Greenpeace receives ca$h donations from BP, therefore hosts no videos of the tragic oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico on its bogus YouTube channel.
Greenpeace is a hypocritical corporatized tool who receives hush-money from some of the worlds largest environmental polluters like BP, whom they turn a blind-eye when crimes against nature are committed.
If you pollute the environment, you can buy silence from Greenpeace for a price.
you know what guys? i've been reading these comments for about an hour now. and all i want to say is. how do we live with children dying because of industrial oil spill?. if you people think that we are not the cause of our own distruction then you're pretty arrogant. seriusly. Gulfcoast. worldwar 1 and 2. hiroshima... the Tar-sands....acid created by CO2... atleast google alitle more before you go on bragging about how good we live. if everyone thinks like you guys.. we're fucked!!!!
It's too late for all this now we can't stop them they're too powerful they have lots of money, riot police, armies, fighter planes and nuclear bombs, we the people have nothing but our bare hands.
The Earth's climate has changed throughout history. Just in the last 650,000 years there have been seven cycles of glacial advance and retreat, with the abrupt end of the last ice age about 7,000 years ago marking the beginning of the modern climate era and of human civilization.
greenpeace is a criminal superstitios organisation. they are guilty that ppl in big parts of africa and many other regions in the world have not enough to eat ...
@rtfune , you obviously know nothing . Greenpeace backs up their claims with evidence while the nazis where just brainwashing people... It's sad that nobody cares about the earth when you can see the change for yourself! Have you ever been to Sumatra ? Thought not. Have you seen the devestation first hand?
@MrPoltergeist94 Greenpeace and their enviromentalist ilk are nothing more then hysterical, paranoid dumbasses. The mere fact that they think a glacier that has been around for millions of years is worth preserving merely shows their stupidity.
@LloydChristmas777 Earth is 4.5 billions years old, we been here about 200k years, 200 years of industry. And we think we are causing the melting of glacier, how arrogant, all these Greenpeace people want is just a good place to live, no industry no noise, no motors no noise, here we go back to the god damn stone age everything that makes too much noise forbid it, blame humans for global warming, blame humans for everything. fuck the humans and the earth, live while you can and stop worrying!
@MrPoltergeist94, Greenpeace or not, polluting the earth at an exponential rate could NOT be good for anyone except those who get rich off it. Raping this earth like its humanity's right -- THAT'S arrogant.
@MrPoltergeist94 But we all know that, even despite the melting, our industries and way of consummation is
causing rapid and destructive climat changes. You can dislike Greenpeace, but denying the fact that we are indeed the source of the environmental problem is magic thinking.
I WANT TO SEE ALL OUR TAXE IN ENVIRONEMENT AND HEALTH....ALL THE TAXE I PAY IN A YEAR IS THE EQUIVALENT OF 9 MONTH OF WORK...GIVE ME BACK MY TIME AND I WILL DO MY BEST TO MAKE THIS WORLD BETTER
You know Nazis used propaganda too without scientific evidence to say that jews ate little children and they where the reason they lost ww1... weird, i find similarities in these global warming vids....
@thatsgerman1 This is not a debate, I am not Greenpeace but you giving me a compliment my advertising is propaganda is on the one hand nice but the context is not appropriate. It seems quite obvious we really need to work on the environment....lot of people. If you can't handle dramatisations don't watch advertising Your wash is never going to be whiter than white, Coca-Cola doesn't make you feel happy and Nike doesn't just do it....they fill their pockets because of you.
@Petor76 bro global warming has been proven to be getting better over the past decade. That and the entire global warming concept is overrules by bullshit fear commericals like these
@mrninjawalrus Then hire me to make a commercial that serves your cause. Whatever you think is Bullshit fear is exactly the reason why you buy an insurance. If it's good? I haven't got a clue but I respect the ones that do and like the positive energy that it brings. Greenpeace for shure does some bad things to some but a lot of good things for us all.
@Petor76 its not because you havent looked for evidence that there isnt any. look it up. green house effects, fish density in the oceans (cod, whales, sardines), deforestation (Brazil, Canada), desertification. im not an expert but you dont have to be one to look for info
@thatsgerman1 They literally used the photographic evidence that the caps are melting in the back of this video!!! But lets just pretend it is all bullshit. What are you arguing for? To not go out of your way to chose more earth friendly ways to continue your temporary existence on this planet?
@thatsgerman1 YOU are exactly right!! There are TONS of similarities in the NAZI's and GREENPEACE- They both brainwash people with bullshit and get them to do things that are part of their schoolyard bully agenda.
@Rtfune, yeah Greenpeace slaughters millions of people and caused WW3. Big polluters of the Earth are innocent. Let's not talk about them. Go after Greenpeace instead.
@asinha82 totaly agreed. some people are to arrogant to realize that earth might be heading to an end. marinelife is heading to extinction within 2100. no shellfish means no fish. no fish means no sharks and loss of human life
its not about being a tree hugger or even be so extreme with it... but we definitely need to start thinking bout future generations and how we can do our part!
this is pure utopian marxist invisionaries. Instead of professors teaching AGW they should be teaching how marxist ideologies have come about all in the nature of conrolling its people...this is statism, pure and simple. Now, even the former leader of the greenpeace movement called this AGW a fraud by use of psuedo science. The gig is up, enough with the emotional crap, let's get down to scientific fact.
At the first Earth Day celebration, in 1969, environmentalist Nigel Calder warned, "The threat of a new ice age must now stand alongside nuclear war as a likely source of wholesale death and misery for mankind." C.C. Wallen of the World Meteorological Organization said, "The cooling since 1940 has been large enough and consistent enough that it will not soon be reversed."
In 1975, the Environmental Fund warned" The World as we know it will likely be ruined by the year 2000." Harvard University biologist George Wald in 1970 warned, "civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind." That was the same year that Sen. Gaylord Nelson warned, that by 1995 "somewhere between 75 and 85 percent of all the species of living animals will be extinct." Doomsayers have always been wrong.
In 1970, when environmentalists were making predictions of man made global cooling and the threat of an ice age, what kind of government policy should we have undertaken to prevent such a calamity?
When Ehrlich predicted that England would not exist in the year 2000, what steps should the British Parliament have taken in 1970 to prevent such a dire outcome?
Finally, what makes us think that environmental alarmism is any more correct today than yesterday?
A. If you want to sponser a kid send them condoms. B.The planet is in a natural cycle, do some research first before nyou put tons of diesel in you ship for the next trip to the glacier.C. read this carefully - ATMOSPHEREMIC REGENERATION - not just installing solar panels or plastic water tanks etc. D. Research how much these things impact on the encironment - power plants, shipping etc. E. lastly research how much cling wrap impacts on the environment. Then call 0800 PLANET STUFFED
soon this glacier will be back to its level that it was at the middle of the Medieval warming period, about a third of what it showed at the end of the vid.
@ChristinaWolfle Ummm, they do have smaller brains. The average weight is not the same, you can check it out. However, the size doesn't affect the IQ.
@ChristinaWolfle what? you "dont believe" in it? do you realize thats like saying "i dont believe in the sun"? its stupid. its something thats just there, and were living it and seeing it everyday, and it gets worse and worse. so what do you mean you "dont believe" in it?
come on please... just with a wee tiny little bit of research you will learn whats going on. learn to see the signs!!
"i dont believe in it" ....sorry i cant help it. it just.. sounds too stupid.
I just flew over Kilimanjaro last month. There was hardly any snow at all, compared to when I grew up in Tanzania. Please see my Kilimanjaro footage on my video, filmed at 6.56 AM on 15th October 2010, at 35000 feet, from BA flight London Heathrow to Dar es Salaam. It's scary!
Climate change is caused by changes in the fucking sun. Even if we stopped all human activities, it wouldn't change anything about it. Greenpeace just hates human beings and worships "Mother Earth".
@BobbyW3363, really, I'd like to see your research on this. In my experience, I find that if I put a coat on I get warmer. I only have a BS in physics, but I think it is because the coat reduces the amount of heat that is escaping from my body. I have also observed that it is popular to fill double panned windows with CO2, because it lets visible light and higher frequency light in and simultaneously reduces the heat escaping from my house --kind of like a coat.
@benjaminisaacnichols: "in my experience, i feel warmer under the sun than when under clouds. The Sun doesnt give a fuck if im wearing a coat or not."
Chasval: If you sit in the sun with a jacket on, you don't get hotter? Also, do two experiments for me: (1) Sit in a closed glass room under direct sunlight; (2) put a table top size piece of glass flat on a lawn that is directly under the sun. Tell me what happens.
still a very bad analogy. the so called "greenhouse" effect is only responsible for a small portion of the climate system heat flux. Of tha, CO2 is a very small player and CO2 is only absorbtive of a relatively small band of radiation which is already saturated in the system. The more CO2 you add, the less effect it has and this is exponentially less. So your bad analogy migh be less bad if you just put on a wafer thin singlet under the jacket you are already wearing.
@benjaminisaacnichols, I would be careful to use words that you have no idea what they mean; it could make you look like an idiot. Firstly, you say it is a small player, when it is 2nd (Kiehl, American.Meteorological Society). As to "relatively small band" assertion, what band does Planck's Law say that radiation will be given off at 300K? Tell me what frequencies does CO2 absorbs, and since the probability of absorption goes up with concentration, why would adding CO2 reduce its absorption?
the absobtive capacity of co2 exists in a few small bands around 1400, 1600 and 2000 nm. These overlap with some of absoption bands of water. The reason the relative absoprtive power of co2 goes down as you add more is as i said, the absorbtion is already near saturation in those bands. Therefore an increase in co2 will result in a increase that is logarithmicly decreasing and not linear.
In the journal Nature we have "Acceleration of global warming due to carbon-cycle feedbacks in a coupled climate model" by Cox et. al. "Relative contributions of greenhouse gas emissions to global warming" by Lashof and Ahuja. This one talks about how CO2 isn't the only greenhouse gas, and what CO2 contributations have bee. In fact if you use google scholar, these are the first two that come up. Go to the library and read them, and read their references.
@benjaminisaacnichols, as to your saturation comment. Is the atmosphere completely made up of water? At what pressure would PURE water completely absorb all bands that overlap with CO2? Respond to these questions, or else continue to speak out of ignorance.
PS First you say exponentially, then logarithmically, and mention linear. I'm sure it makes you feel smart to use these words, but you don't look it to anyone else. Smart derivations make you look smart, not words.
which is responsible for 95% of the greenhouse effect. Whereas co2 is about 3%. Furthermore there is no evidence that the greenhouse effect is even responsible for global warming. Proof of warming is not proof that the greenhouse effect did it, let alone co2. if the greenhouse effect was driving modern warming , there would be a heat signiture of it in the upper atmosphere. There is not. Look it up, most recent studies even show it cooling.
@benjaminisaacnichols 95%! Funny, even if you are only lazy enough to go just to wikipedia, it would say 36-72% for water, while CO2 is 9-26%. Yeah, water is the largest contributing greenhouse gas. But, we have control of how much CO2 is in the atmosphere. The more CO2, then the warmer it gets, and the more water vapor will be in the air to increase warming. Answer my arguments from my other posts, Benji, don't just keep repeating an opinion and lies.
Fact..greenpeace are funded by rockerfellers and ted turner.among others..fact the copenhagen treaty was a thinly veiled hand over of soverignty to the un.why did the treaty have so many blank spaces to be filled in at a later date?.Maurice strong the guy who wrote kyoto and old bullshit al are major shareholders in the CCX.Maurice and his cronies also drafted Agenda21.which calls for deindustrialiseation..go check it out .agenda 21
@dv8wolfie, that is not a fact; that is a lie. Greenpeace is funded by members, and not by any government or politically affiliated members. You speak of sovereignty, and it seems to me that you think it means to have the freedom to be irresponsible and an idiot. You have adopted a religion of boogie men, when you should simply try to be a better person and help your local area. If you want to change the world for the better, that's what you have the power to do and should do.
people who denies global warming are the ones who are scared to change their lives. They are scared of the idea that they have consumme less ressources and that makes em weak people. But lets just not bother... in a few years they will have no choice to lives with few ressources
id be even more worried about global cooling if sulfur based acid rain was really a widespread problem. But its not. Its only a side-effect of crappy low-grade Carboniferous coal that formed in ancient forests and is common in europe and continental USA. We dont have that problem with our superior Permian coal in Australia. You do realise that almost all precipitaion is naturally acidic?
So if man caused the glaciers to melt then what happened to the ice caps? And if we are causing warming now then why is mars also warming? Why is the Martian icecap also retreating?
noone has anything to gain by being a skeptic (other than the satisfaction of being capable of independant thought and critical thinking). Watch how ready and eager big oil is to jump onto the Carbon trading bandwagon. You dont have to be an economic genius to see how they will profit. It also helps with the illusion of scarcity. If you think all skeptics are right-wing corporately funded misinformation agents with no concern for the environment then you really are quite delusional
@benjaminisaacnichols, skepticism without investigation is the symbol of stupidity. One should always find out for his or her self, come up with their own theories, tests, and experiments; one should also listen to others as well. A smart person tends to be skeptic, but also knows that one must also be practical and reasonable, or else be stagnant and useless. It is the idiot, who is a skeptic of everything, but tests nothing. Continued in next post...
@benjaminisaacnichols. Continued from last post: Stupid people don't do nothing, though, they fuck everything up, because they act in ignorance. For an idiot, he thinks that being a skeptic makes him look smart. When the idiot denies the ideas that are the consensus of the 'smart people', I bet the idiot feels great that he has sheep to gather and follow him and that he has achieved in the eyes of his sheep that he is smarter than the so many people the idiot feels so inferior to. Continued...
Continued: @benjaminisaacnichols. It is you who is delusional. Of the scientists who actually do research in the field, there is none who deny global warming and only one who has claimed a null result. Global warming isn't even the big issue, because it is a long term issue and there are more immediate threats: Collapse of oceanic ecosystems (by over fishing, drag net fishing, and agricultural and plastic pollution will occur around 2050); forest destruction; ground water pollution; etc.
@Chasval i dont "deny" global warming nor climate change. Find me one shred of empirical evidence that CO2 causes signifigant global temperature variation. You cant because its not there. There is no concensus and there never was. Why dont YOU do some research. Ive done mine.
benjaminisaacnichols: "Find me one shred of empircal evidence that CO2 causes significant global temperature variation."
Chasval: Where is the empirical evidence that shows that it doesn't? As a person who researches frequently in various subjects, including environmental issues, I've never seen a scholarly peer reviewed article that claimed CO2 did not affect temperature that wasn't later refuted. Why don't YOU find me, in say the journal Nature, where it is shown that it does not.
benjaminisaacnichols: "...so CO2 is guilty untill proven inocent?"
This comment is really indicative of how unrigorously you think. You assert that CO2 DOES NOT cause significant global temperatures changes. It is your assertion, so it is your burden to prove it. In peer reviewed literature, which you can read for free at a library, there is a consensus that CO2 DOES cause significant temperature changes. There is also plenty of empirical evidence, and an easily recognizable mechanism.
@Chasval MYTH 1: Global temperatures are rising at a rapid, unprecedented rate.
...FACT: Accurate satellite, balloon and mountain top observations made over the last three decades have not shown any significant change in the... long term rate of increase in global temperatures. Average ground station readings do show a mild warming of 0.6 to 0.8Cover the last 100 years, which is well within the natural variations recorded in the last millennium.
@benjaminisaacnichols, by the way, I know you have a lot of free time and all, but try to make one argument at a time and label what you are responding to, so that I know what you are responding to and what you are actually saying.
The ground station network suffers from an uneven distribution across the globe; the stations are preferentially located in growing urban and industrial areas ("heat islands"), which show substantially higher readings than adjacent rural areas ("land use effects").
MYTH 2: The "hockey stick" graph proves that the earth has experienced a steady, very gradual temperature increase for 1000 years, then recently began a sudden increase.
FACT: Significant changes in climate have continually occurred throughout geologic time. For instance, the Medieval Warm Period, from around 1000 to1200 AD (when the Vikings farmed on Greenland) was followed by a period known as the Little Ice Age. Since the end of the 17th Century the "average global
"average global temperature" has been rising at the low steady rate mentioned above; although from 1940 – 1970 temperatures actually dropped, leading to a Global Cooling scare.
@Chasval MYTH 3: Human produced carbon dioxide has increased over the last 100 years, adding to the Greenhouse effect, thus warming the earth.
FACT: Carbon dioxide levels have indeed changed for various reasons, human and otherwise, just as they have throughout geologic time. Since the beginning of the industrial revolution, the CO2 content of the atmosphere has increased. The RATE of growth during this period has also increased from about 0.2% per year to the present rate of about
@Chasval present rate of about 0.4% per year,which growth rate has now been constant for the past 25 years. However, there is no proof that CO2 is the main driver of global warming. As measured in ice cores dated over many thousands of years, CO2 levels move up and down AFTER the temperature has done so, and thus are the RESULT OF, NOT THE CAUSE of warming. Geological field work in recent sediments confirms this causal relationship.
@Chasval . There is solid evidence that, as temperatures move up and down naturally and cyclically through solar radiation, orbital and galactic influences, the warming surface layers of the earth's oceans expel more CO2 as a result.
@Chasval MYTH 4: CO2 is the most common greenhouse gas.
FACT: Greenhouse gases form about 3 % of the atmosphere by volume. They consist of varying amounts, (about 97%) of water vapour and clouds, with the remainder being gases like CO2, CH4, Ozone and N2O, of which carbon dioxide is the largest amount. Hence, CO2 constitutes about 0.037% of the atmosphere. While the minor gases are more effective as "greenhouse agents" than water vapour and clouds, the latter are overwhelming the effect by
MYTH 5: Computer models verify that CO2 increases will cause significant global warming.
FACT: Computer models can be made to "verify" anything by changing some of the 5 million input parameters or any of a multitude of negative and positive feedbacks in the program used.. They do not "prove" anything. Also, computer models predicting global warming are incapable of properly including the effects of the sun, cosmic rays and the clouds.
@Chasval The sun is a major cause of temperature variation on the earth surface as its received radiation changes all the time, This happens largely in cyclical fashion. The number and the lengths in time of sunspots can be correlated very closely with average temperatures on earth, e.g. the Little Ice Age and the Medieval Warm Period. Varying intensity of solar heat radiation affects the surface temperature of the oceans and the currents.
Warmer ocean water expels gases, some of which are CO2. Solar radiation interferes with the cosmic ray flux, thus influencing the amount ionized nuclei which control cloud cover.
feel free to discuss any of this with me if you dont understand. I have a strong interest in all environmental science, especially geology and paleoclimates.
@aerobique Pure smoke and mirrors! I suppose you think Climategate was part of a vast right wing conspiracy, too? Your whole GW hoax is a ruse to make the IMF and CCX boys rich at our expense. GW is a dead horse and most people, including the UN, know it! Google InfoWars.
@aerobique Yawn! You are so typical shuck and jive. This is not about Einstein or the theory of relativity. This is about hard data that was manipulated for political purposes. Get a clue!
@aerobique Here's reality, boy-o. This is not a phony left/right paradigm issue. I have more than a clue. Perhaps you should have paid more attention to what was going on in East Anglia since Climategate. Note from UK Mail Online 2/14/10: Professor Jones also conceded the possibility that the world was warmer in medieval times than now – suggesting global warming may not be a man-made phenomenon. And he said that for the past 15 years there has been no ‘statistically significant’ warming.
I mean..listen now: there is NOT A SINGLE credible scientific (in case "climategate" just journalistic) body on this planet (earth) would promote "your view".
@aerobique Professor Phil Jones stepped down as director of the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit after the leaking of emails that sceptics claim show scientists were manipulating data. You have nothing to say about him?
Beck and Rush are merely right wing gatekeepers. NASA must tow the government agenda in order to continue to get their funding. Charles Bolden is an Obama zombie. Google Scandal: Obama, Gore, Goldman, Joyce Foundation CCX partners to fleece USA
And?...reinstated in July 2010 with the newly-created role of Director of Research, after several reviews and investigations found no fault with the "rigour and honesty as scientists" of Jones and his colleagues, while finding that they had not embraced the "spirit of openness" of the Freedom of Information Act.
BTW... watch my Video on the cap&trade stuff and realize that scientist are on the peoples side. Also yours.
there is NOT A SINGLE credible scientific (in case "climategate" journalistic) body on our planet would promote "your view". And not because of a conspiracy...
Get that? Not? lol Oh wait you said it is not your view... right. It´s a blindly swallowed, convenient lie spreaded by some irresponsible "rightwing" PR-campaigners... completely opposes and denies the the reality of what science is about.
google: correlation
and maybe "cognitive dissonance" too... just sayin´
@aerobique Here's more from Steve Watson. Google Obama Intimately Tied To Carbon Trading Scam Steve Watson
Again, this is not a political debate. It may have become a political football for the left and the right. I am looking at new data that points to CO2 being the result of warming, not the cause. Google CO2 lags temperature - what does it mean? Cap and Trade was never the answer since China and India are exempt. You keep saying this is my view. I am merely observing the debate.
"It may have become a political football for the left and the right."
A "football" is only played by the co-opted, naive "right wing" that believes every convenient lie and "think" it´s a great idea to fight the environment. These remote controlled weirdos... But even more incredible are trolls like you, who still repeat the oldest oiltroll-PR claims&pseudo arguments. Reality sux?, facts are boring? having a childish and pointless enemy-image rocks, huh?
@aerobique If you think the "left" is not complicit in this, you have a lot to learn. Al Gore is a joke. You obviously didn't bother to look into the documentation Watson provided on Obama and CCX. Watson broke the story and Beck picked up on it later. Watson is libertarian. YouTube search John Pilger - Obama and Empire
Even though Professor Phil Jones was whitewashed and reinstated, he still made the statements quoted by the UK Mail Online. Follow the MONEY!
Statement by J.hansen (btw THE climate scientist NASA/goddard) that any "carbon tax" money should return to the public, and not to the corporations and polluter (they who keep telling you climate science were a conspiracy... and "a scam" "world communism" "eugenics cabal" and other tactics to scare the crap out of the people and created this upside down, science is evil world view totally to the benefit of big-oil and similar amoral corporate entities.)
@wheelsafire18 aerobique is so indoctrinated that he can not come to a proper conclusion no matter how much data you give him. He actually believed that co2 levels were at 40% and rising.
@johnknoefler I agree! I have watched the video he put out there. It supports what I am saying. This is all about Cap and Trade that will not work and they scratch their heads on Obama's agenda? LOL! This is really all about the UN Agenda 21 and eugenics. If they want to de-industrialize and depopulate the planet to save the Earth, they should really begin with themselves. Instead they listen to Al Gore's "Do as I say and not as I do" rhetoric. Very sad!
Stupid? Is that the best you can do? Resorting to personal attacks means you lost the argument. We are not the ones stuck in the 20th century voodoo science propaganda.
Google - U. S. Senate Minority Report: More Than 700 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims Scientists Continue to Debunk “Consensus” in 2008 & 2009
even the notion that a warmer climate is nessesarily a bad thing is somewhat dubious! and totally ignorent of what recent history has manifested.
Ancient and other historical climates are the only models that are relevant. But recent history is the most valuable record, because the the extrinsic forces are comparible with modern conditions. The Holocene has been so dynamic and modern co2 levels are just not really that outragous.
Vandenbroucke, T.R.A., Armstrong, H.A., Williams, M., Paris, F., Zalasiewicz, J.A., Sabbe, K., Nolvak, J., Challands, T.J., Verniers, J. & Servais, T. 2010. Polar front shift and atmospheric CO2 during the glacial maximum of the Early Paleozoic Icehouse. PNAS The researchers state:
just because climate is changing, doesnt mean industry is changing it. The jury is not in. Its a painfully inaccurate conclusion that is damiging to "green" movement. There are so many more important issues that are taking a back seat to this alamist non-issue.
how can we make an assessment of global climate change when we only have a little over 100 year of recorded weather. . . the earth climate is always changing and will continue change even when we are not here. . . you green people need to get upset about real environmental issues such as genetically modified food, cross species (ligers, spider goats ,etc),chem trails,and weather modification . . . tackle real issues not this bs you posted . . .
we have much more than 100 years... We know for sure! that co2 was never that high for the last ~650.000 years.(!) And newest ice core research suggest even much longer.. namely ~20.000.000 years. All right?
Global warming is another globalist money making scam. All the big oil companies and banks are behind it. Look at this headline from London's Guardian:
"Offices raided and 21 held as EU probe into carbon trading fraud intensifies"
They can't help themselves, already robbing and looting before the real scam of carbon taxes even starts! Like robbing your get-away driver during a bank heist. These globalists are the only threat to our future we should be worried about.
Stop geoengineering chemtrails Greenpeace, your blind to the real environment because money has made you all comfortable with killing the African dream by denying them industrialization. Complete extremist you are just like most religions leading the ignorant and blind. LOSERS open your eyes jets are spraying your kids with particulate.
Its amazing... "closed minded sheeple" is a pefect describttion for your naive flock and the remote controlled, fact ignoring idiots. Not the science.
Respond to this video... ok ya got me, im not quite a Geologist yet, but im one doin my last subject now , im one of the top students in my clas. I take intense interest in the climate debate and im also interested in all things biological especially plants. Cant prove to to ya but ask me a geological question if ya want..
The Ordovician had periods of climate much like the modern one, yet CO2 levels of 3000 to 4000 ppm. My friend aerobique would tell you that this would be like planet Venus. But it wasnt, and life flourished.
This has been flagged as spam show
A new book to check out on Amazon !
"The Pyramids' Mysteries Resolved: Scientific Solutions to Earth's Magnetic Field and Climate Change"
bercmag 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
HAIKU
"I, so...long to be...
as I was once, young and free;
unshackled from greed."
—Planet Earth
StephanieLisaTara 4 months ago
Search GreenpeaceVideo for: "BP Oil Spill"
"Sorry, no videos found!"
Greenpeace receives ca$h donations from BP, therefore hosts no videos of the tragic oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico on its bogus YouTube channel.
Greenpeace is a hypocritical corporatized tool who receives hush-money from some of the worlds largest environmental polluters like BP, whom they turn a blind-eye when crimes against nature are committed.
If you pollute the environment, you can buy silence from Greenpeace for a price.
CorporateRule 4 months ago in playlist klimat
bullcrap
treasurecoastsky 5 months ago
THANK YOU!
megacumbe 5 months ago
@megacumbe You're welcome ;)
Petor76 5 months ago
Greenpeace is pure evil.
EnLugal 5 months ago
you know what guys? i've been reading these comments for about an hour now. and all i want to say is. how do we live with children dying because of industrial oil spill?. if you people think that we are not the cause of our own distruction then you're pretty arrogant. seriusly. Gulfcoast. worldwar 1 and 2. hiroshima... the Tar-sands....acid created by CO2... atleast google alitle more before you go on bragging about how good we live. if everyone thinks like you guys.. we're fucked!!!!
MaxEmoDreams 7 months ago
It's too late for all this now we can't stop them they're too powerful they have lots of money, riot police, armies, fighter planes and nuclear bombs, we the people have nothing but our bare hands.
DJSpinoza 7 months ago
The Earth's climate has changed throughout history. Just in the last 650,000 years there have been seven cycles of glacial advance and retreat, with the abrupt end of the last ice age about 7,000 years ago marking the beginning of the modern climate era and of human civilization.
MyCuipo 8 months ago
greenpeace is a criminal superstitios organisation. they are guilty that ppl in big parts of africa and many other regions in the world have not enough to eat ...
publicminx 9 months ago
when that man gets older i think there should be the last image of him dead buried under the ground where the glacier should be
PhantomKaratOfficial 9 months ago
@rtfune , you obviously know nothing . Greenpeace backs up their claims with evidence while the nazis where just brainwashing people... It's sad that nobody cares about the earth when you can see the change for yourself! Have you ever been to Sumatra ? Thought not. Have you seen the devestation first hand?
HedgehogGuru 9 months ago
Lol fuck the glacier it's not our fault. Join greenpeace if you are retarded
MrPoltergeist94 9 months ago
@MrPoltergeist94 Greenpeace and their enviromentalist ilk are nothing more then hysterical, paranoid dumbasses. The mere fact that they think a glacier that has been around for millions of years is worth preserving merely shows their stupidity.
1StoryImageFigure1 9 months ago
@1StoryImageFigure1 yep
MrPoltergeist94 9 months ago
Comment removed
MrPapa97 8 months ago
@MrPoltergeist94, <------------ act like this guy if you're retarded.
LloydChristmas777 8 months ago
@LloydChristmas777 Earth is 4.5 billions years old, we been here about 200k years, 200 years of industry. And we think we are causing the melting of glacier, how arrogant, all these Greenpeace people want is just a good place to live, no industry no noise, no motors no noise, here we go back to the god damn stone age everything that makes too much noise forbid it, blame humans for global warming, blame humans for everything. fuck the humans and the earth, live while you can and stop worrying!
MrPoltergeist94 8 months ago
@MrPoltergeist94, Greenpeace or not, polluting the earth at an exponential rate could NOT be good for anyone except those who get rich off it. Raping this earth like its humanity's right -- THAT'S arrogant.
LloydChristmas777 8 months ago
@MrPoltergeist94 But we all know that, even despite the melting, our industries and way of consummation is
causing rapid and destructive climat changes. You can dislike Greenpeace, but denying the fact that we are indeed the source of the environmental problem is magic thinking.
TsubasaNoKuro 7 months ago
@MrPoltergeist94 You look like an arrogant dumb ass, stop making a fool of yourself. Really??? Because they don't want noise? Are you retarded???
angelhatesyou75217 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@angelhatesyou75217 Yeah, this fucking global warming debate is starting to look like religion
MrPoltergeist94 7 months ago
ZEITGEIST!!!!!!!
Yoruichi24 9 months ago
HELP HELP HELP
PATAGONIA CHILENA ELECTROCUTION
HELP GIVE YOUR COMMENT
youtube.com/watch?v=-w3sqN1DC3w
branderxxi 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I WANT TO SEE ALL OUR TAXE IN ENVIRONEMENT AND HEALTH....ALL THE TAXE I PAY IN A YEAR IS THE EQUIVALENT OF 9 MONTH OF WORK...GIVE ME BACK MY TIME AND I WILL DO MY BEST TO MAKE THIS WORLD BETTER
GIVE US BACK OUR TIME!!!!(TAXE)
tubethatshitout 10 months ago
Greenpeace is a SICK, lefty-infiltrated organisation with hate against all humanity ( that is why co-founder Patrick Moore left ).
Keep your kids away from it.
FoghornWaghorn 10 months ago
Nul a chier
iZYM0NEi 10 months ago
very nice
pederdrevo 10 months ago
You know Nazis used propaganda too without scientific evidence to say that jews ate little children and they where the reason they lost ww1... weird, i find similarities in these global warming vids....
thatsgerman1 10 months ago
@thatsgerman1 Apples - pears....stupidity. Can't decide which one is the better for you. Shame on you dude.
Petor76 10 months ago 9
@Petor76
good job at replying to my argument
im sure that would stand up in a debate
anyway, 30 years ago we were told that it was gonna be another ice age
and the earth can handle itself,
and my point was... where is the scientific evidence?
they use generalizations and worst case scenarios to make the audience feel that they must help
its propaganda
thatsgerman1 10 months ago
@thatsgerman1 This is not a debate, I am not Greenpeace but you giving me a compliment my advertising is propaganda is on the one hand nice but the context is not appropriate. It seems quite obvious we really need to work on the environment....lot of people. If you can't handle dramatisations don't watch advertising Your wash is never going to be whiter than white, Coca-Cola doesn't make you feel happy and Nike doesn't just do it....they fill their pockets because of you.
Petor76 10 months ago 10
Comment removed
mrninjawalrus 7 months ago
@Petor76 bro global warming has been proven to be getting better over the past decade. That and the entire global warming concept is overrules by bullshit fear commericals like these
mrninjawalrus 7 months ago
@mrninjawalrus Then hire me to make a commercial that serves your cause. Whatever you think is Bullshit fear is exactly the reason why you buy an insurance. If it's good? I haven't got a clue but I respect the ones that do and like the positive energy that it brings. Greenpeace for shure does some bad things to some but a lot of good things for us all.
Petor76 7 months ago
@Petor76 im not serving a cause im stateing facts look at the statistics
and what has greenpeace done? sure ok theyve stopped some shit yes but there methods are pretty bad as well
mrninjawalrus 7 months ago
@Petor76 its not because you havent looked for evidence that there isnt any. look it up. green house effects, fish density in the oceans (cod, whales, sardines), deforestation (Brazil, Canada), desertification. im not an expert but you dont have to be one to look for info
AlexTSilver 7 months ago
@thatsgerman1 stupid mule.
AaaaghJOE 9 months ago
@thatsgerman1 It did stand up in debate you idiot. Notice the likes on his comments and support and dislikes on yours. Or are you blind too douche.
asinha82 8 months ago
Comment removed
MrPapa97 8 months ago
@thatsgerman1 They literally used the photographic evidence that the caps are melting in the back of this video!!! But lets just pretend it is all bullshit. What are you arguing for? To not go out of your way to chose more earth friendly ways to continue your temporary existence on this planet?
angelhatesyou75217 7 months ago
@Petor76
[Apples-pears...Stupidity] **pretty much sums up this whole Video/Movement** :-O
Mikuruification 6 months ago
@Petor76
To put in retrospect,you may as well be saying "Hey im a n00b, and you dissed me!"
Mikuruification 6 months ago
@Mikuruification lol
Petor76 6 months ago
@Petor76
whyumadtho.jpg
Mikuruification 6 months ago
@thatsgerman1 YOU are exactly right!! There are TONS of similarities in the NAZI's and GREENPEACE- They both brainwash people with bullshit and get them to do things that are part of their schoolyard bully agenda.
Rtfune 9 months ago
@Rtfune, yeah Greenpeace slaughters millions of people and caused WW3. Big polluters of the Earth are innocent. Let's not talk about them. Go after Greenpeace instead.
LloydChristmas777 8 months ago
@thatsgerman1
We KNOW there's global warming.
We're not absolutely sure it's been caused by humans. However it is very likely.
We KNOW, the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere has increased.
We KNOW those gases trap heat.
We KNOW forests trap carbon from the atmosphere, and burning fuels release it.
We KNOW warming will release even more gases trapped below the frozen tundras.
So, doesn't it just make sense not to risk it and go green?
Besides, polluting can't be good.
felineboy 9 months ago
Comment removed
MrPapa97 8 months ago
@thatsgerman1 You idiot. Wake up and do some research instead of a lunatic ranting about how Global Warming doesn't exist.
asinha82 8 months ago
@asinha82 wake up to CLIMATE GATE
failurbanik 8 months ago
@asinha82 totaly agreed. some people are to arrogant to realize that earth might be heading to an end. marinelife is heading to extinction within 2100. no shellfish means no fish. no fish means no sharks and loss of human life
MaxEmoDreams 7 months ago
Tip of the iceberg if you ask me 8,(
TeensForTheBetter 11 months ago
its not about being a tree hugger or even be so extreme with it... but we definitely need to start thinking bout future generations and how we can do our part!
ilovelifewhimsical27 11 months ago
this video is a lie complete fabrication,,, did you know al gore owns current tv
newstairway1 11 months ago
this is pure utopian marxist invisionaries. Instead of professors teaching AGW they should be teaching how marxist ideologies have come about all in the nature of conrolling its people...this is statism, pure and simple. Now, even the former leader of the greenpeace movement called this AGW a fraud by use of psuedo science. The gig is up, enough with the emotional crap, let's get down to scientific fact.
tonyg0123 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
At the first Earth Day celebration, in 1969, environmentalist Nigel Calder warned, "The threat of a new ice age must now stand alongside nuclear war as a likely source of wholesale death and misery for mankind." C.C. Wallen of the World Meteorological Organization said, "The cooling since 1940 has been large enough and consistent enough that it will not soon be reversed."
n5ifi 1 year ago
In 1975, the Environmental Fund warned" The World as we know it will likely be ruined by the year 2000." Harvard University biologist George Wald in 1970 warned, "civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind." That was the same year that Sen. Gaylord Nelson warned, that by 1995 "somewhere between 75 and 85 percent of all the species of living animals will be extinct." Doomsayers have always been wrong.
n5ifi 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
In 1970, when environmentalists were making predictions of man made global cooling and the threat of an ice age, what kind of government policy should we have undertaken to prevent such a calamity?
When Ehrlich predicted that England would not exist in the year 2000, what steps should the British Parliament have taken in 1970 to prevent such a dire outcome?
Finally, what makes us think that environmental alarmism is any more correct today than yesterday?
n5ifi 1 year ago
hah, like CO2 is all of it...
great vid!
Cernunnas 1 year ago
A. If you want to sponser a kid send them condoms. B.The planet is in a natural cycle, do some research first before nyou put tons of diesel in you ship for the next trip to the glacier.C. read this carefully - ATMOSPHEREMIC REGENERATION - not just installing solar panels or plastic water tanks etc. D. Research how much these things impact on the encironment - power plants, shipping etc. E. lastly research how much cling wrap impacts on the environment. Then call 0800 PLANET STUFFED
coffeecation 1 year ago
soon this glacier will be back to its level that it was at the middle of the Medieval warming period, about a third of what it showed at the end of the vid.
cupera1 1 year ago
Current CO2 concentration: 0,0381%
/argument
akademiker23 1 year ago 2
Fascism comes in many forms......
ukpropaganda 1 year ago
qsteveens@ wasent there a time where 'science' said black people had smaller brains and women had smaller brains?!
ChristinaWolfle 1 year ago 4
@ChristinaWolfle Ummm, they do have smaller brains. The average weight is not the same, you can check it out. However, the size doesn't affect the IQ.
kraM987654321 11 months ago
@kraM987654321 your right women have smaller brains but they took that and said women were too febal minded to go to school.
ChristinaWolfle 11 months ago
with every happy meal
softsummernights 1 year ago
Well I personaly don't believe in global warming. Besides hasen't greenpeace ever heard of oh idk SUMMER!!!!
ChristinaWolfle 1 year ago
This is a good vid. Those that think the science is a fraud are sadly uninformed. Read what the experts have been saying for over 30 years.
.
Google: Scientific Opinion on Climate Change Wiki
.
Or, do you prefer to maintain a delusion just to feel better about it?
qsteveens 1 year ago 2
@ChristinaWolfle what? you "dont believe" in it? do you realize thats like saying "i dont believe in the sun"? its stupid. its something thats just there, and were living it and seeing it everyday, and it gets worse and worse. so what do you mean you "dont believe" in it?
come on please... just with a wee tiny little bit of research you will learn whats going on. learn to see the signs!!
"i dont believe in it" ....sorry i cant help it. it just.. sounds too stupid.
Cernunnas 1 year ago
@Cernunnas Its called weather. Explain the evidence?
ChristinaWolfle 1 year ago
I just flew over Kilimanjaro last month. There was hardly any snow at all, compared to when I grew up in Tanzania. Please see my Kilimanjaro footage on my video, filmed at 6.56 AM on 15th October 2010, at 35000 feet, from BA flight London Heathrow to Dar es Salaam. It's scary!
speakswahilidammit 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
They're brainwashing you all into population control and you are all too stupid to see it....
cjm291 1 year ago
0:16 - Michael York
thingdoer 1 year ago
dumb
iphoneguy2012 1 year ago
@blatzdumpster, so you are completely affirming that you are entirely ignorant, and intellectually isolated with your comment?
Chasval 1 year ago
Climate change is caused by changes in the fucking sun. Even if we stopped all human activities, it wouldn't change anything about it. Greenpeace just hates human beings and worships "Mother Earth".
BobbyW3363 1 year ago
@BobbyW3363, really, I'd like to see your research on this. In my experience, I find that if I put a coat on I get warmer. I only have a BS in physics, but I think it is because the coat reduces the amount of heat that is escaping from my body. I have also observed that it is popular to fill double panned windows with CO2, because it lets visible light and higher frequency light in and simultaneously reduces the heat escaping from my house --kind of like a coat.
Chasval 1 year ago
@Chasval
heres a nice fully referenced article that outlines how sun activity affects climate variability. (delete the spaces)
climaterealists . com/index . php?id=6402&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+ClimaterealistsNewsBlog+%28ClimateRealists+News+Blog%29
benjaminisaacnichols 1 year ago
@Chasval
worst analogy ever.
dont worry dude, sounds like you must be at least reasonably smart. You might figure it out eventually.....
benjaminisaacnichols 1 year ago
@Chasval
in my experience, i feel warmer under the sun than when under clouds. The Sun doesnt give a fuck if im wearing a coat or not.
benjaminisaacnichols 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@benjaminisaacnichols: "in my experience, i feel warmer under the sun than when under clouds. The Sun doesnt give a fuck if im wearing a coat or not."
Chasval: If you sit in the sun with a jacket on, you don't get hotter? Also, do two experiments for me: (1) Sit in a closed glass room under direct sunlight; (2) put a table top size piece of glass flat on a lawn that is directly under the sun. Tell me what happens.
Chasval 1 year ago
@Chasval
still a very bad analogy. the so called "greenhouse" effect is only responsible for a small portion of the climate system heat flux. Of tha, CO2 is a very small player and CO2 is only absorbtive of a relatively small band of radiation which is already saturated in the system. The more CO2 you add, the less effect it has and this is exponentially less. So your bad analogy migh be less bad if you just put on a wafer thin singlet under the jacket you are already wearing.
benjaminisaacnichols 1 year ago
@benjaminisaacnichols, I would be careful to use words that you have no idea what they mean; it could make you look like an idiot. Firstly, you say it is a small player, when it is 2nd (Kiehl, American.Meteorological Society). As to "relatively small band" assertion, what band does Planck's Law say that radiation will be given off at 300K? Tell me what frequencies does CO2 absorbs, and since the probability of absorption goes up with concentration, why would adding CO2 reduce its absorption?
Chasval 1 year ago
@Chasva
the absobtive capacity of co2 exists in a few small bands around 1400, 1600 and 2000 nm. These overlap with some of absoption bands of water. The reason the relative absoprtive power of co2 goes down as you add more is as i said, the absorbtion is already near saturation in those bands. Therefore an increase in co2 will result in a increase that is logarithmicly decreasing and not linear.
benjaminisaacnichols 1 year ago
@benjaminisaacnichols
In the journal Nature we have "Acceleration of global warming due to carbon-cycle feedbacks in a coupled climate model" by Cox et. al. "Relative contributions of greenhouse gas emissions to global warming" by Lashof and Ahuja. This one talks about how CO2 isn't the only greenhouse gas, and what CO2 contributations have bee. In fact if you use google scholar, these are the first two that come up. Go to the library and read them, and read their references.
Chasval 1 year ago
@benjaminisaacnichols, as to your saturation comment. Is the atmosphere completely made up of water? At what pressure would PURE water completely absorb all bands that overlap with CO2? Respond to these questions, or else continue to speak out of ignorance.
PS First you say exponentially, then logarithmically, and mention linear. I'm sure it makes you feel smart to use these words, but you don't look it to anyone else. Smart derivations make you look smart, not words.
Chasval 1 year ago
@Chasval
even the advocate agency. The super-bias IPCC agrees with this.
benjaminisaacnichols 1 year ago
Respond to this video... 2nd to WATER
which is responsible for 95% of the greenhouse effect. Whereas co2 is about 3%. Furthermore there is no evidence that the greenhouse effect is even responsible for global warming. Proof of warming is not proof that the greenhouse effect did it, let alone co2. if the greenhouse effect was driving modern warming , there would be a heat signiture of it in the upper atmosphere. There is not. Look it up, most recent studies even show it cooling.
benjaminisaacnichols 1 year ago
@benjaminisaacnichols 95%! Funny, even if you are only lazy enough to go just to wikipedia, it would say 36-72% for water, while CO2 is 9-26%. Yeah, water is the largest contributing greenhouse gas. But, we have control of how much CO2 is in the atmosphere. The more CO2, then the warmer it gets, and the more water vapor will be in the air to increase warming. Answer my arguments from my other posts, Benji, don't just keep repeating an opinion and lies.
Chasval 1 year ago
@Chasval lies all lies
iphoneguy2012 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Chasval You dont know what the hell you talking about.
LookoLike 1 year ago
Fact..greenpeace are funded by rockerfellers and ted turner.among others..fact the copenhagen treaty was a thinly veiled hand over of soverignty to the un.why did the treaty have so many blank spaces to be filled in at a later date?.Maurice strong the guy who wrote kyoto and old bullshit al are major shareholders in the CCX.Maurice and his cronies also drafted Agenda21.which calls for deindustrialiseation..go check it out .agenda 21
dv8wolfie 1 year ago 10
@dv8wolfie, that is not a fact; that is a lie. Greenpeace is funded by members, and not by any government or politically affiliated members. You speak of sovereignty, and it seems to me that you think it means to have the freedom to be irresponsible and an idiot. You have adopted a religion of boogie men, when you should simply try to be a better person and help your local area. If you want to change the world for the better, that's what you have the power to do and should do.
Chasval 1 year ago
@dv8wolfie absolutely spot on
mulefa 1 year ago 2
@dv8wolfie Sure man...
Now you can go back to the mental hospital you escaped from
Gabe2590 11 months ago
people who denies global warming are the ones who are scared to change their lives. They are scared of the idea that they have consumme less ressources and that makes em weak people. But lets just not bother... in a few years they will have no choice to lives with few ressources
christhewack 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@blatzdumpster
"who the FUCK believes that bullshit still."
Everyone who knows a bit about science, and i tell you what.. it´s much worse than you retards have been told. (by tv-clips, movies or so...)
aerobique 1 year ago
g8t vid.. loved it
hacknepa 1 year ago
@ASkyofHeads
id be even more worried about global cooling if sulfur based acid rain was really a widespread problem. But its not. Its only a side-effect of crappy low-grade Carboniferous coal that formed in ancient forests and is common in europe and continental USA. We dont have that problem with our superior Permian coal in Australia. You do realise that almost all precipitaion is naturally acidic?
benjaminisaacnichols 1 year ago
So if man caused the glaciers to melt then what happened to the ice caps? And if we are causing warming now then why is mars also warming? Why is the Martian icecap also retreating?
johnknoefler 1 year ago
bullshit.
sidsanitarium 1 year ago
noone has anything to gain by being a skeptic (other than the satisfaction of being capable of independant thought and critical thinking). Watch how ready and eager big oil is to jump onto the Carbon trading bandwagon. You dont have to be an economic genius to see how they will profit. It also helps with the illusion of scarcity. If you think all skeptics are right-wing corporately funded misinformation agents with no concern for the environment then you really are quite delusional
benjaminisaacnichols 1 year ago
@benjaminisaacnichols, skepticism without investigation is the symbol of stupidity. One should always find out for his or her self, come up with their own theories, tests, and experiments; one should also listen to others as well. A smart person tends to be skeptic, but also knows that one must also be practical and reasonable, or else be stagnant and useless. It is the idiot, who is a skeptic of everything, but tests nothing. Continued in next post...
Chasval 1 year ago
@benjaminisaacnichols. Continued from last post: Stupid people don't do nothing, though, they fuck everything up, because they act in ignorance. For an idiot, he thinks that being a skeptic makes him look smart. When the idiot denies the ideas that are the consensus of the 'smart people', I bet the idiot feels great that he has sheep to gather and follow him and that he has achieved in the eyes of his sheep that he is smarter than the so many people the idiot feels so inferior to. Continued...
Chasval 1 year ago
Continued: @benjaminisaacnichols. It is you who is delusional. Of the scientists who actually do research in the field, there is none who deny global warming and only one who has claimed a null result. Global warming isn't even the big issue, because it is a long term issue and there are more immediate threats: Collapse of oceanic ecosystems (by over fishing, drag net fishing, and agricultural and plastic pollution will occur around 2050); forest destruction; ground water pollution; etc.
Chasval 1 year ago
@Chasval i dont "deny" global warming nor climate change. Find me one shred of empirical evidence that CO2 causes signifigant global temperature variation. You cant because its not there. There is no concensus and there never was. Why dont YOU do some research. Ive done mine.
benjaminisaacnichols 1 year ago
benjaminisaacnichols: "Find me one shred of empircal evidence that CO2 causes significant global temperature variation."
Chasval: Where is the empirical evidence that shows that it doesn't? As a person who researches frequently in various subjects, including environmental issues, I've never seen a scholarly peer reviewed article that claimed CO2 did not affect temperature that wasn't later refuted. Why don't YOU find me, in say the journal Nature, where it is shown that it does not.
Chasval 1 year ago
@Chasval
so CO2 is guilty untill proven inocent?
benjaminisaacnichols 1 year ago
benjaminisaacnichols: "...so CO2 is guilty untill proven inocent?"
This comment is really indicative of how unrigorously you think. You assert that CO2 DOES NOT cause significant global temperatures changes. It is your assertion, so it is your burden to prove it. In peer reviewed literature, which you can read for free at a library, there is a consensus that CO2 DOES cause significant temperature changes. There is also plenty of empirical evidence, and an easily recognizable mechanism.
Chasval 1 year ago
@Chasval
where is this empirical evidence? id love to see it
benjaminisaacnichols 1 year ago
@Chasval MYTH 1: Global temperatures are rising at a rapid, unprecedented rate.
...FACT: Accurate satellite, balloon and mountain top observations made over the last three decades have not shown any significant change in the... long term rate of increase in global temperatures. Average ground station readings do show a mild warming of 0.6 to 0.8Cover the last 100 years, which is well within the natural variations recorded in the last millennium.
benjaminisaacnichols 1 year ago
@benjaminisaacnichols, by the way, I know you have a lot of free time and all, but try to make one argument at a time and label what you are responding to, so that I know what you are responding to and what you are actually saying.
Chasval 1 year ago
The ground station network suffers from an uneven distribution across the globe; the stations are preferentially located in growing urban and industrial areas ("heat islands"), which show substantially higher readings than adjacent rural areas ("land use effects").
benjaminisaacnichols 1 year ago
@Chasval
MYTH 2: The "hockey stick" graph proves that the earth has experienced a steady, very gradual temperature increase for 1000 years, then recently began a sudden increase.
FACT: Significant changes in climate have continually occurred throughout geologic time. For instance, the Medieval Warm Period, from around 1000 to1200 AD (when the Vikings farmed on Greenland) was followed by a period known as the Little Ice Age. Since the end of the 17th Century the "average global
benjaminisaacnichols 1 year ago
"average global temperature" has been rising at the low steady rate mentioned above; although from 1940 – 1970 temperatures actually dropped, leading to a Global Cooling scare.
benjaminisaacnichols 1 year ago
@Chasval MYTH 3: Human produced carbon dioxide has increased over the last 100 years, adding to the Greenhouse effect, thus warming the earth.
FACT: Carbon dioxide levels have indeed changed for various reasons, human and otherwise, just as they have throughout geologic time. Since the beginning of the industrial revolution, the CO2 content of the atmosphere has increased. The RATE of growth during this period has also increased from about 0.2% per year to the present rate of about
benjaminisaacnichols 1 year ago
@Chasval present rate of about 0.4% per year,which growth rate has now been constant for the past 25 years. However, there is no proof that CO2 is the main driver of global warming. As measured in ice cores dated over many thousands of years, CO2 levels move up and down AFTER the temperature has done so, and thus are the RESULT OF, NOT THE CAUSE of warming. Geological field work in recent sediments confirms this causal relationship.
benjaminisaacnichols 1 year ago
@Chasval . There is solid evidence that, as temperatures move up and down naturally and cyclically through solar radiation, orbital and galactic influences, the warming surface layers of the earth's oceans expel more CO2 as a result.
benjaminisaacnichols 1 year ago
@Chasval MYTH 4: CO2 is the most common greenhouse gas.
FACT: Greenhouse gases form about 3 % of the atmosphere by volume. They consist of varying amounts, (about 97%) of water vapour and clouds, with the remainder being gases like CO2, CH4, Ozone and N2O, of which carbon dioxide is the largest amount. Hence, CO2 constitutes about 0.037% of the atmosphere. While the minor gases are more effective as "greenhouse agents" than water vapour and clouds, the latter are overwhelming the effect by
benjaminisaacnichols 1 year ago
effect by their sheer volume and – in the end – are thought to be responsible for 60% of the "Greenhouse effect".
Those attributing climate change to CO2 rarely mention this important fact.
benjaminisaacnichols 1 year ago
@Chasval
MYTH 5: Computer models verify that CO2 increases will cause significant global warming.
FACT: Computer models can be made to "verify" anything by changing some of the 5 million input parameters or any of a multitude of negative and positive feedbacks in the program used.. They do not "prove" anything. Also, computer models predicting global warming are incapable of properly including the effects of the sun, cosmic rays and the clouds.
benjaminisaacnichols 1 year ago
@Chasval The sun is a major cause of temperature variation on the earth surface as its received radiation changes all the time, This happens largely in cyclical fashion. The number and the lengths in time of sunspots can be correlated very closely with average temperatures on earth, e.g. the Little Ice Age and the Medieval Warm Period. Varying intensity of solar heat radiation affects the surface temperature of the oceans and the currents.
benjaminisaacnichols 1 year ago
@Chasval
Warmer ocean water expels gases, some of which are CO2. Solar radiation interferes with the cosmic ray flux, thus influencing the amount ionized nuclei which control cloud cover.
benjaminisaacnichols 1 year ago
ill debunk a few more myths if your interested?
feel free to discuss any of this with me if you dont understand. I have a strong interest in all environmental science, especially geology and paleoclimates.
benjaminisaacnichols 1 year ago
Reminiscent of Hitler propaganda. Google "Climate Depot" for the real science!
wheelsafire18 1 year ago
@wheelsafire18
"climate depot" has direct roots to "right wing" corporate PR machines... they dont care about truth or respectable science...
aerobique 1 year ago
@aerobique
you just dont get it do you? big government has spent billions and billions on the climate industry. Big oil has only spent a handfull of million.
benjaminisaacnichols 1 year ago
@aerobique Pure smoke and mirrors! I suppose you think Climategate was part of a vast right wing conspiracy, too? Your whole GW hoax is a ruse to make the IMF and CCX boys rich at our expense. GW is a dead horse and most people, including the UN, know it! Google InfoWars.
wheelsafire18 1 year ago
@wheelsafire18
LOL
HOW STUPID are you guys- its incredible!
aerobique 1 year ago
Comment removed
wheelsafire18 1 year ago
@wheelsafire18
"....700 scientist in Dissent Over
Man-Made Global Warming Claims.."
einstein said about a similar case when a book came out "1000 scientist disagree with theorie of relativity" he says:
"well, if i was wrong.. it would only take ONE" [scientist who can disprove]
By the way... they (climatologist) dont want this to be true. This concept that they have some secret reason is ...just weird.
If one can prove that climatologist are wrong, he´ll get a nobel price at once.
aerobique 1 year ago
@aerobique Yawn! You are so typical shuck and jive. This is not about Einstein or the theory of relativity. This is about hard data that was manipulated for political purposes. Get a clue!
wheelsafire18 1 year ago
@wheelsafire18
thats the rush limbaugh point of vie, what about reality? get a clue!
aerobique 1 year ago
@aerobique Here's reality, boy-o. This is not a phony left/right paradigm issue. I have more than a clue. Perhaps you should have paid more attention to what was going on in East Anglia since Climategate. Note from UK Mail Online 2/14/10: Professor Jones also conceded the possibility that the world was warmer in medieval times than now – suggesting global warming may not be a man-made phenomenon. And he said that for the past 15 years there has been no ‘statistically significant’ warming.
wheelsafire18 1 year ago
@wheelsafire18
your only another weirdo, dont cry.. it´s a mass movement....but you still have choices! It´s not soo hard. I´ll help you.
Multiple choice:
[ ] ww w.rush-limbaugh . us / co2-is-nature/evidance
[ ] ww w.glenn-beck-university .fox / nwo/ climate-gate
[X] ww w .climate . nasa .g o v / evidence
I mean..listen now: there is NOT A SINGLE credible scientific (in case "climategate" just journalistic) body on this planet (earth) would promote "your view".
Get that? Not? lol
aerobique 1 year ago 2
@aerobique Professor Phil Jones stepped down as director of the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit after the leaking of emails that sceptics claim show scientists were manipulating data. You have nothing to say about him?
Beck and Rush are merely right wing gatekeepers. NASA must tow the government agenda in order to continue to get their funding. Charles Bolden is an Obama zombie. Google Scandal: Obama, Gore, Goldman, Joyce Foundation CCX partners to fleece USA
wheelsafire18 1 year ago
@wheelsafire18
"..phil jones stepped down...."
And?...reinstated in July 2010 with the newly-created role of Director of Research, after several reviews and investigations found no fault with the "rigour and honesty as scientists" of Jones and his colleagues, while finding that they had not embraced the "spirit of openness" of the Freedom of Information Act.
BTW... watch my Video on the cap&trade stuff and realize that scientist are on the peoples side. Also yours.
watch?v=PGhTVbyDIvg
aerobique 1 year ago
@wheelsafire18
AGAIN:
there is NOT A SINGLE credible scientific (in case "climategate" journalistic) body on our planet would promote "your view". And not because of a conspiracy...
Get that? Not? lol Oh wait you said it is not your view... right. It´s a blindly swallowed, convenient lie spreaded by some irresponsible "rightwing" PR-campaigners... completely opposes and denies the the reality of what science is about.
google: correlation
and maybe "cognitive dissonance" too... just sayin´
aerobique 1 year ago
@aerobique
yeah aerobique. Its fundamental high school chemistry.
google "le chatelier's principle"
and on top of this google "respiration rates and temperature"
benjaminisaacnichols 1 year ago
@aerobique Here's more from Steve Watson. Google Obama Intimately Tied To Carbon Trading Scam Steve Watson
Again, this is not a political debate. It may have become a political football for the left and the right. I am looking at new data that points to CO2 being the result of warming, not the cause. Google CO2 lags temperature - what does it mean? Cap and Trade was never the answer since China and India are exempt. You keep saying this is my view. I am merely observing the debate.
wheelsafire18 1 year ago
@wheelsafire18
"It may have become a political football for the left and the right."
A "football" is only played by the co-opted, naive "right wing" that believes every convenient lie and "think" it´s a great idea to fight the environment. These remote controlled weirdos... But even more incredible are trolls like you, who still repeat the oldest oiltroll-PR claims&pseudo arguments. Reality sux?, facts are boring? having a childish and pointless enemy-image rocks, huh?
google: correlation
aerobique 1 year ago
@aerobique If you think the "left" is not complicit in this, you have a lot to learn. Al Gore is a joke. You obviously didn't bother to look into the documentation Watson provided on Obama and CCX. Watson broke the story and Beck picked up on it later. Watson is libertarian. YouTube search John Pilger - Obama and Empire
Even though Professor Phil Jones was whitewashed and reinstated, he still made the statements quoted by the UK Mail Online. Follow the MONEY!
wheelsafire18 1 year ago
@wheelsafire18
watch?v=45QWKVhhQPM
Statement by J.hansen (btw THE climate scientist NASA/goddard) that any "carbon tax" money should return to the public, and not to the corporations and polluter (they who keep telling you climate science were a conspiracy... and "a scam" "world communism" "eugenics cabal" and other tactics to scare the crap out of the people and created this upside down, science is evil world view totally to the benefit of big-oil and similar amoral corporate entities.)
aerobique 1 year ago
@wheelsafire18 aerobique is so indoctrinated that he can not come to a proper conclusion no matter how much data you give him. He actually believed that co2 levels were at 40% and rising.
johnknoefler 1 year ago 2
@johnknoefler I agree! I have watched the video he put out there. It supports what I am saying. This is all about Cap and Trade that will not work and they scratch their heads on Obama's agenda? LOL! This is really all about the UN Agenda 21 and eugenics. If they want to de-industrialize and depopulate the planet to save the Earth, they should really begin with themselves. Instead they listen to Al Gore's "Do as I say and not as I do" rhetoric. Very sad!
wheelsafire18 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Stupid? Is that the best you can do? Resorting to personal attacks means you lost the argument. We are not the ones stuck in the 20th century voodoo science propaganda.
Google - U. S. Senate Minority Report: More Than 700 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims Scientists Continue to Debunk “Consensus” in 2008 & 2009
wheelsafire18 1 year ago
even the notion that a warmer climate is nessesarily a bad thing is somewhat dubious! and totally ignorent of what recent history has manifested.
Ancient and other historical climates are the only models that are relevant. But recent history is the most valuable record, because the the extrinsic forces are comparible with modern conditions. The Holocene has been so dynamic and modern co2 levels are just not really that outragous.
benjaminisaacnichols 1 year ago
Comment removed
benjaminisaacnichols 1 year ago
Vandenbroucke, T.R.A., Armstrong, H.A., Williams, M., Paris, F., Zalasiewicz, J.A., Sabbe, K., Nolvak, J., Challands, T.J., Verniers, J. & Servais, T. 2010. Polar front shift and atmospheric CO2 during the glacial maximum of the Early Paleozoic Icehouse. PNAS The researchers state:
benjaminisaacnichols 1 year ago
Comment removed
shiftyd100 1 year ago
@ASkyofHeads
just because climate is changing, doesnt mean industry is changing it. The jury is not in. Its a painfully inaccurate conclusion that is damiging to "green" movement. There are so many more important issues that are taking a back seat to this alamist non-issue.
benjaminisaacnichols 1 year ago
how can we make an assessment of global climate change when we only have a little over 100 year of recorded weather. . . the earth climate is always changing and will continue change even when we are not here. . . you green people need to get upset about real environmental issues such as genetically modified food, cross species (ligers, spider goats ,etc),chem trails,and weather modification . . . tackle real issues not this bs you posted . . .
beasona9 1 year ago 2
@beasona9
we have much more than 100 years... We know for sure! that co2 was never that high for the last ~650.000 years.(!) And newest ice core research suggest even much longer.. namely ~20.000.000 years. All right?
climate . nasa . go v /evidence
aerobique 1 year ago 2
Comment removed
benjaminisaacnichols 1 year ago
@aerobique
oh and ice cores are so reliable for recording past co2 levels. Its almost as if i was there in ancient air taking the measurments myself.
benjaminisaacnichols 1 year ago
@beasona9 um...Spider goats?
shiftyd100 1 year ago
Lovely, more fear mongering carbon tax fraud; what part of CLIMATEGATE did you not understand?
sleepysalsa 1 year ago
WRONG THE EARTH IS COOLING
van131 1 year ago
Global warming is another globalist money making scam. All the big oil companies and banks are behind it. Look at this headline from London's Guardian:
"Offices raided and 21 held as EU probe into carbon trading fraud intensifies"
They can't help themselves, already robbing and looting before the real scam of carbon taxes even starts! Like robbing your get-away driver during a bank heist. These globalists are the only threat to our future we should be worried about.
Cartalucci 1 year ago
Stop geoengineering chemtrails Greenpeace, your blind to the real environment because money has made you all comfortable with killing the African dream by denying them industrialization. Complete extremist you are just like most religions leading the ignorant and blind. LOSERS open your eyes jets are spraying your kids with particulate.
STEVEDIGIBOYtv 1 year ago
sick
kevincease 1 year ago
This is just some propaganda bullshit, climate change is a scam, you fell for it, way to go you close-minded sheeple.
Whitestuffco 1 year ago
@Whitestuffco
Its amazing... "closed minded sheeple" is a pefect describttion for your naive flock and the remote controlled, fact ignoring idiots. Not the science.
aerobique 1 year ago 2
Too bad none of it is true. Nice fictionized piece though. HA HA HA!
dazed80s 1 year ago
So much money they could put into charities... spent gaining support through black propaganda. Convincing the masses to buy the lie OR ELSE!
SunnyLovetts 1 year ago
Respond to this video... ok ya got me, im not quite a Geologist yet, but im one doin my last subject now , im one of the top students in my clas. I take intense interest in the climate debate and im also interested in all things biological especially plants. Cant prove to to ya but ask me a geological question if ya want..
benjaminisaacnichols 1 year ago
@benjaminisaacnichols
*it
benjaminisaacnichols 1 year ago
The Ordovician had periods of climate much like the modern one, yet CO2 levels of 3000 to 4000 ppm. My friend aerobique would tell you that this would be like planet Venus. But it wasnt, and life flourished.
benjaminisaacnichols 1 year ago