producing garbage uses energy and produces pollution and adds to GDP but then the junk is thrown away and must be replaced and the new stuff is added to GDP.
So demand side depreciation for the entire world is ignored. So climate scientists don't notice that economists can't do algebra.
Its like Obama getting elected when his qualifications were very limited, the people were sold the hype and they bought it fully. Now a recent poll suggests that up to 20% of Obama voters would not do so again, and that number seems to be growing. I guess my point is that a lot of people make a decision on a subject based on media, and emotional influence. Few seem to do the research into anything and form their own opinion, they just go with the flow. Science does not support AGW panic.
I guess I can understand why people have bought into the CO2 hype, when most your politicians, and movie stars, consistently preach something the general public goes along with it. It becomes the gospel. Only problem is the actual data does not support it, as shown with Al Gores movie, the hockey stick graph by Michael Mann, Tree rings, glaciers disappearing, ect. All of these scare tactics have been exposed as such, but somehow some people are still scared. cont...
TheKickerboy99. Regards the 'one paper to rule them all' you've asked for, I don't read the scientific lit as it's written for trained specialists, there's a lot of it, not all of it is available. However the National Academy of Sciences of the United States puts out a journal of proceedings and that appears to have listings of papers that discuss the development, definition of and likelihood of 'dangerous climate change'
Look - we're living in a global economy which depends heavily on oil. We've been burning vast quantities in the last 50 years and our scientists are saying that it's having an unexpected sideeffect. We're starting to see this in the arctic and glaciers.
Addressing AGW will affect 'business as usual' and so a shitstorm has erupted. Pundits have arisen who feed off a growing sense of unease in the American public and ply them with silly paranoid conspiracy theories. You seem to be a subscriber.
@TankUni You obviously have not read the Copenhagen Treaty, I suggest you do. Taxing CO2 will not reduce its production, if you think it will I suggest you look into it a bit more. "Our scientists" have not said anything of the sort, in fact the ones I have talked to, or read up on, say the real problem is pollution of our oceans with plastics and heavy metals. They want to tax CO2 because the potential income from it is greater than any tax imposed on mankind in history, starting to get it?
I tell you what - I haven't read the Copenhagen Treaty. I will do so and get back to you. Regards Co2 tax, that's another issue. I agree that it may not be the best way to reduce emissions and I am suspect when it comes to governments and taxation. However I do accept the need to reduce our emissions. I don't yet see how that is going to occur, but it must. I don't believe the scientific community are acting fraudulently and therefore we should act on their findings.
@TankUni One last thing, I am still waiting for you to produce one peer reviewed paper that has been produced that shows dangerous warming. I'll give you a little hint, it doesn't exist. Every single record of global temperature shows a normal warming trend that has occurred before, and will again, after the next ice age.
I was not confused by your gibberish, just disappointed with your lack of knowledge on the subject. Your dead professor's main thought process was, it could be true so lets not take any chances and let an unelected unaccountable elite group of individuals tax our planets life giving gas, and ultimately control life on Earth as a result. Sounds like a stupid idea to me how about you? If you had a chance to read the Copenhagen Treaty, you would know that is what it was meant to do. cont.....
I tried to pack a lot of info into a small space and I confused you. Apologies.
Shorter version;
the Oregon Petition is rubbish and a PR exercise.
The label 'warmers' is way of polarizing people and avoiding serious debate regards climate change.
Prof Schneider was 'top of his field' (now sadly passed on). His message was clear - increased greenhouse gases, Co2 in particular, will likely cause extensive climate disruption and hardship globally.
@TankUni It was designed to turn over every nations sovereignty to this unelected, unaccountable group. What baffles me is how your mentality cannot see through the obvious manipulation and deceit. Even now after AGW caused by increases in CO2 have been shown to be hyped up, and not a threat, some are still claiming some imaginary consensus, and no debate required. Nothing to see here people, don't worry we'll save the planet for you, your NWO is all powerful, and unelected, unaccountable, ect.
@TankUni By the way, everything you have responded to me with is garbage. Could you please show me something I haven't heard from your brainwashed comrades over and over? Some actual piece of evidence, proof of something, rather than name calling and lies. When your side gets backed into a corner with the facts, that is where the debate always seems to go, its a bit old, and shows how unintelligent, and controllable some really are.
Warmers aka AGW followers, are just people that can't admit they bought a lie from a politician. It happens, just don't be so gullible, and loath to admit it.
PS can whoever made this video at Stanford PLEASE include pictures of the slides interspersed with the "talking head" (no disrespect intended Prof Schneider!)
Richard Alley lecture, easily found on the web- search Richard Alley A23A and you'll find it. He shows how well understood the factors that determine CO2 and climate change are. He also shows that the cosmic ray theory doesn't correlate with climate change- periods of high cosmic rays don't result in climate change so the effect is small.
Hmm the more CO2 the more plant life. Oh and by the way, I've worked in northern alberta and we work right through 45*C in rubber boots and chainsaw pants, helmut and earmuffs. 40+ degrees is not the problem, the problem is brainwashing a generation into turning over the sovereignty of every country to an unelected unaccountable group of people to control life on earth. Based on few corruptible computer models, and a whole lot of very selective funding. Ancient man adapted to change, we tax it.
Do you really think this is the hottest Australia has ever been? Do you think CO2 is the cause of your countries climate or just our natural solar cycles. If it took us 150 yrs to raise CO2 15 ppm from 370 to 385, and the IPCC says 770 ppm would raise it 3-4 *C then how can you attribute any of our climate to CO2? It just doesn't make sense. The AGW crowd seems to want to forget the drastic changes our planet normally goes through, it has never been stable. Scare tactics seem to be working.
@TheKickerboy99 It has not been stable OVER MILLIONS OF YEARS not over the TENS of years over which we are seeing change happen. You just trot out the same old denier spiels. You can't even get the fact that the amount of CO2 we are putting out increases year after year. Every year the amount per day goes up. We are not only heading towards the cliff, we are pushing down harder and harder on the throttle, instead of applying brakes.
@indulis1 Sorry meant to write climate is to some extend UNstable over millions of years or tens of thousands of years. The difference being someone asking you to move house in 6 months, or move house in 10 seconds. I think one is possible to adapt to, the other is not.
"Do you think CO2 is the cause of your countries climate or just our natural solar cycles". Well, when all of the ground and satellite based measurements show NO increase in solar activity while the temp increases, I'd say it is something else.
While I almost always enjoy talks presented by educational institutions like Stanford, I do sometimes find myself weary of the commercials. "The commercials"?, you ask. Yes. The endless introductions detailing everything the speaker has ever accomplished since his original potty-training. Credit is the recognized currency in the academic world. And the 5 minute, always-glowing, introductions, are commercials. I don't care what he did in his youth. I care about the *content* of his talk today.
AGW is a theory and a flawed one at that, using computer models that cannot account for water vapour. (95%) of the greenhouse effect of our atmosphere, while CO2 is a trace gas that has very little effect on temps. Where do you get off saying everything in science is based on models? That was dumb. Science is based on trail and error, Experimentation with real numbers. You are obviously not a scientist. We cannot even predict the weather more than a few days in the future.
@TheKickerboy99 Science provides us with models of reality - not complete knowledge of reality, this is why there are paradigm shifts like special relativity - our models change. Science is about applying the hypothetico-deductive methodology (the scientific method) first posed explicitly by Sir Francis Bacon in his Novum Organum. Clearly you're a "naive inductivist" who has never bothered studying the history and philosophy of science - a SCIENCE subject every scientist, like me, should study.
@TheKickerboy99 Clearly you are not. What do you do? As a physicist I understand the basic mechanisms described - I know what cosmic rays are (they're the original source of high energy particles my field studied). I know how they interact with matter (important if you want to study them). I therefore understand the mechanism used by Svensmark. It seemed plausible till I read papers explaining his oversights. Therefore his theory has been debunked. Point out the debunker's flaw if you can.
@TheKickerboy99 You live in a strange world where someone with a BSc (Adv) (hon), with an honours thesis in particle physics, isn't a scientist. What's required to be a scientist in this strange delusional place you live? Perhaps a Ph.D. in astrology :P
FYI, condensing water vapour forms clouds, not cosmic rays; no water = no clouds. Cosmic rays can ionise water vapour and dust nuclei and POTENTIALLY aid in vapour condensation; they can also POTENTIALLY hinder vapour condensation.
@XenogeneGray Ok you have not read his paper, or Lindzen's. Do you make your living as a particale physicist? I'll bet the farm not. AGW is a scam, based on junk computer models, tree rings, ect. Taxing CO2 will POTENTIALLY create more CO2, and unless China and India sign on, China completes it's takeover of western civilization. When you have read his paper, and can converse about what it says, then get back to me. Remember these ARE peer reviewed papers.
@TheKickerboy99 I did read the paper (8 months ago) along with other related papers that debunk his theory (whose references I've already given). A hypothesis that is not yet debunked will get published in reputable journals until it is debunked; back in the 19th century, ether hypotheses were published in peer reviewed reputable journals, they wouldn't be now as that hypothesis has been debunked. Also, some groups, eg creationists, have set up peer reviewed journals to publish in.
@TheKickerboy99 Yes, as I already stated, I'm in computing now; there aren't many jobs in particle physics.
How exactly could taxing CO2, particularly on imports from countries that have a lower cost for CO2, result in higher CO2 production?
AGW is now considered as much of a scam as evolution by the scientific community; the evidence now demonstrably shows it to be true. Wanting AGW to be false, or a god to exist who made us, does not make those wants reality. I too WISH AGW was all a fake.
@XenogeneGray AGW is a scam, that is the sad truth. Do you think there could ever be an agreement between the US and China regarding this? The answer is no. Unless of course they get a "cut" in to it. When this happens it will become the new reality. Based on poor computer models, and hysteria created by the media. Of course CO2 should have some effect on global temps, but not enough to cause any problems. By the IPCC's own data., a doubling of CO2, will bring 3-4 degrees change.
@TheKickerboy99 The sad truth is in Australia we already regularly get heat wave of 40+ Celsius, and people die as a result. Any temperature above 38 Celsius with 100% humidity will kill you, and the hotter the temperature the lower the humidity necessary to kill. An extra 3-4 degrees change will exponentially increase the death rate and make large regions UNINHABITABLE to humanity without air conditioning; that's a VERY SERIOUS PROBLEM in my books, particularly for 3rd world people!
@XenogeneGray Exponetially....good word. What if it starts getting colder instead. It would make sense that we are at the end of a warming trend that will lead us to the next ice age. The planet does what it wants to, taxing CO2 will not change the cycles earth has. It will separate the "haves" from the "have nots" a lot more than they are now, it is new world order, starring Maurice Strong, George Soros, and Al Gore! With the rest of the elite power brokers of our planet rounding out the cast.
@TheKickerboy99 The models predict somewhere between 2-6 degrees warming is already locked in; 12 is possible without change. With 7+ degrees warming there will be induced hyperthermia even in healthy drug free adults [S. C. Sherwooda and M. Huberb, 2010; pnas. org], rendering some regions uninhabitable (at 12 degrees warming most places on Earth will be uninhabitable without air conditioning). We need to take serious action now as we are literally making the world potentially uninhabitable.
@XenogeneGray You guys and your models. Geesh! How about the actual measured data? Just because it doesn't go with the models doesn't mean its not important to consider. Models cannot account for water, the one major greenhouse gas. Do you even understand what 380 PPM is? CO is not nor has it ever been a driver of temps. even in volcanic eruptions that expel as much CO2 as man has in one episode. What happens? The temps go down, as the SUN is blocked, there's some measured data for you.
@TheKickerboy99 Actually you will find that one volcanic eruption (in recent times) does not come anywhere close to man's CO2 emissions. Another piece of denier bull. Just look at the US Geological Survey (USGS) web site. And the models *do* account for clouds and water. If you dont believe it, go read the model program source code. Its pretty much all out there, public. And when there have been major planet wide volcanic events, the CO2 has clearly driven temp rise. 3 strikes. You're out
@indulis1 None of what you have said is true, in fact where do you get this stuff? Oh ya Al Gore. Recent eruptions have not expelled as much CO2 but large ones can. The scam is exposed, it has been exposed over and over again, yet punks like you still try to defend it. Move on. Go clean up the oceans that is a real problem.
@XenogeneGray Did you ever read the Copenhagen treaty? You should. It spells it out in black and white. AGW is a political movement, for global governance. There is no consensus on any doom claims from the IPCC, in fact they are shot down as fast as they have come, with the MEASURED DATA.
@TheKickerboy99 Where are the overall trends contradicted. Please provide evidence that all of the thousands of observations which correlate with the predictions of the IPCC wrong. And not just "oh the glaciers aren't melting as fast as predicted in the himalayas. No, something which demolishes at least 50% of the scientific observations. You won't find it. Because all you do is just trot out the same old denier claptrap.
@indulis1 I did watch the video, there are 30,000 scientists that disagree with this guy. Many of them much more qualified to make a judgement about it. When you call me a denier troll, what are you trying to imply? To say the science is settled is to reach the height of unscientific thought. I would ask you to listen for a moment to people like Tim Ball, Bob Carter, David Evans, David Archibald, John Christie, and 29,995 more people on the list that will tell you why AGW is a scam.
30,000 scientists? That would be the Oregon Petition that included such scientific luminaries as Ginger Spice? Michael J Fox? Hawkeye Pierce? It was a crock designed to provide PR FUD and unfortunately it's been sucessful. The people who put it out have also been active in providing FUD for the tobacco industry and in downplaying the dangers of asbestos.
@TheKickerboy99 Seems like your world is a scary paranoid one where 'liberal conspirators' have nothing better to do than raise the cost of your electricity by less than 15%, and for no better reason than trying to stop any place on Earth becoming uninhabitable for human life, for the first time since humans evolved. Those scary crazy liberals, what will they think of next - trying to ensure everyone has access to health care; imagine people not being forced to die of easily treated diseases :P
@XenogeneGray Seems like you world is based on a lie, that you have bought into with all your heart. If you think Cap and Tax is to save the world, here's a news flash for you. The world has been through many changes, our power to control it is zero. Save the world? Save the world from Cap and Tax is more like it. Ever give any though what happens to the third world under this Tax?
@TheKickerboy99 Yeah, it's terrible I believe in the scientific method and the peer reviewed scientific models derived from it that explain all the evidence (like AGW). Before you know, lying scientists will be claiming such models will enable them to make aircraft capable of going faster than sound, and send astronauts to the moon! Those pesky scientist trying to lie about the power and utility of their scientific method! I don't want AGW to be true, so clearly it can't be true, right :P
@XenogeneGray This is the problem with your argument, every time they put forward a concern about CO2 it is shown to be exaggerated, or just wrong. If there is real verifiable proof, lets see it. Until then I can only go with the evidence they have tried to slide by us, and it gets a fail. Do you really believe them to be un-corruptible? I submit your trust in AGW science is misplaced, and unsubstantiated.
@TheKickerboy99 I'll admit I haven't gone to Greenland, drilled out an ice core and personally measured the trapped air bubbles. However, many different people provide evidence of AGW, so that makes it reasonable to assume they're not all faking it; particularly the mariners who now enjoy using the Northwest passage. What level of evidence do you require to acknowledge AGW? Do massive numbers of people need to die from heat stress when aircon power fails? Why let such preventable deaths happen?
I'm sorry, but that's just bollocks. I don't know what blogger world you bounce around in, but within the scientific community that's simply not the case.
@TankUni You warmers always spout the same crap, which is untrue and basically propaganda fed to you by George Soros , Maurice Strong, Gore, ect. If you have a peer reviewed paper that shows abnormal warming please produce it. As for the previous statement on the Oregon petition, the people on it are some of the best in the field of climate science, if you had looked at the list you would know this, so please stop with the BS.
Warmers? Lol. Labels are a device to allow you to avoid thinking about issues. Also George Soros is hiding under your bed right now!
Regards the Oregon Petition, the first certainly had those names but it was reissued in 2007/8. it's a PR move. The Oregon Institute was founded by a creationist, the questions are worded in a misleading way, the 1st issue was done up to look like another respected scientific journal. Regards 'top of the field', just watch the video above. Jeez.
@TankUni and @ Everyone Have a look at it and see if you can find any of the names TankUni has listed. Research some of the names, petition project. org
@TheKickerboy99 You ignored my statement "taxing CO2, particularly on imports from countries that have a lower cost for CO2". If a country ensures such fair taxation for all products, the playing field is levelled in that country between imports and "home made" products; CO2 taxation credits can be given to exporters so the importing country gets all the taxation revenue, if it wished.
@TheKickerboy99 So according to you F = ma is not a model, it is reality? Wrong, in special relativity F =/= ma. However, under the right circumstances F = ma is a very good MODEL of reality, like all scientific theories applied to their relevant areas.
@TheKickerboy99 You really do seem to enjoy demonstrating your lack of knowledge of how science actually works. What do you actually do? Economics, would be my guess. For the record I'm doing my PhD in computing, have a major in pure mathematics and honours in particle physics (my thesis was on CP violation in B mesons - why there's more matter than anti-matter in the universe).
@TheKickerboy99 No, I'm fascinated with the field, and have read several papers on it. I don't claim to be an expert on it but every argument you've used has been debunked in the literature. If you actually read some of the papers such as those by Benestad (2002), Damon and Laut you might understand how our climate works too. Disprove their debunking of your/Monckton's theories, and write a paper on it. That's how science works. Again you demonstrate a complete lack of knowledge of science.
@TheKickerboy99 There's a difference between climate and weather. It was predicted months ago that this would be an unusually cold and snowy winter for North America.
For the record, I'm not a Marxist or communist. If I was a politician I'd base my policies on evidence, not dogma. Free markets are the best system, but free does NOT mean unregulated. You wouldn't play a football game without a referee would you? Government is the social and business referee. Also, when people are down on their luck they should always be kept alive by welfare just enough to barely live, so they still have the drive to get a job and better themselves. I'm centre 'wing'.
@XenogeneGray Well that sounds reasonable, being a centre wing. However I think your view on the subject of agw is a bit one sided to say the least. It is just that all of the "Overwhelming evidence" you refer to is all based on flawed computer models, and not the current measured data. Monckton does not make stuff up, he only uses the current measured data, it is the agw side that does the former.
@TheKickerboy99 Everything in science is based on models. Well established simple models are called laws (like the law of gravitation or energy conservation). Monckton uses very simplistic flawed models, and inappropriately to boot. If you want to make ANY prediction, you must use a model, unless you believe in psychic powers, and even that's the model that psychic powers work :)
@XenogeneGray Monckton uses the IPCC data (only peer reviewed), but he shows the whole picture not just snippets like in the following vid : Lord Christopher Monckton before congress, May 6 2010, part 1 of 3 .....as your will see in this vid they try to attack everything but the science.
I've nothing against religious people - my mother is one. However, I'm glad here in Australia we have very few creationist so we don't have to worry about religious fundamentalists demanding a non-existent controversy be taught in science lessons. If they want creationism taught, then teach it in scripture studies where it belongs - the Christian schools I went to forced me to do scripture studies till I got excused for pointing out what nonsense it is once too often.
@TheKickerboy99 Lord Christopher Monckton before congress, May 6 2010 - Monckton complains demonstrating multiple trend lines is fraud, then proceeds to demonstrate multiple trend lines himself. Interesting. Data clearly shows temperature oscillation - no one denies that. However, the oscillation from 1940 clearly carries on with rising base temperature, just look at the graph.
@TheKickerboy99 Earl Blumenauer points out that Monckton is not a scientist, yet he's the best spokesperson the minority opinion could get - major warning bells there. Just like creationists normally have to get lawyers as their spokespeople.
I've no problem with people believing lies if they want, but trying to pass pseudo-science lies off as science annoys me. By all means use science to try to back up your hypothesis, but once discredited stop saying it's not discredited. That's unforgivable.
@TheKickerboy99 I love science. I would much prefer the evidence say there is no human induced climate change. Unfortunately, it is quite clear there is and that we'll have to do something or suffer the consequences. Reality can be a bitch, but living in fantasy land will bitch slap you much worse than facing reality. Also, I'm not American - like most of the people in the world.
Greenman's Monckton videos detail Monckton's claims and do a detailed rebuttal of them. Any one of sound mind who actually watched them could see that. I haven't seen any valid cherry picking complaint that Monckton claims exist - that's from rationally and skepticaly reviewing the evidence. Your denial of renewable's proven usability with "we just can't use batteries to store the energy, as they are not environmentally friendly" clearly shows your ignorance and or vested interest.
I just think there are more pressing environment issues to concentrate on. The oceans really are in trouble, they have been our dump for everything, for way too long and in places they are dying. Temps are fine, and will be right up until the cosmos turns us around to a cooling phase, which will be a real problem. I will be long dead, but my house will be under a mile of ice. It is a cycle that we cannot control or alter in anyway. It will happen.
@TheKickerboy99 Yes, there are many environmental issues to be dealt with, but climate change can kill us, or at least make large regions of Earth uninhabitable for unaided man. Are you suggesting we ignore something we're pretty sure could kill millions of humans, cause massive environmental refugee issues, etc? I judge climate change more critical than other species extinction, etc (though of course they are environmental catastrophes too).
@TheKickerboy99 I suppose you believe human fishing hasn't effected fish stocks either, after all the oceans are so large with so many predator fish, how could we effect such an ecosystem.
I can only conclude you are a troll TheKickerboy99. Clearly, like a creationist you'll hold to your conclusions regardless of evidence to the contrary, so there really is no point 'debating you'. I've got to get back to constructive tasks. Please actually think about the consequences of your actions.
@XenogeneGray Wow you really hate creationists eh? I suppose you are a marxist communist, and think Obama has the country on the right track. Every action has a reaction, taxing CO2 will have more dire effects on the poor of this world than you can apparently comprehend. The rich will get riche and the poor will die, but that is what they are trying to do with it anyway. Its not about science, as I've said its about stopping third world development and controlling life on the planet.
@TheKickerboy99 Anyone who thinks Obama is either a socialist or a liberal really need to give their head a shake. He is no further left than center-right.
@TheKickerboy99 You'll never have a perfect balance; there are times when more is necessary and times when it's too intrusive. Of course, in a large, complex society, that means that there are parts that are too big and others too small. After the decades of continual financial fiascoes going back to the Savings & Loan crises, it's clear that MORE, not less, powerful oversight and intervention. Same goes for governance of the oil industry. It takes a strong leader to work the balance.
@bannor99 I just don't believe government to be an efficient way to do anything. Private industry with some regulation creates jobs, government does not create anything, but more debt due to lack of oversight, and good management. Governments make rules for all of us to follow, but don't seem to have to themselves. I can name many examples of this. Government wages come right off the bottom line, your tax dollars.
@TheKickerboy99 Industry has done a great job of taking your tax dollars even when they don't need a handout or a bailout. What's needed to try to rectify that system is a government that stands apart from the corporate sector. That hasn't been the case for a very long time and I don't see any significant voice urging change on that front.
We can use batteries - lithium is reasonably environmentally friendly. Besides, life is about trade offs - having a hydroelectric storage facility effects the environment but can store huge amounts of energy reasonably cheaply. Renewables have been proven to be a viable, if slightly more expensive technology. I for one would pay 25% more for electricity so I can live, wouldn't you?
As for Monckton greenman did a very good job pointing out his lies. Pay attention to the videos.
@XenogeneGray Vehicle2Grid aka V2G will serve that purpose if the communication from car to grid can be done reliably. A fully charged Nissan Leaf could run an average US home at full tilt for 1-2 days. If this becomes commonplace and once there are a significant number of EVs, the potential for mitigating blackouts, peak-shaving, load-following and overall benefits to the grid will be enormous
@bannor99 I agree. In 15 years time when solar power and battery storage together are cheaper than coal, sane people will wonder what the hell nut jobs like 'TheKickerboy99' were on about with their anti-science lunacy. I can only surmise they know AGW is real and want to bring on an apocalyptic future rather than help speed up our move to sustainable technology that will make life better and help keep the whole world habitable.
@XenogeneGray Calculating true costs is extremely difficult but I'm reasonably certain that when they're all totaled, coal with all its emissions, mining damage, operating expenses and healthcare impact may already be more expensive than solar + storage.
@bannor99 True, but economists don't care about such 'negative externalities'. Solar without storage is already cheaper than coal for some areas, and by ~2015 should be cheaper everywhere. With the rise of electric cars and smart electric grids, battery costs should reduce so by 2025 solar+battery storage will be cheaper than coal everywhere, even ignoring the 'negative externalities' of coal. Personally I think we need to more intelligently use our hydroelectric storage systems too.
@bannor99 Even though there's only ~3TW of hydroelectric energy available to us (given the current climate), and we need more than 15 TW already, hydroelectric could be a great energy storage system, with minimal additional capital costs (roughly run it at -12TW in the day, +15TW at night); at least this should be the maximum storage cost. The power system will radically change soon; say good buy to night-time off-peak electricity, if anything, day-time electricity will become the cheaper type.
love the video really good
willbirful 1 month ago
Schneider said one true statement in this clip; "The number of claims made about this topic is absolutely amazing;... the number of them that are right is also not very large".
He was definately talking about the IPCC's claims.
The fact is that ALL IPCC scientists work is suspect, since they are PAID TO FIND A CONNECTION between CO2 and temperature.
All their dodgy work needs to be triple-checked by credible and unbiased scientists.
1000frolly 1 month ago
@1000frolly You have no idea what you are talking about! Schneider played a major role in the IPCC Report...The IPCC Report lags behind by about 5yrs due to all the checks & balances it goes through. The IPCC Report is a very conservative estimate & really does not reflect the entire picture. I know "FACTS" don't matter much to you & the denier crowd but facts do matter to scientist.
Viracocha711 1 month ago
Comment removed
1000frolly 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Viracocha711
OK pinhead, so its abuse you want.
-CO2 is a GHG (so what)
-CO2 when doubled causes 1c of warming per century (again SO WHAT)
-There is positive feedback (proven wrong)
-We have dramatic models (Yawn)
The invented hockey stick is not proof of dangerous anthropogenic climate change; so where is the proof? Why are you hiding it, if there is some? We want to test it empirically/scientifically.
If there is none, we all expect you to SHUT UP and STOP ALARMING PEOPLE.
1000frolly 1 month ago
@1000frolly HINT: STOP listening to Talk Radio & FOX "News" & here an idea READ THE SCIENCE! If you do it will shoot down all your absurd claims & frankly ridiculous questions. Or do you enjoy playing the role of a misinformed TOOL? Seriously, I don't say that trying to belittle you I say it because it is obviously true if you really believe the absurd crap you wrote.The SAD part is we will all know in the coming decades that scientist were 100% correct but it will be too late then!
Viracocha711 1 month ago
@Viracocha711
I only watch FOX news if I want a laugh as its mostly garbage.
I have investigated all the science pertaing to AGW and all the evidence I have seen is that a doubling of CO2 will pose no problem at all, perhaps a maximum increase in temps of up to 0.4c.
If the scientists you are speaking about are the ones related to the IPCC, their work must be regarded as suspicious.
Their work should be triple checked by respected, independent scientists before being published.
1000frolly 1 month ago
@1000frolly You have NOT checked any respected science from peer reviewed papers that says, "doubling of CO2 will pose no problem at all, perhaps a maximum increase in temps of up to 0.4c." That is simply NOT TRUE! All IPCC Assessments go through many YEARS of review from more than 2000 scientist & 100s of peer reviewed papers...To say the science behind the IPCC 7yr assessments is "suspicious" is simply WRONG! You need to read about how the IPCC assessment is built!
Viracocha711 1 month ago
@Viracocha711
I know all about the IPCC. They were set up to find a link between CO2 and global warming for political reasons. Guess what, (after $30 billion ) they did.
Their "peer review process" consits of either their friends or THEMSELVES checking their own papers, while at the same time they intimidate journals to prevent alternative views from other scientists from being printed.
Very few of the 2000 are climate scientists; and every one is on the payroll of the IPCC.
1000frolly 1 month ago
@1000frolly Keep writing!The more you write the more you tell me & others you don't have a clue as to what you are talking about! LOL! NO, the IPCC WAS NOT set up to find a link between CO2 & GW.That was done nearly 100yrs ago! "$30 Billion" WTF? The IPCC does not fund research it does however pay for travel expenses when needed. AGAIN, you have been LIED TO & so you think you know what the IPCC is but it is VERY CLEAR you don't! All 2000 IPCC Scientist are in FACT Climate Scientist!
Viracocha711 1 month ago
@Viracocha711
Glad I make you happy; warmists like yourselves need all the encouragement you can get right now, as your Church of Climatology collapses
IPCC;
"The IPCC was established by the World Meteorological Organisation and the United Nations Environment Panel in 1988. From the very beginning its brief was to report on mankind’s influence on climate change"
So its brief was not to investigate IF a link exists, but to report on man's (assumed)infulence on climate change
1000frolly 1 month ago
@Viracocha711
Absolute nonsense How can you make these redicuous claims when it is so easy to check this on the web?
There were 3,750 contributing scientists to the last IPCC report
Of these, fifty-three authors and five reviewers are all that might generously be said to have explicitly supported the claim of a significant human influence on climate.
In all, then, just 58 scientists agree with the IPCCs claims. And many of these are not climate scientists!
The IPCC costs $5bil/yr
1000frolly 1 month ago
@1000frolly Seriously, where are you getting your info from?? The IPCC annual budget is between 5-7 MILLION not BILLION!! There were more than 2500 scientist/reviewers, more than 800 contributing authors, and more than 450 lead authors...ALL are scientist actively studying the climate! That does not count the scores of climate scientist & hundreds of peer reviewed papers that the IPCC report was built off of! Again, you really don't have a CLUE what you are talking about!!
Viracocha711 1 month ago
Comment removed
1000frolly 1 month ago
Comment removed
1000frolly 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Viracocha711 Your claim that "ALL are scientists actively studying the climate" is baloney. The vast majority of the "2,500" are doing work on the so-called effects of man-made climate change and are DEFINATELY NOT climate scientists, this is a lie! This big lie one of the many fables that the IPCC is keen to keep going by repetition.
Of the few climate scientists, the MAJORITY do not agree with the polemic. (see survey of climate scientists conducted by scientists Bray & Hans, 2010)
1000frolly 1 month ago
@Viracocha711 Survey of Climate Scientists by Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch 2010. "Most scientists disagree with positions that are at the foundation of the alarmist case. This survey certainly shows no consensus on the science behind the global warming scare.
When asked questions scientists seem quick to admit their uncertainty. Majorities of climate scientists say they do not believe the scientific claims that underlie the theory and predictions of catastrophic anthropogenic climate change"
1000frolly 1 month ago
@1000frolly WTF? You really don't have a clue, huh? These are results of the Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch 2010 poll."To the question "How convinced are you that most of recent or near future climate change is, or will be, a result of anthropogenic causes?" the responses were 34.6% very much agree, 48.9% agreeing to a large extent, 15.1% to a small extent, and 1.35% not agreeing at all. WHO IS LYING TO YOU? Seriously, how did you get "Most scientist disagree" from those results?
Viracocha711 1 month ago
@Viracocha711
OK so you want to cherry-pick data from the survey.
If AGW is so dangerous, how come only 8% of climate scientists think we should mitigate strongly against 'climate change'?
62% say that comments made by environmental groups about climate change are either inaccurate or very inaccurate.
More than 45% of climate scientists say they have NEVER been asked about their opinion by policy makers!
Opinion of climate scientists is the public should be "slightly worried".
1000frolly 1 month ago
@1000frolly You accuse me of "Cherry Picking" when you got caught LYING? Seriously, it does not bother you to outright LIE? You change the topic with every comment! You contradict yourself in that last two comments...And then post data that does not support the claims you make yet you don't even realize it! WTF? What your data does prove is EVERYONE on the Right & the Left should SHUT THE FUCK UP & listen to what the scientist say & NO ONE ELSE! If need to LIE then U R WRONG!
Viracocha711 1 month ago
Comment removed
1000frolly 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Viracocha711
Sounds like I'm going a little too fast for you, I'll try to keep it simple.
First; Sit down and take a break, relax and take a few deep breaths.
Not surprised you had no answer to my statement (from the above survey) that;
ONLY 10.8% OF THE 371 CLIMATE SCIENTISTS QUESTIONED, DESCRIBED THEMSELVES AS "NOT BEING AN ENVIRONMENTAL ACTIVIST"!
Should we really be listening to scientists who are not impartial?
1000frolly 1 month ago
@Viracocha711
Revealed in this survey; ONLY 10.8% OF THE 371 CLIMATE SCIENTISTS QUESTIONED, DESCRIBED THEMSELVES AS "NOT BEING AN ENVIRONMENTAL ACTIVIST"!
Do you think, therefore, that since about 90% of them are not impartial scientists, that this may have coloured their answers in the survey?
Is it also reasonable to assume that this may also colour their scientific research?
1000frolly 1 month ago
@Viracocha711
If you noticed, I was quoting; these are not my words. They are from the best source of truth in the climate change arena, the NIPCC's 2011 report.
I would recommend you read it as you only seem to be familiar with one side of the question.
The unbiased scientists who wrote this report are essential to counter the biased IPCCs reports.
Sounds like you should sit down and take a few good, deep breaths.
1000frolly 1 month ago
@1000frolly I knew you were being LIED TO! LOL! I shot down every single post you made & you kept changing the subject! However, our entire conversation is still here for all to see unless you do what other deniers do & erase your comments. If not, then it is easy to see who was posting PURE BS & who was not...Who changed the subject with every post & who shot down those post with facts. Like I said before, with every post you make you are showing just how ignorant you are!
Viracocha711 1 month ago
Comment removed
1000frolly 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Viracocha711
Just how old are you? You certainly sound juvenile. When you get a bit of maturity, you will realise how silly you were.
You shot down my posts only in your dreams, but if that makes you happy...
Alarmists like you never have any scientific evidence to back your claims, all you have is foolish abuse.
If you had just ONE piece of evidence, it would outweigh all the constant name-calling.
Can't you see how AGW is just a belief system, and not science at all?
1000frolly 1 month ago
@Viracocha711
You misquoted me here. I said "Most scientists disagree with positions that are at the foundation of the alarmist case. This survey certainly shows no consensus on the science behind the global warming scare".
When asked about the specific scientific claims behind the theory and predictions of AGW, majorities of climate scientists say they do not believe these.
These responses are a world away from the "99% agreement" that we always hear about.
1000frolly 1 month ago
@1000frolly No I did not "misquote you"...You are drastically misquoting the study! Plus, you are focusing on just ONE study like this when there have been multiple studies like this & everyone of them show a STRONG CONSENSUS! And YES, among CLIMATE SCIENTIST, those who are actively studying the climate & producing papers, there is a STRONG CONSENSUS of around 97%-99%! Forget polls READ THE DAN SCIENCE! Watch the lectures by the Climate Scientist on YouTube Education...THINK!!
Viracocha711 1 month ago
@Viracocha711
I understand the science fully; I have examined both sides.
Unfortunately, one side (yours) is not just about the science. This has lead to many of the old climate scientists and all of the 'new' climate scientists who came into the field recently (once the money was there) cooking the data, trying to validate models, faking graphs to support their hypothesis, trying to discredit any opposing views ect.
This is why folk like yourself have been fooled into believing.
1000frolly 1 month ago
@1000frolly Either send me PROOF of your claims or just shut up because we both know you can't support the absurd claims you have made! I will be waiting!!
Viracocha711 1 month ago
@Viracocha711 I can show some things to be true that 1000frolly said.
1). email 0876437553 "Sounds like you guys have been busy doing good things for the cause.
I would like to weigh in on two important questions—
Distribution for Endorsements— Cont...
MrOTLChamp 2 weeks ago
They will mention the prominent ones, but that is a different story.
Conclusion—Forget the screening, forget asking them about their last publication (most will ignore you). Get those names!"
MrOTLChamp 2 weeks ago
@Viracocha711 That shows how they tried to get their consensus
MrOTLChamp 2 weeks ago
@Viracocha711 email 0932158667 " Also, there is no evidence for a decline or loss of temperature response in your data in the post-1950s (I assume that you didn’t apply a bodge here) …
MrOTLChamp 2 weeks ago
@Viracocha711 You still haven't explained how a "bodge" is used if it's not to Fake the temperatures.
MrOTLChamp 2 weeks ago
@Viracocha711 And Mann's graph is still unsupported by the facts.
I've already shown you plenty of peer-reviewed reports from all over the world showing similar changes during the MWP
MrOTLChamp 2 weeks ago
@MrOTLChamp Like I have said in your PM to me & other comments...You need to go learn what CO2 is & its characteristics because if you don't even know the basics, and clearly you don't, how can you understand that every paper you copy & paste from Professional Denialist websites all agree with the consensus! And you clearly don't know that Mann's graph has been replicated by at 12 other studies by different people using different methodologies. Talk to you later.
Viracocha711 2 weeks ago
@Viracocha711 Manns graph was only partially replicated by his colleagues. There is over a thousand peer-reviewed papers saying otherwise. Was there a MWP? Yes, according to data published by 1050 individual scientists from 600 research institutions in 44 different countries ... and counting! What did you have? 12? LMAO
MrOTLChamp 2 weeks ago
@Viracocha711 Here's another e-mail for you Jones: "I too don’t see why the schemes should be symmetrical. The temperature ones
certainly will not as we’re choosing the periods to show warming."
Question. Do you really think that choosing temperatures to show warming is not manipulating the data to force the conclusion of warming?
Gee, how could all those so-called investigations have missed that? LMAO
I know, it's all a coincidence. Huh?
MrOTLChamp 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MrOTLChamp Keep playing the role of a USEFUL IDIOT it does not bother me...I have answered all your NAIVE & UTTERLY IGNORANT comments & questions...Including in great detail why the emails changed NOTHING in the science nor did they in any way show fraud or "bodge" of data. ALL the data was released that applied to the IPCC & no one could find any errors! But you have chosen to ignore the FACTS & adhere to the role of a USEFUL IDIOT. Obviously you like that role so have FUN!
Viracocha711 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@1000frolly Either send me PROOF of your claims or just shut up because we both know you can't support the absurd claims you have made! I will be waiting!!
Viracocha711 1 month ago
good work here
bribribri56 1 month ago
i enjoyed this vid
jjclassjj 1 month ago
Just saw today a documentary on Discovery Science about a scientist who was proud that his aluminium-gallium alloy produced no CO2 emissions. That moron failed to understand in the presentation that aluminum oxide encourages the growth of cancer cells. Other morons have suggested solar panels, disregarding mining operations, wind farms disregarding the chemicals used to protect the blades from corrosion etcetera.
Researchrules 2 months ago
The regression analysis shows correlation between variables, not the cause-effect of a problem. That gets settled through significant scientific experiments. Where are the experiments in Stephens presentation? Any undergrad who didn't skip food safety courses knows that yeasts, bacteria and fungi produce CO2 at high temperatures.
Researchrules 2 months ago
@Researchrules Philosophy is settled ??? Maybe you should read some metaphysics man. Phylosphy is as settled as science in general is because there is no separation between philosophy and science ( or we built an artificial one after the Greeks)
sossalicious 1 month ago
@sossalicious Can you please point out to any more possible approaches in Philosophy apart from the ones which ware developed by Ayn Rand, Schopenhauer, Aristotle, Plato, Diogenes, Xenon, Epicure, Socrates and company. Honestly, is there anything more which could be developed? I doubt. Science however is a different issue altogether.
Researchrules 1 month ago
@Researchrules If you want to go this way let's just say Newton, Einstein, Maxwell, Reynolds, leibneiz etc etc etc (have I said etc) did it all. Although we know that this is not true. Philosophers will admit this themselves : You build a thinking based on premises. You think about ethics, justice, politics, but also determinism vs freedom of action. But you will always have some sort of premise that you have to assume to be true to build your thinking.
sossalicious 1 month ago
@sossalicious Philosophy is based solely on thinking, Science is based on thinking and experiments. From the individualist Rand-ism to the community-focused Confucianism, there are clearly some limits to the possible combinations, just like a political compass.
Unlike that, in Science, interaction between different elements has unexpected combinations.
Researchrules 1 month ago
@Researchrules (suite...) Do we have an answer for moral/ethics, no ! Do we know if everything is determined, no ! A lot has been answered and yet everything has to be answered like in Science.
sossalicious 1 month ago
@sossalicious By all means we have the limits to morality and ethics, unlike in Science where there are still unexpected solutions for Gravity, Unified Theory etcetera.
Researchrules 1 month ago
Well morons, you learned dick. So a professor ignores basic mathematical truisms like y = a*x + b than x = y/a + b' (or b/a). Science is never settled morons. Religion is settled, philosophy is settled, but the basic definition of science states that science is an evolving subject.
Researchrules 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
nice professor. a lot of involvements and wow a scientist also? he's so cool.. nice video anyway... alot of learning..
lovelplants 3 months ago
learned a lot!
potpie921 3 months ago
learned bunch of thing. thanks!
grunder20 3 months ago
very inspiring and educational
thebigfootme 3 months ago
You can learn a lot from this video.
agapitoflores001 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
There is a quick simple solution to global warming and climate change. It is called Muon Catalysed Fusion. As worked on Star Scientific. NO CO2. NO Greenhouse Gases. NO Toxic Waste. The source is dueterium from the World's Oceans - virtually limitless. It is cheap to produce. WE NEED IT NOW. See the website "Star Scientific Limited", Blog "The Big Picture by Andrew Horvath", Youtube video - "In the Footsteps of Fusion"
2110kop 7 months ago
knowing times reality equals change.....................change times change equals reality be ye still that ye may know....for knowing is in i
vonmoneski1 8 months ago
98% of climate scientists say that man-made climate change is a real thing, the science is settled.
AndroidPolitician 9 months ago
He talks about economics but where is the DEPRECIATION OF DURABLE CONSUMER GOODS.
What about the PLANNED OBSOLESCENCE OF AUTOMOBILES?
What about the PLANNED OBSOLESCENCE OF COMPUTERS?
Producing garbage uses energy and produces pollution and adds to GDP but then the junk is thrown away and must be replaced and the new stuff is added to GDP.
So demand side depreciation for the entire world is ignored. So climate scientists don't notice that economists can't do algebra.
.
psikeyhackr 10 months ago
Did you climate-change-denying people even watch the video before you commented? Have you done any research of your own?
Dr. Schneider shows that climate change is indeed occuring, just as every climatologist and ecologist in the world knows.
bluegreentom 10 months ago
Its like Obama getting elected when his qualifications were very limited, the people were sold the hype and they bought it fully. Now a recent poll suggests that up to 20% of Obama voters would not do so again, and that number seems to be growing. I guess my point is that a lot of people make a decision on a subject based on media, and emotional influence. Few seem to do the research into anything and form their own opinion, they just go with the flow. Science does not support AGW panic.
TheKickerboy99 11 months ago
I guess I can understand why people have bought into the CO2 hype, when most your politicians, and movie stars, consistently preach something the general public goes along with it. It becomes the gospel. Only problem is the actual data does not support it, as shown with Al Gores movie, the hockey stick graph by Michael Mann, Tree rings, glaciers disappearing, ect. All of these scare tactics have been exposed as such, but somehow some people are still scared. cont...
TheKickerboy99 11 months ago
TheKickerboy99. Regards the 'one paper to rule them all' you've asked for, I don't read the scientific lit as it's written for trained specialists, there's a lot of it, not all of it is available. However the National Academy of Sciences of the United States puts out a journal of proceedings and that appears to have listings of papers that discuss the development, definition of and likelihood of 'dangerous climate change'
TankUni 11 months ago
Look - we're living in a global economy which depends heavily on oil. We've been burning vast quantities in the last 50 years and our scientists are saying that it's having an unexpected sideeffect. We're starting to see this in the arctic and glaciers.
Addressing AGW will affect 'business as usual' and so a shitstorm has erupted. Pundits have arisen who feed off a growing sense of unease in the American public and ply them with silly paranoid conspiracy theories. You seem to be a subscriber.
TankUni 11 months ago
@TankUni You obviously have not read the Copenhagen Treaty, I suggest you do. Taxing CO2 will not reduce its production, if you think it will I suggest you look into it a bit more. "Our scientists" have not said anything of the sort, in fact the ones I have talked to, or read up on, say the real problem is pollution of our oceans with plastics and heavy metals. They want to tax CO2 because the potential income from it is greater than any tax imposed on mankind in history, starting to get it?
TheKickerboy99 11 months ago
@TheKickerboy99
I tell you what - I haven't read the Copenhagen Treaty. I will do so and get back to you. Regards Co2 tax, that's another issue. I agree that it may not be the best way to reduce emissions and I am suspect when it comes to governments and taxation. However I do accept the need to reduce our emissions. I don't yet see how that is going to occur, but it must. I don't believe the scientific community are acting fraudulently and therefore we should act on their findings.
TankUni 11 months ago
@TankUni One last thing, I am still waiting for you to produce one peer reviewed paper that has been produced that shows dangerous warming. I'll give you a little hint, it doesn't exist. Every single record of global temperature shows a normal warming trend that has occurred before, and will again, after the next ice age.
TheKickerboy99 11 months ago
I was not confused by your gibberish, just disappointed with your lack of knowledge on the subject. Your dead professor's main thought process was, it could be true so lets not take any chances and let an unelected unaccountable elite group of individuals tax our planets life giving gas, and ultimately control life on Earth as a result. Sounds like a stupid idea to me how about you? If you had a chance to read the Copenhagen Treaty, you would know that is what it was meant to do. cont.....
TheKickerboy99 11 months ago
I tried to pack a lot of info into a small space and I confused you. Apologies.
Shorter version;
the Oregon Petition is rubbish and a PR exercise.
The label 'warmers' is way of polarizing people and avoiding serious debate regards climate change.
Prof Schneider was 'top of his field' (now sadly passed on). His message was clear - increased greenhouse gases, Co2 in particular, will likely cause extensive climate disruption and hardship globally.
TankUni 11 months ago
@TankUni It was designed to turn over every nations sovereignty to this unelected, unaccountable group. What baffles me is how your mentality cannot see through the obvious manipulation and deceit. Even now after AGW caused by increases in CO2 have been shown to be hyped up, and not a threat, some are still claiming some imaginary consensus, and no debate required. Nothing to see here people, don't worry we'll save the planet for you, your NWO is all powerful, and unelected, unaccountable, ect.
TheKickerboy99 11 months ago
@TankUni By the way, everything you have responded to me with is garbage. Could you please show me something I haven't heard from your brainwashed comrades over and over? Some actual piece of evidence, proof of something, rather than name calling and lies. When your side gets backed into a corner with the facts, that is where the debate always seems to go, its a bit old, and shows how unintelligent, and controllable some really are.
TheKickerboy99 11 months ago
Warmers aka AGW followers, are just people that can't admit they bought a lie from a politician. It happens, just don't be so gullible, and loath to admit it.
TheKickerboy99 11 months ago
There hasn't been warming out of the normal, I guess I don't understand your position.
TheKickerboy99 1 year ago
Climate Change - Bob Carters 5 Tests of Co2 part
David Archibald - Global Warming & Sunspots explained
David Evans - Why CO2 cannot be blamed for Global warming
Global Warming Swindle Debate Pt1
Al Gore Debates Global Warming
Try these youtube vids.
TheKickerboy99 1 year ago
PS can whoever made this video at Stanford PLEASE include pictures of the slides interspersed with the "talking head" (no disrespect intended Prof Schneider!)
indulis1 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Richard Alley lecture, easily found on the web- search Richard Alley A23A and you'll find it. He shows how well understood the factors that determine CO2 and climate change are. He also shows that the cosmic ray theory doesn't correlate with climate change- periods of high cosmic rays don't result in climate change so the effect is small.
indulis1 1 year ago
Hmm the more CO2 the more plant life. Oh and by the way, I've worked in northern alberta and we work right through 45*C in rubber boots and chainsaw pants, helmut and earmuffs. 40+ degrees is not the problem, the problem is brainwashing a generation into turning over the sovereignty of every country to an unelected unaccountable group of people to control life on earth. Based on few corruptible computer models, and a whole lot of very selective funding. Ancient man adapted to change, we tax it.
TheKickerboy99 1 year ago
Do you really think this is the hottest Australia has ever been? Do you think CO2 is the cause of your countries climate or just our natural solar cycles. If it took us 150 yrs to raise CO2 15 ppm from 370 to 385, and the IPCC says 770 ppm would raise it 3-4 *C then how can you attribute any of our climate to CO2? It just doesn't make sense. The AGW crowd seems to want to forget the drastic changes our planet normally goes through, it has never been stable. Scare tactics seem to be working.
TheKickerboy99 1 year ago
@TheKickerboy99 It has not been stable OVER MILLIONS OF YEARS not over the TENS of years over which we are seeing change happen. You just trot out the same old denier spiels. You can't even get the fact that the amount of CO2 we are putting out increases year after year. Every year the amount per day goes up. We are not only heading towards the cliff, we are pushing down harder and harder on the throttle, instead of applying brakes.
indulis1 1 year ago
@indulis1 Sorry meant to write climate is to some extend UNstable over millions of years or tens of thousands of years. The difference being someone asking you to move house in 6 months, or move house in 10 seconds. I think one is possible to adapt to, the other is not.
indulis1 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"Do you think CO2 is the cause of your countries climate or just our natural solar cycles". Well, when all of the ground and satellite based measurements show NO increase in solar activity while the temp increases, I'd say it is something else.
indulis1 1 year ago
He is a climate k00k/b00b!
I can understand why he is so angry, working over 40 years research man made climate change and can't prove anything!
IronMikeHouston 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Every year 2,500,000 people die of car exhaust. And car exhaust is destroying the nature! We know how to stop it!
youtube.com/watch?v=sHw7XSz2OGI
Stop the global warming !!!
MediaCryptix 1 year ago
While I almost always enjoy talks presented by educational institutions like Stanford, I do sometimes find myself weary of the commercials. "The commercials"?, you ask. Yes. The endless introductions detailing everything the speaker has ever accomplished since his original potty-training. Credit is the recognized currency in the academic world. And the 5 minute, always-glowing, introductions, are commercials. I don't care what he did in his youth. I care about the *content* of his talk today.
sbergman27 1 year ago
i was "hide the decline" stick to science and leave the politics to the pols
keithmobile73 1 year ago
Abraham vs. Monckton, new video series out.
Kingzoid 1 year ago
AGW is a theory and a flawed one at that, using computer models that cannot account for water vapour. (95%) of the greenhouse effect of our atmosphere, while CO2 is a trace gas that has very little effect on temps. Where do you get off saying everything in science is based on models? That was dumb. Science is based on trail and error, Experimentation with real numbers. You are obviously not a scientist. We cannot even predict the weather more than a few days in the future.
TheKickerboy99 1 year ago
@TheKickerboy99 Science provides us with models of reality - not complete knowledge of reality, this is why there are paradigm shifts like special relativity - our models change. Science is about applying the hypothetico-deductive methodology (the scientific method) first posed explicitly by Sir Francis Bacon in his Novum Organum. Clearly you're a "naive inductivist" who has never bothered studying the history and philosophy of science - a SCIENCE subject every scientist, like me, should study.
XenogeneGray 1 year ago
@XenogeneGray every one on here is a scientist.....lmao
TheKickerboy99 1 year ago
@TheKickerboy99 Clearly you are not. What do you do? As a physicist I understand the basic mechanisms described - I know what cosmic rays are (they're the original source of high energy particles my field studied). I know how they interact with matter (important if you want to study them). I therefore understand the mechanism used by Svensmark. It seemed plausible till I read papers explaining his oversights. Therefore his theory has been debunked. Point out the debunker's flaw if you can.
XenogeneGray 1 year ago
@XenogeneGray His paper is peer reviewed, a few small corrections do not discard the whole of the theory. The truth of it remains.
TheKickerboy99 1 year ago
@XenogeneGray You are not a scientist, you are therefore a liar. Cosmic rays do form clouds. I don't think that is in dispute at all.
TheKickerboy99 1 year ago
@TheKickerboy99 You live in a strange world where someone with a BSc (Adv) (hon), with an honours thesis in particle physics, isn't a scientist. What's required to be a scientist in this strange delusional place you live? Perhaps a Ph.D. in astrology :P
FYI, condensing water vapour forms clouds, not cosmic rays; no water = no clouds. Cosmic rays can ionise water vapour and dust nuclei and POTENTIALLY aid in vapour condensation; they can also POTENTIALLY hinder vapour condensation.
XenogeneGray 1 year ago
@XenogeneGray Ok you have not read his paper, or Lindzen's. Do you make your living as a particale physicist? I'll bet the farm not. AGW is a scam, based on junk computer models, tree rings, ect. Taxing CO2 will POTENTIALLY create more CO2, and unless China and India sign on, China completes it's takeover of western civilization. When you have read his paper, and can converse about what it says, then get back to me. Remember these ARE peer reviewed papers.
TheKickerboy99 1 year ago
@TheKickerboy99 I did read the paper (8 months ago) along with other related papers that debunk his theory (whose references I've already given). A hypothesis that is not yet debunked will get published in reputable journals until it is debunked; back in the 19th century, ether hypotheses were published in peer reviewed reputable journals, they wouldn't be now as that hypothesis has been debunked. Also, some groups, eg creationists, have set up peer reviewed journals to publish in.
XenogeneGray 1 year ago
@TheKickerboy99 Yes, as I already stated, I'm in computing now; there aren't many jobs in particle physics.
How exactly could taxing CO2, particularly on imports from countries that have a lower cost for CO2, result in higher CO2 production?
AGW is now considered as much of a scam as evolution by the scientific community; the evidence now demonstrably shows it to be true. Wanting AGW to be false, or a god to exist who made us, does not make those wants reality. I too WISH AGW was all a fake.
XenogeneGray 1 year ago
@XenogeneGray AGW is a scam, that is the sad truth. Do you think there could ever be an agreement between the US and China regarding this? The answer is no. Unless of course they get a "cut" in to it. When this happens it will become the new reality. Based on poor computer models, and hysteria created by the media. Of course CO2 should have some effect on global temps, but not enough to cause any problems. By the IPCC's own data., a doubling of CO2, will bring 3-4 degrees change.
TheKickerboy99 1 year ago
@TheKickerboy99 The sad truth is in Australia we already regularly get heat wave of 40+ Celsius, and people die as a result. Any temperature above 38 Celsius with 100% humidity will kill you, and the hotter the temperature the lower the humidity necessary to kill. An extra 3-4 degrees change will exponentially increase the death rate and make large regions UNINHABITABLE to humanity without air conditioning; that's a VERY SERIOUS PROBLEM in my books, particularly for 3rd world people!
XenogeneGray 1 year ago
@XenogeneGray Exponetially....good word. What if it starts getting colder instead. It would make sense that we are at the end of a warming trend that will lead us to the next ice age. The planet does what it wants to, taxing CO2 will not change the cycles earth has. It will separate the "haves" from the "have nots" a lot more than they are now, it is new world order, starring Maurice Strong, George Soros, and Al Gore! With the rest of the elite power brokers of our planet rounding out the cast.
TheKickerboy99 1 year ago
@TheKickerboy99 The models predict somewhere between 2-6 degrees warming is already locked in; 12 is possible without change. With 7+ degrees warming there will be induced hyperthermia even in healthy drug free adults [S. C. Sherwooda and M. Huberb, 2010; pnas. org], rendering some regions uninhabitable (at 12 degrees warming most places on Earth will be uninhabitable without air conditioning). We need to take serious action now as we are literally making the world potentially uninhabitable.
XenogeneGray 1 year ago
@XenogeneGray You guys and your models. Geesh! How about the actual measured data? Just because it doesn't go with the models doesn't mean its not important to consider. Models cannot account for water, the one major greenhouse gas. Do you even understand what 380 PPM is? CO is not nor has it ever been a driver of temps. even in volcanic eruptions that expel as much CO2 as man has in one episode. What happens? The temps go down, as the SUN is blocked, there's some measured data for you.
TheKickerboy99 1 year ago
@TheKickerboy99 Actually you will find that one volcanic eruption (in recent times) does not come anywhere close to man's CO2 emissions. Another piece of denier bull. Just look at the US Geological Survey (USGS) web site. And the models *do* account for clouds and water. If you dont believe it, go read the model program source code. Its pretty much all out there, public. And when there have been major planet wide volcanic events, the CO2 has clearly driven temp rise. 3 strikes. You're out
indulis1 1 year ago
Comment removed
indulis1 1 year ago
@indulis1 None of what you have said is true, in fact where do you get this stuff? Oh ya Al Gore. Recent eruptions have not expelled as much CO2 but large ones can. The scam is exposed, it has been exposed over and over again, yet punks like you still try to defend it. Move on. Go clean up the oceans that is a real problem.
TheKickerboy99 1 year ago
@XenogeneGray Did you ever read the Copenhagen treaty? You should. It spells it out in black and white. AGW is a political movement, for global governance. There is no consensus on any doom claims from the IPCC, in fact they are shot down as fast as they have come, with the MEASURED DATA.
TheKickerboy99 1 year ago
@TheKickerboy99 Where are the overall trends contradicted. Please provide evidence that all of the thousands of observations which correlate with the predictions of the IPCC wrong. And not just "oh the glaciers aren't melting as fast as predicted in the himalayas. No, something which demolishes at least 50% of the scientific observations. You won't find it. Because all you do is just trot out the same old denier claptrap.
indulis1 1 year ago
@TheKickerboy99 Hey Kickerboy- did you actually watch this video or are you just a denier troll?
indulis1 1 year ago
@indulis1 I did watch the video, there are 30,000 scientists that disagree with this guy. Many of them much more qualified to make a judgement about it. When you call me a denier troll, what are you trying to imply? To say the science is settled is to reach the height of unscientific thought. I would ask you to listen for a moment to people like Tim Ball, Bob Carter, David Evans, David Archibald, John Christie, and 29,995 more people on the list that will tell you why AGW is a scam.
TheKickerboy99 1 year ago
@TheKickerboy99
30,000 scientists? That would be the Oregon Petition that included such scientific luminaries as Ginger Spice? Michael J Fox? Hawkeye Pierce? It was a crock designed to provide PR FUD and unfortunately it's been sucessful. The people who put it out have also been active in providing FUD for the tobacco industry and in downplaying the dangers of asbestos.
TankUni 11 months ago
@TheKickerboy99 Seems like your world is a scary paranoid one where 'liberal conspirators' have nothing better to do than raise the cost of your electricity by less than 15%, and for no better reason than trying to stop any place on Earth becoming uninhabitable for human life, for the first time since humans evolved. Those scary crazy liberals, what will they think of next - trying to ensure everyone has access to health care; imagine people not being forced to die of easily treated diseases :P
XenogeneGray 1 year ago
@XenogeneGray Seems like you world is based on a lie, that you have bought into with all your heart. If you think Cap and Tax is to save the world, here's a news flash for you. The world has been through many changes, our power to control it is zero. Save the world? Save the world from Cap and Tax is more like it. Ever give any though what happens to the third world under this Tax?
TheKickerboy99 1 year ago
@TheKickerboy99 Yeah, it's terrible I believe in the scientific method and the peer reviewed scientific models derived from it that explain all the evidence (like AGW). Before you know, lying scientists will be claiming such models will enable them to make aircraft capable of going faster than sound, and send astronauts to the moon! Those pesky scientist trying to lie about the power and utility of their scientific method! I don't want AGW to be true, so clearly it can't be true, right :P
XenogeneGray 1 year ago
@XenogeneGray This is the problem with your argument, every time they put forward a concern about CO2 it is shown to be exaggerated, or just wrong. If there is real verifiable proof, lets see it. Until then I can only go with the evidence they have tried to slide by us, and it gets a fail. Do you really believe them to be un-corruptible? I submit your trust in AGW science is misplaced, and unsubstantiated.
TheKickerboy99 1 year ago
@TheKickerboy99 I'll admit I haven't gone to Greenland, drilled out an ice core and personally measured the trapped air bubbles. However, many different people provide evidence of AGW, so that makes it reasonable to assume they're not all faking it; particularly the mariners who now enjoy using the Northwest passage. What level of evidence do you require to acknowledge AGW? Do massive numbers of people need to die from heat stress when aircon power fails? Why let such preventable deaths happen?
XenogeneGray 1 year ago
@TheKickerboy99
'it is shown to be exaggerated, or just wrong'
I'm sorry, but that's just bollocks. I don't know what blogger world you bounce around in, but within the scientific community that's simply not the case.
TankUni 11 months ago
@TankUni You warmers always spout the same crap, which is untrue and basically propaganda fed to you by George Soros , Maurice Strong, Gore, ect. If you have a peer reviewed paper that shows abnormal warming please produce it. As for the previous statement on the Oregon petition, the people on it are some of the best in the field of climate science, if you had looked at the list you would know this, so please stop with the BS.
TheKickerboy99 11 months ago
@TheKickerboy99
Warmers? Lol. Labels are a device to allow you to avoid thinking about issues. Also George Soros is hiding under your bed right now!
Regards the Oregon Petition, the first certainly had those names but it was reissued in 2007/8. it's a PR move. The Oregon Institute was founded by a creationist, the questions are worded in a misleading way, the 1st issue was done up to look like another respected scientific journal. Regards 'top of the field', just watch the video above. Jeez.
TankUni 11 months ago
@TankUni Please try to construct a comment that makes sense, your last one doesn't.
TheKickerboy99 11 months ago
@TankUni and @ Everyone Have a look at it and see if you can find any of the names TankUni has listed. Research some of the names, petition project. org
TheKickerboy99 11 months ago
@XenogeneGray Cheaper energy from imports use dirtier methods that emit more CO2, should be easy to comprehend.
TheKickerboy99 1 year ago
@TheKickerboy99 You ignored my statement "taxing CO2, particularly on imports from countries that have a lower cost for CO2". If a country ensures such fair taxation for all products, the playing field is levelled in that country between imports and "home made" products; CO2 taxation credits can be given to exporters so the importing country gets all the taxation revenue, if it wished.
XenogeneGray 1 year ago
@TheKickerboy99 So according to you F = ma is not a model, it is reality? Wrong, in special relativity F =/= ma. However, under the right circumstances F = ma is a very good MODEL of reality, like all scientific theories applied to their relevant areas.
XenogeneGray 1 year ago
@TheKickerboy99 You really do seem to enjoy demonstrating your lack of knowledge of how science actually works. What do you actually do? Economics, would be my guess. For the record I'm doing my PhD in computing, have a major in pure mathematics and honours in particle physics (my thesis was on CP violation in B mesons - why there's more matter than anti-matter in the universe).
XenogeneGray 1 year ago
@XenogeneGray So you admit you know nothing about our climate and how it works. Thanks.
TheKickerboy99 1 year ago
@TheKickerboy99 No, I'm fascinated with the field, and have read several papers on it. I don't claim to be an expert on it but every argument you've used has been debunked in the literature. If you actually read some of the papers such as those by Benestad (2002), Damon and Laut you might understand how our climate works too. Disprove their debunking of your/Monckton's theories, and write a paper on it. That's how science works. Again you demonstrate a complete lack of knowledge of science.
XenogeneGray 1 year ago
@XenogeneGray
So in short you are an academic, good for you.
I always find it telling when someone uses their "diplomas and certifications" to show/demonstrate their purported credibility...
Those who don't have what it takes to do, teach.
toulouse666 1 year ago
@TheKickerboy99 There's a difference between climate and weather. It was predicted months ago that this would be an unusually cold and snowy winter for North America.
bannor99 1 year ago
For the record, I'm not a Marxist or communist. If I was a politician I'd base my policies on evidence, not dogma. Free markets are the best system, but free does NOT mean unregulated. You wouldn't play a football game without a referee would you? Government is the social and business referee. Also, when people are down on their luck they should always be kept alive by welfare just enough to barely live, so they still have the drive to get a job and better themselves. I'm centre 'wing'.
XenogeneGray 1 year ago
@XenogeneGray Well that sounds reasonable, being a centre wing. However I think your view on the subject of agw is a bit one sided to say the least. It is just that all of the "Overwhelming evidence" you refer to is all based on flawed computer models, and not the current measured data. Monckton does not make stuff up, he only uses the current measured data, it is the agw side that does the former.
TheKickerboy99 1 year ago
@TheKickerboy99 Everything in science is based on models. Well established simple models are called laws (like the law of gravitation or energy conservation). Monckton uses very simplistic flawed models, and inappropriately to boot. If you want to make ANY prediction, you must use a model, unless you believe in psychic powers, and even that's the model that psychic powers work :)
XenogeneGray 1 year ago
@XenogeneGray Monckton uses the IPCC data (only peer reviewed), but he shows the whole picture not just snippets like in the following vid : Lord Christopher Monckton before congress, May 6 2010, part 1 of 3 .....as your will see in this vid they try to attack everything but the science.
TheKickerboy99 1 year ago
I've nothing against religious people - my mother is one. However, I'm glad here in Australia we have very few creationist so we don't have to worry about religious fundamentalists demanding a non-existent controversy be taught in science lessons. If they want creationism taught, then teach it in scripture studies where it belongs - the Christian schools I went to forced me to do scripture studies till I got excused for pointing out what nonsense it is once too often.
XenogeneGray 1 year ago
CrossTalk on Climate: Global skepticism warms up? This was very entertaining. :)
TheKickerboy99 1 year ago
@TheKickerboy99 Lord Christopher Monckton before congress, May 6 2010 - Monckton complains demonstrating multiple trend lines is fraud, then proceeds to demonstrate multiple trend lines himself. Interesting. Data clearly shows temperature oscillation - no one denies that. However, the oscillation from 1940 clearly carries on with rising base temperature, just look at the graph.
XenogeneGray 1 year ago
@TheKickerboy99 Earl Blumenauer points out that Monckton is not a scientist, yet he's the best spokesperson the minority opinion could get - major warning bells there. Just like creationists normally have to get lawyers as their spokespeople.
I've no problem with people believing lies if they want, but trying to pass pseudo-science lies off as science annoys me. By all means use science to try to back up your hypothesis, but once discredited stop saying it's not discredited. That's unforgivable.
XenogeneGray 1 year ago
@TheKickerboy99 I love science. I would much prefer the evidence say there is no human induced climate change. Unfortunately, it is quite clear there is and that we'll have to do something or suffer the consequences. Reality can be a bitch, but living in fantasy land will bitch slap you much worse than facing reality. Also, I'm not American - like most of the people in the world.
XenogeneGray 1 year ago
lmao I was about to say the same thing to you.
TheKickerboy99 1 year ago
Greenman's Monckton videos detail Monckton's claims and do a detailed rebuttal of them. Any one of sound mind who actually watched them could see that. I haven't seen any valid cherry picking complaint that Monckton claims exist - that's from rationally and skepticaly reviewing the evidence. Your denial of renewable's proven usability with "we just can't use batteries to store the energy, as they are not environmentally friendly" clearly shows your ignorance and or vested interest.
XenogeneGray 1 year ago
I just think there are more pressing environment issues to concentrate on. The oceans really are in trouble, they have been our dump for everything, for way too long and in places they are dying. Temps are fine, and will be right up until the cosmos turns us around to a cooling phase, which will be a real problem. I will be long dead, but my house will be under a mile of ice. It is a cycle that we cannot control or alter in anyway. It will happen.
TheKickerboy99 1 year ago
@TheKickerboy99 Yes, there are many environmental issues to be dealt with, but climate change can kill us, or at least make large regions of Earth uninhabitable for unaided man. Are you suggesting we ignore something we're pretty sure could kill millions of humans, cause massive environmental refugee issues, etc? I judge climate change more critical than other species extinction, etc (though of course they are environmental catastrophes too).
XenogeneGray 1 year ago
@TheKickerboy99 I suppose you believe human fishing hasn't effected fish stocks either, after all the oceans are so large with so many predator fish, how could we effect such an ecosystem.
I can only conclude you are a troll TheKickerboy99. Clearly, like a creationist you'll hold to your conclusions regardless of evidence to the contrary, so there really is no point 'debating you'. I've got to get back to constructive tasks. Please actually think about the consequences of your actions.
XenogeneGray 1 year ago
@XenogeneGray Try this if you would like to see my point about cherry picking...Lord Christopher Monckton before congress, May 6 2010, part 1 of 3
TheKickerboy99 1 year ago
@XenogeneGray Wow you really hate creationists eh? I suppose you are a marxist communist, and think Obama has the country on the right track. Every action has a reaction, taxing CO2 will have more dire effects on the poor of this world than you can apparently comprehend. The rich will get riche and the poor will die, but that is what they are trying to do with it anyway. Its not about science, as I've said its about stopping third world development and controlling life on the planet.
TheKickerboy99 1 year ago
@TheKickerboy99 Anyone who thinks Obama is either a socialist or a liberal really need to give their head a shake. He is no further left than center-right.
bannor99 1 year ago
@bannor99 Obama is a progressive, the goal of all progressives is bigger government, more control, less freedom.
TheKickerboy99 1 year ago
@TheKickerboy99 You'll never have a perfect balance; there are times when more is necessary and times when it's too intrusive. Of course, in a large, complex society, that means that there are parts that are too big and others too small. After the decades of continual financial fiascoes going back to the Savings & Loan crises, it's clear that MORE, not less, powerful oversight and intervention. Same goes for governance of the oil industry. It takes a strong leader to work the balance.
bannor99 1 year ago
@bannor99 I just don't believe government to be an efficient way to do anything. Private industry with some regulation creates jobs, government does not create anything, but more debt due to lack of oversight, and good management. Governments make rules for all of us to follow, but don't seem to have to themselves. I can name many examples of this. Government wages come right off the bottom line, your tax dollars.
TheKickerboy99 1 year ago
@TheKickerboy99 Industry has done a great job of taking your tax dollars even when they don't need a handout or a bailout. What's needed to try to rectify that system is a government that stands apart from the corporate sector. That hasn't been the case for a very long time and I don't see any significant voice urging change on that front.
bannor99 1 year ago
@bannor99 You mean unions I think.
TheKickerboy99 1 year ago
@TheKickerboy99 Unions? What unions and what have they done?
bannor99 1 year ago
We can use batteries - lithium is reasonably environmentally friendly. Besides, life is about trade offs - having a hydroelectric storage facility effects the environment but can store huge amounts of energy reasonably cheaply. Renewables have been proven to be a viable, if slightly more expensive technology. I for one would pay 25% more for electricity so I can live, wouldn't you?
As for Monckton greenman did a very good job pointing out his lies. Pay attention to the videos.
XenogeneGray 1 year ago
@XenogeneGray Vehicle2Grid aka V2G will serve that purpose if the communication from car to grid can be done reliably. A fully charged Nissan Leaf could run an average US home at full tilt for 1-2 days. If this becomes commonplace and once there are a significant number of EVs, the potential for mitigating blackouts, peak-shaving, load-following and overall benefits to the grid will be enormous
bannor99 1 year ago
@bannor99 I agree. In 15 years time when solar power and battery storage together are cheaper than coal, sane people will wonder what the hell nut jobs like 'TheKickerboy99' were on about with their anti-science lunacy. I can only surmise they know AGW is real and want to bring on an apocalyptic future rather than help speed up our move to sustainable technology that will make life better and help keep the whole world habitable.
XenogeneGray 1 year ago
@XenogeneGray Calculating true costs is extremely difficult but I'm reasonably certain that when they're all totaled, coal with all its emissions, mining damage, operating expenses and healthcare impact may already be more expensive than solar + storage.
bannor99 1 year ago
@bannor99 True, but economists don't care about such 'negative externalities'. Solar without storage is already cheaper than coal for some areas, and by ~2015 should be cheaper everywhere. With the rise of electric cars and smart electric grids, battery costs should reduce so by 2025 solar+battery storage will be cheaper than coal everywhere, even ignoring the 'negative externalities' of coal. Personally I think we need to more intelligently use our hydroelectric storage systems too.
XenogeneGray 1 year ago
@bannor99 Even though there's only ~3TW of hydroelectric energy available to us (given the current climate), and we need more than 15 TW already, hydroelectric could be a great energy storage system, with minimal additional capital costs (roughly run it at -12TW in the day, +15TW at night); at least this should be the maximum storage cost. The power system will radically change soon; say good buy to night-time off-peak electricity, if anything, day-time electricity will become the cheaper type.
XenogeneGray 1 year ago
@XenogeneGray Speaking about storage, there are 2 I came upon recently that look promising - Isentropic pumped heat