co2 is a trace gas parts per million, means parts per million that so small it can't make a difference. But it has to be co2, no it doesn't, there is to much guess work and wishful thinking
@greenman3610 in Australia our co2 output is about to plummet because the Australian greens political party has successfully destroyed the local steel and manufacturing industries thank's for that. It doesn't matter about the thousands of unemployed, with all the hardship that will be felt. As long as co2 output goes down that's all that matters is it. Its the point of all your clap trap isn't it to destroy the western world's economies in the name of global warming
@greenman3610 A cleaner environment creates job, what a load of bullshit. Just like your theories of global warming, all lies and falsehoods. You my friend are nothing more than lying piece of shit, anyone reading this let it be known the thousands of jobs lost will never be replaced with so called green jobs they don't exist. That's another fairy tale told to soften us up, just more lies, don't believe them
@greenman3610 and you are a perfect example of a alarmist blinded by your faith in a false religion, facts denying global warming mean nothing to you, practicalities of our fossil fuel based economies mean nothing, realizing nothing we do would make any sort of difference to climate mean nothing . Just your crazy beliefs, your solutions don't add up to a squirt of piss, your all just mad. Global warming Mad Men, that's what you are
@vmgqie : 200-300mg of cyanide constitutes a lethal dose. A large human weighs perhaps 100kg. So the lethal dose of cyanide is about 3ppm. Still think 390ppm of CO2 is too small to have an effect.
0.1 mL of dimethyl mercury can be fatal. An adult has perhaps 30 L of volume, leading to about 33ppm.
The LD50* of ricin is 22 parts per *billion*, or 0.02ppm.
Why would you even make such an argument?
* the dose that kills half the subjects it's given to.
@darthschmoo what the hell cyanide has got to do with climate you jackass. Typical of ratbag alarmist do gooder cunts trying to compare some fact with there fantasy of man made climate change, dream on idiot
@vmgqie : Thank you for making me feel like a smart, reasonable person. The argument you made was that CO2 couldn't be having a dramatic effect on a complex system like the climate, precisely because there were only a few hundred ppm of it in the atmosphere. I was pointing out other instances where even a few parts per *billion* could have a dramatic effect on a complex system, thus demolishing the logic behind your claim.
But I didn't prove you to be a foul-mouthed idiot. You did that.
@darthschmoo Last count I saw was 388 parts per million, in the last 100 years man has increased co2 by 100 parts per million that's 0.01% of the atmosphere do you agree. If that is a problem we need a way to generate power without making co2 ok, agree so far, solar and wind wont do it agree (unreliable), nuclear dangerous (fukushima) agree yes. When something has been developed then go for it, but until then why bankrupt the western economies. Why create hardship and poverty
What's fascinating about climate change deniers is how they've changed their tune substantially, even in just the last ten years. They used to claim it wasn't happening at all, it was total bullshit. Now the reality of it is so apparent they've switched to saying that while it is happening the 'science isn't yet in' on it being man made. Give it another decade or two, they'll modify their stance yet again.
@noodlezombie They have never changed their stance how ever alarmist have changed theirs significantly. They renamed Global Warming to Global Climate Change and now consider ANY change in climate mans fault. Anyone looking at ice core samples knows for a FACT the earth has been significantly warmer than today as well as cooler and CO2 concentrations have been higher without humans. We get more greenhouse gases from cow farts then all of man kinds transportation including boats/planes/everything.
indeed, co2 concentrations have been higher. and during those times, sea level was much higher, and vast areas that are now populated, were deserts. we might like to reconsider if going there is a good idea.
@greenman3610 We also know that life was more abundant during these times, I'm pretty sure even polar bears enjoy slightly warmer temperatures as does most life on earth. BTW the logic with my statement wasn't simply that the world won't die if temperatures rise, it was also that nature can raise global temperatures on its own with no help from man at all so spending trillions of dollars fighting a non existent problem that you really can't fix doesn't make any sense. Stop fear mongering please.
@greenman3610 Your logic is flawed, you are looking at moving averages over millions of years and deciding even in very small time scales these averages remain the same which is absurd. The climate change over millions of years can be averaged as well as over a few years and you will get grossly different numbers. Imagine if you measured the temp in the morning and then the afternoon, you'd have a massive change in a small time which doesn't indicate we are going to explode by the evening.
@greenman3610 BTW I have a Physics Bachelors from the University of Texas in Austin, which is currently #14 in the world so while I admit I don't know everything, I'm probably smarter than you. I do however encourage debate so please do continue. Perhaps there is something I can learn from you yet...
@greenman3610 Interesting appeal you are making to counter my logos appeal. Perhaps if your post had any logic I could provide a rebuttal but like most undeveloped people you simply ignored the logic I posted and tried to parallel me with unpopular people. Your post lacks proof and facts which seems to be how you prefer the world. So long as things agree with your prebuilt thoughts you are happy, pity you will never understand the true beauty of the world.
you've demonstrated your gross ignorance of the paleo record, and refused to respond to the well documented videos I suggested you watch. Then you go into a rant about how smart you are.
on this site, you get respect by demonstrating actual thought, and backing it with citations and sources.
til then, you're just another ditto head, Foxtard, or Beck-ite.
@greenman3610 All you do is bring up people that have nothing to do with anything we are talking about. Why would you bring up Glenn Beck or Fox News at all? What do they have to do with anything concerning anthropogenic global warming. All you are doing is bickering about people who may or may not share some of the same ideas as me and then try to call them one and the same. I feel as though you are the one suffering from the Dunning Kruger effect.
@greenman3610 I find it funny how you bring up the Dunning Kruger effect as I find it funny how when people can not convince others they are correct they somehow try to claim the other is suffering from some sort of psychological problem without offering objective measurable proof of why they are correct. Psychology works both ways my friend so before you try and claim someone is crazy you should perhaps look in the mirror.
@greenman3610 I've had teachers that were paleontologist and they admit it is quite well known that with warmer temperatures there is greater biodiversity as well as larger animals. A longer growing season and tropical temperatures seem to be good for life as I am sure you find many more animals in rain forest over the arctic. Perhaps warming may have occurred coincidentally with an extinction but correlation does not prove causality especially with 1 data point.
@greenman3610 Your video reply is laughable. I can't even fit all the logical fallacies it contains, but I will give a short intro. When stating why climate millions of years ago was worse they reference Jurassic Park which is saying that quite possible dinosaurs will come back and eat us if CO2 levels rise which is completely ridiculous. They then reference that all people against the idea we are destroying the planet with a natural gas is a religious zealot, once again not true...
@greenman3610 Have you ever taken a rhetoric class? Metaphor or not they implied we should be scared of global warming because dinosaurs will come back and eat us. If your good buddy Glenn Beck tried something so ridiculously stupid you'd be all over him so I ask why the double standards? Why are bed wetters allowed to use logical fallacies and others not? I'd think you'd enjoy my news as I'm proving the world isn't coming to an end, but I guess you'd rather fear monger some more.
@greenman3610 Their evidence is also pointing towards the fact that CO2 can quite possibly raise global temperature or at least global temperature rose in a time of high CO2 concentrations due to large volcanic eruptions. The extinctions themselves were not a result of CO2 or warmer temperatures but of proliferation of bacteria which produced hydrogen sulfide following lava flows the size of Europe.
@thebestsumoeva They then provide evidence that we release more CO2 then volcanoes today which is true, but the volcanoes that produced the amount of CO2 necessary for the proliferation of the hydrogen sulfide bacteria were significantly larger today as can be referenced by the fact that they produced lava flows the size of Europe. I'm not so sure solar panels will prevent volcanoes from erupting, but I don't have a YouTube video proving this...
@noodlezombie well what about you lot alarmist ass holes one minute it's global warming then there was no warming so you's say climate change typical dick head mother fucking son's of bitches
The climate models are not actually models you know they are spherical crystal devices that when hands are laid on them a swirling mist reveals what will be happening in the future, failing that the backup system is used which employs a china teacup and some old fashioned tea, not the baggy stuff and voila predictions that would have as much bearing on reality as a climatologist riding the train of plenty.
Carbon tax is a disgusting crime against Humanity. CO2 whether man-made or otherwise doesn't drive global climate, it never has, it never will, the Sun does...
Cato Institure founded in 1977 by Edward H. Crane, who remains president and CEO, and Charles Koch, chairman of the board and chief executive officer of the conglomerate Koch Industries, Inc. FTW!
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"
Would the paper that Michaels and McKitrick published @2.31, where they , or rather McKitrick confused radians and degrees, which utterly confounded the results, rendering them useless?
When Happer testified before Congress under the Clinton administration in 1993, saying, "I think that there probably has been some exaggeration of the dangers of ozone and global climate change," he lost his government position.
"I had the privilege of being fired by Al Gore, since I refused to go along with his alarmism," Happer told Senate leaders .
Happer had stated of Gore shortly after his firing in 1993, "I was told that science was not going to intrude on policy."
subsequent temperature rise and extreme events since that time, have proven Happer wrong, and Gore, once again, right. sorry. Happer should go back to promoting tobacco sales to children - it suits him better.
The bad thing about science is, to people who don't know about whatever is being discussed it looks like a battle of the graphs. I see similar problem with evolution. People who deny it often are looking for authoritative reasons behind it, instead of factual data. And when presented with it, they often don't understand/care. I wish more science classes in grade school included logic and application of the method not just facts.
He did address the four arguments, they were countered with the sulfate aerosols. You can read about Michaels in Marchants of Doubt, a great book about people like Michaels who are hired for the purposes of obfuscation. Such as claiming the need for more research in the cancer and tobacco debate. The truth is there is NO DEBATE!
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Santer does not address or counter the 4 arguments of Michaels. Michaels wins! Sorry, is that not the conclusion you wanted us to come to after you loaded intro?
Ottmar Edenhofer, a German economist and co-chair of the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) Working Group III on Mitigation of Climate Change (say that twice), told the Neue Zurcher Zeitung : “The climate summit in Cancun at the end of the month is not a climate conference, but one of the largest economic conferences since the Second World War.” After all, redistributing global wealth is no small matter.
A study by the Science and Public Policy Institute states that the U.S. government has spent $32 billion on climate research over the past 20 years.
Spending so much on studying on greenhouse gases is a misuse of resources, says William Happer a Princeton physicist who has a habit of injecting realism into the debate over global warming.
"I think most of the current climate change is natural, but people have become so fixated on CO-2 that people no longer look at natural causes," Happer said.
Happer -perfect example of a right wing ideological poser who has done no research in climate, published nothing on the subject, and regurgitates warmed-over talking points instead of thought.
@greenman3610 Interesting that you went right to politics calling him a rightwinger. In that case is Gore a rightwinger for being involved with a "rightwing" Republican former secretary of the Treasury?
Happer makes a great point, when its hot its global warming, when its cold, its again global warming. This way, your religion can never be wrong. LOL
@greenman3610 William Happer, Princeton University Physicist
“Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. Every time you exhale, you exhale air that has 4 percent carbon dioxide. To say that that’s a pollutant just boggles my mind. What used to be science has turned into a cult.”
@greenman3610 LOL. I heard about you but after I see your reaction to Happer's common sense and a while back with a fellow global warming fanatical nutcase named Deskset, you are a kook like the others, with a bit more savvy or time on your hands to make some videos.
What do you think is the proper level of CO-2 in the atmosphere?
What Happer said would be true, IF, the experiments and observational studies upon which AGW cited cold weather as proof of global warming. That's not the case.
Don't confuse arguments from poorly informed nonexperts with the real climate science.
Did you just call the CATO Institute a "conservative think-tank"? I think they bashed Dubya almost daily throughout his horrible, incompetent presidency.
Oh dear, Pat Michaels caught in a lie about his Big Oil funding. He told congress it was 3%, then let slip on CNN ( and elsewhere) it was actually more like 40%.
Of course the Earth's climate is changing, its been changing for the last 4.5 billion years. What upsets me is politicians telling me that in order to solve it they have to raise my taxes. Figure out a way to do it without taxing me and we will be ok.
People just won't listen to scientist, because the scientists are geeks. They will, however, listen to the politicians, because they have better hair and say things that make nod your head! -- Never mind the fact of one of the previously mentioned factions enjoying the significant benefit of having the scientific truth on their side.
"our best understanding"...."our best guess"......this is how our greatest scientific minds work? They don't take into account the things you don't yet FULLY understand, and even have knowledge of.
They think there can't be some, yet to be discovered, thing. They think there can't possibly be things they don't understand yet......But at the same time they use phrases like: "our best understanding"...."our best guess"
.I'd love that guy to come kick my ass. please do, I'd pay him to try.
true science lives in uncertainty. Climate deniers are generally authoritarians, religious or otherwise, and are uncomfortable, as you demonstrate, with gray areas. But, because we don't know everything, does not mean we know nothing.
We don't know everything about how cigarettes cause lung disease, but our best understanding is that, they do. Just as the tobacco companies successfully used this to distort and confuse, climate deniers do likewise.
@greenman3610 True science is based on facts and figures. Philosophy is another class, and another major on its own. In court of law those words he used would make him not creditable as a witness, and testimony would be thrown out. They act like there arguing facts and figures, but using words like that makes them both sound like school kids fighting in the yard. And keep in mind, those people there talking in front of have to make serious decisions based on there words...pfft
there using words that take accountability away from them if they happen to be wrong. There playing the old game of "cover yo ass". Read the rest of what I said. They sound like there not open to possibilities, yet use words like "our best understanding". So while dismissing possibilities they also admit they probably don't "fully" understand, and could be wrong. In science, if you know you don't fully understand, you must remain open minded until you do fully understand. Thats REAL science
we don't understand everything about gravity, but I can make an accurate prediction of what will happen if DavesAV6 were to jump off a bridge. Because we do not know everything, does not mean we know nothing.
there is still a small possibility that warming could be caused by flying saucers, fairies, or bigfoot. Just not a big possibility.
@DavesAV6 You don't seem to understand science at all. It's always about our best understanding. It's never about "fully understanding" anything. There are only levels of uncertainty.
@DavesAV6 "In science, if you know you don't fully understand, you must remain open minded until you do fully understand. Thats REAL science".
So by that rationale, because we don't have the conclusive evidence that explains the big bang, we should therefore give creationists equal respect in their theory that a magical being farted the world into existence 6000 years ago for no particular reason? That's NOT science, and it certainly isnt reasonable
@DavesAV6 ; Yes. If scientists do not use such phrases, they are not doing science. "Very likely;" "probably;" "most likely;" "could be;" etc. If scientists do not use such phrases, they are not good scientists. See for example Richard Feynman's essay on the subject. If you want certainty, stay in church where you won't get the truth but you will get certainty.
He's mad -- and he isn't going to take it anymore! You can feel the emotion and it's understandable after the insults hurled by Michaels, at both Santer himself and science in general (if you don't think it's insulting, you are not paying attention). I also notice that Michaels' primary affiliation is given as Cato Institute -- what kind of scientific testimony would you expect from such an individual?
There has been two parts per 1,000,000 carbon dioxide in the free air fall last 200 years. Man's carbon dioxide has boosted life on earth, and can't have affected the weather. That is all lie from nuclear power
High school biology predicts that plants have converted man is carbon dioxide into more life on earth. With no possible effect on the weather - as there is no more carbon dioxide left in the air than there was 200 years ago.
I'm all for this series of videos. Huzzah for greenman361!
I think that the Deniers are extremely well-funded and well-connected in the political world, AND they have all the time in the world to spend on dreaming up this crap they feed the public. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that the Scientists don't have that kind of time to spend contradicting the accusations. Or the money. I think that the Scientists need some really first-class orators on their side.
How clever for Michaels to "throw in the towel" by asking for written questions AFTER the hearing. What that means is that anything he said henceforth became officially OFF the Congressional Record. I vote for Santer by way of TKO!
@nickschor1 It really was not a fair match. The status of these two people is entirely different. Pat Michaels is definitely a scientist but he's not anywhere the level of Ben Santer. It's a little like watching Bruce Lee beat up Winnie the Pooh.
Plants had taken in all man is carbon dioxide, to create more life on earth, but there is no more free carbon dioxide in the air to affect the weather.
@JonThm More lies, Jon? Don't you ever get tired? You keep saying the exact think over and over as if somehow someone is going to believe you after you say it 6000 times.
Due to green plants man is carbon dioxide has increased life on earth by 15%. Though no possible effect on the world climate: that is a nuclear lie intended to scare the stupid
David Parker, at the Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research in Berkshire, says ultimately, British children could have only virtual experience of snow. Via the internet, they might wonder at polar scenes - or eventually "feel" virtual cold.
According to Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia in 2000,within a few years winter snowfall will become "a very rare and exciting event".
"Children just aren't going to know what snow is," he said.
Quite possible that day will come. For the time being, there's still a lot of cold air around, and for reasons we are just beginning to understand, it's spilling out of the arctic more so than in the past. See my blog posts on this -
google
White Christmas in Southeast. Heatwave in Hudson Bay.
Global warming was thought up in the 1970s, from a steam in Soylant Green, but also gave the unibomber his manifesto.
It was arguing that man is carbon dioxide would inevitably warm the weather. But there is no mechanism, or historical data are behind this idea. Green plants sink all the available carbon dioxide from the air. To give a global level of two PPM. So says a high school biology, as Harvard University agrees
Global warming was thought up in the 1970s, from a steam in Soylant Green, but also gave the unibomber his manifesto.
It was arguing that man is carbon dioxide would inevitably warm the weather. But there is no mechanism, or historical data are behind this idea. Green plants sink all the available carbon dioxide from the air. To give a global level of two PPM.
Sure do wish I could follow the math better. I respect aggregate knowledge drawn from multi-disciplinary research, which is why I accept AGW. Just wish I could understand more of it.
Carbon dioxide boosts life on earth. Plants take in carbon dioxide. So last 200 years have seen no increase in free carbon dioxide in the air. Higher crop yields though
There has been no increase in free carbon dioxide in the air for 200 years due to green plants doing photosynthesis with it. Life on earth has increased, there is no possible effect on the weather as there is no more carbon dioxide in the air
I'll simplify this down, human land use has coursed a major decrease in plant life as more land is given over to agriculture and more urbanisation. As can be seen in the hundreds and thousands of satellite photos and models. In all my year studying the envir. iv never seen any data that says otherwise from any institution. As for decrease in CO2, i have no idea where you got that from, as ever scientific page says its been sky rocketing specially in the last 35yrs.
High school biology predicts that all man is carbon dioxide has resulted in more life on earth, but no more carbon dioxide in the air to affect the weather
Due to green plants doing photosynthesis, there has been no increase in carbon dioxide in the air for 200 years. Harvard confirmed this. But it is basic O level biology. Known to all scientists on the planet
Greenpeace is well-intentioned, but is far less than even impotent. I don't know Zero Population Growth, but Greenpeace is pretty much the benchmark for how utterly ineffectual such groups are. PETA is simply a non-issue, as the fools would save baby gazelles from being eaten by lions if given the chance...an action I would find abhorrently irresponsible.
Animals die when carbon dioxide at eight per cent, but plants co2 great with carbon plants have made any increase in carbon dioxide at 40%. 2 PPM is all lie at the limit of photosynthesis taking in carbon dioxide. Man's carbon dioxide has increased life on earth but have no conceivable effect on the weather.
High school biology predicts that green plants would convert all man is carbon dioxide into life on earth. You don't believe your school biology teacher? Go out there and take in the air sample a wave and towns and cities. Global carbon dioxide is at two PPM.
High school biology tells you the outside of an ice-age carbon dioxide levels in the air can't rise. Man is carbon emissions have resulted in more life on earth, no possible effect on the weather: that is a lie from nuclear power and its paid stooges!
Harvard University says that free carbon dioxide in the global air and and towns and cities, has remained at two parts per 1,000,000 fall last 200 years. As known to all scientists on the IPCC: a you know that man-made global warming or climate change is nuclear lies
@robhoneycutt Here's who you are arguing with: RbDzcjIWxTY . Note that I'm not intending to make fun of his physical disabilities, but he's clearly delusional in the extreme.
Any member of the IPCC knows that free carbon dioxide in the air has not increased fall last 200 years. They keep quiet about this, as nuclear power will give them loads of money otherwise.
@JonThm As for every other time you tell your lie, just tell us where in New Scientist to find it. August 2010, I think you once said. I couldn't find it, so just give me issue and page number.
But you can't because you're talking a load of crap. You're giving denialists a bad name.
The level of free carbon dioxide in the air tracks the wax and wane of green plants. It has been fixed at two parts per 1,000,000 fall last 200 years: date in source Harvard University through New Scientist
@robhoneycutt Oh don't bother. JonThm is a looney who thinks nature does "molecular nuclear fusion" in water and that global warming is a conspiracy by the nuclear power companies.
@robhoneycutt dG take an entertainer air sample anywhere on earth. It is at home pre-industrial 2 PPM due to green plants. Basic high school biology. GW and CC are ideas produced by the mentally defective. To scare the stupid. You one?
@JonThm Jon, if atmospheric CO2 were 2ppm all plant life on the planet would die. It would suffocate. Gardeners ADD up to 1000ppm CO2 to their greenhouses to spur growth.
@robhoneycutt go outside, away from towns, and measure carbon dioxide for yourself. Plants have ensured since the industrial revolution this is at 2 PPM. Man is carbon dioxide has increased life on earth, but there is no more in the air to affect the world climate. Just how stupid are you?
@JonThm Jon, give it up. You know what you are saying is completely wrong. There is no science on the planet that agrees with anything you're saying. What you are suggesting is that we ignore ALL the thousands of papers on this matter and trust your word. Nothing could be more ludicrous.
@JonThm Here, Jon. Here is an animated graph of nearly all the locations on the planet where CO2 is currently being tracked. This is then appended with all the ice core data showing historical CO2 levels.
@robhoneycutt = I've searched over and over for this so called Harvard study and it does not exist.=
Me too. JonThm has been peddling this 2ppm thing for many months, but he never provides anything more than vague references that you can't find. It doesn't matter if you point out that no land vegeatation would survive at that level. It's biizarre.
@robhoneycutt basic high school biology. Green plants have taken in all man is carbon dioxide to create more life on earth. No possible effect on the weather, as there is no more carbon dioxide in the air.
High school biology predicts that green plants have turned all man is carbon dioxide into life on earth. Man made global warming and climate change are fiction from the base stooges to nuclear power.
@robhoneycutt The first couple of minutes or so I can hear it fine, but when the narrator begins talking, I can hardly make out what he says, as with the rest of the video.
@deskset24 Greenpeace has been campaigning for fossil fuels for decades. They'd never admit it, but being vehemently anti-nuclear makes them vehemently pro-coal and they've got a kind of "bootleggers and baptists" alliance going with natural gas interests.
They are a bunch of buffoons and if they are given a soap box to argue for doing something about AGW they will do more to harm the cause. We need patient rebutal, as greenman provides, not airheaded nonsense.
@soylentgreenb And the oil, nuclear, and coal industries have long supported the Nazis in World War II and funded Holocaust deniers. At least my ridiculous generalization has a lot of truth to it.
Yours has none.
Stop wasting everyone's time making up bullshit lies.
@friedie1jeff
you're welcome. hope you will spread the joy.
greenman3610 1 week ago
That's right Beatum DOWNNNN GREAT Video GREENDUDE!!!!!!!!!!!!
Ipostle 2 weeks ago
@Ipostle
gotta love Santer
greenman3610 2 weeks ago
@greenman3610 LOVE beatin down CliMate Scientists.Beatin sound QUALITY too!!!!
Ipostle 2 weeks ago
Thanks for uploading this- great to see that smart-arse climate scientist, Santer get beat down!
1000frolly 2 weeks ago
Dinosaurs are coming back? You mean the K-T extinction event wasn't permanent?
Damn, I'm going to have to get bigger guns.
SafetyKap 4 weeks ago
co2 is a trace gas parts per million, means parts per million that so small it can't make a difference. But it has to be co2, no it doesn't, there is to much guess work and wishful thinking
vmgqie 1 month ago
@vmgqie
800 ppm of alcohol in your bloodstream will get you a night in jail.
we are heading for that level of co2 in the atmosphere this century.
If you believe ppm have no effect, tell that to the judge.
greenman3610 1 month ago
@greenman3610 in Australia our co2 output is about to plummet because the Australian greens political party has successfully destroyed the local steel and manufacturing industries thank's for that. It doesn't matter about the thousands of unemployed, with all the hardship that will be felt. As long as co2 output goes down that's all that matters is it. Its the point of all your clap trap isn't it to destroy the western world's economies in the name of global warming
vmgqie 1 month ago
@vmgqie
changing the subject is your primary technique, isn't it?
sorry, a cleaner environment creates jobs.
greenman3610 1 month ago
@greenman3610 A cleaner environment creates job, what a load of bullshit. Just like your theories of global warming, all lies and falsehoods. You my friend are nothing more than lying piece of shit, anyone reading this let it be known the thousands of jobs lost will never be replaced with so called green jobs they don't exist. That's another fairy tale told to soften us up, just more lies, don't believe them
vmgqie 1 month ago
@vmgqie
and you, my friend, are a perfect example of the denialist mindset, which is why I allow these foul mouthed, fact-free postings to stay up.
greenman3610 1 month ago
@greenman3610 and you are a perfect example of a alarmist blinded by your faith in a false religion, facts denying global warming mean nothing to you, practicalities of our fossil fuel based economies mean nothing, realizing nothing we do would make any sort of difference to climate mean nothing . Just your crazy beliefs, your solutions don't add up to a squirt of piss, your all just mad. Global warming Mad Men, that's what you are
vmgqie 1 month ago
@vmgqie : 200-300mg of cyanide constitutes a lethal dose. A large human weighs perhaps 100kg. So the lethal dose of cyanide is about 3ppm. Still think 390ppm of CO2 is too small to have an effect.
0.1 mL of dimethyl mercury can be fatal. An adult has perhaps 30 L of volume, leading to about 33ppm.
The LD50* of ricin is 22 parts per *billion*, or 0.02ppm.
Why would you even make such an argument?
* the dose that kills half the subjects it's given to.
darthschmoo 1 month ago
@darthschmoo what the hell cyanide has got to do with climate you jackass. Typical of ratbag alarmist do gooder cunts trying to compare some fact with there fantasy of man made climate change, dream on idiot
vmgqie 1 month ago
@vmgqie : Thank you for making me feel like a smart, reasonable person. The argument you made was that CO2 couldn't be having a dramatic effect on a complex system like the climate, precisely because there were only a few hundred ppm of it in the atmosphere. I was pointing out other instances where even a few parts per *billion* could have a dramatic effect on a complex system, thus demolishing the logic behind your claim.
But I didn't prove you to be a foul-mouthed idiot. You did that.
darthschmoo 1 month ago
@darthschmoo Last count I saw was 388 parts per million, in the last 100 years man has increased co2 by 100 parts per million that's 0.01% of the atmosphere do you agree. If that is a problem we need a way to generate power without making co2 ok, agree so far, solar and wind wont do it agree (unreliable), nuclear dangerous (fukushima) agree yes. When something has been developed then go for it, but until then why bankrupt the western economies. Why create hardship and poverty
vmgqie 1 month ago
What a disingenuous bastard! Go Dr. Santer!
EclecticSceptic 2 months ago
What's fascinating about climate change deniers is how they've changed their tune substantially, even in just the last ten years. They used to claim it wasn't happening at all, it was total bullshit. Now the reality of it is so apparent they've switched to saying that while it is happening the 'science isn't yet in' on it being man made. Give it another decade or two, they'll modify their stance yet again.
noodlezombie 2 months ago
@noodlezombie
look for the "jesus is doing it its in the bible" argument to come up more and more.
greenman3610 2 months ago
@noodlezombie They have never changed their stance how ever alarmist have changed theirs significantly. They renamed Global Warming to Global Climate Change and now consider ANY change in climate mans fault. Anyone looking at ice core samples knows for a FACT the earth has been significantly warmer than today as well as cooler and CO2 concentrations have been higher without humans. We get more greenhouse gases from cow farts then all of man kinds transportation including boats/planes/everything.
thebestsumoeva 1 month ago
@thebestsumoeva
"they named it climate change" nonsense
watch?v=c90nab5i-TQ
"ice cores prove its been warmer" canard
watch?v=c90nab5i-TQ
indeed, co2 concentrations have been higher. and during those times, sea level was much higher, and vast areas that are now populated, were deserts. we might like to reconsider if going there is a good idea.
greenman3610 1 month ago
@greenman3610 We also know that life was more abundant during these times, I'm pretty sure even polar bears enjoy slightly warmer temperatures as does most life on earth. BTW the logic with my statement wasn't simply that the world won't die if temperatures rise, it was also that nature can raise global temperatures on its own with no help from man at all so spending trillions of dollars fighting a non existent problem that you really can't fix doesn't make any sense. Stop fear mongering please.
thebestsumoeva 1 month ago
@thebestsumoeva
you are spouting gross ignorance, - based on a total inability to grasp geologic time.
When climate has changed precipitously, over a short time, typically we see mass extinction events in the record, which last for millions of years.
We are now changing the atmosphere faster than it has changed in 65 million years, the last time an asteroid struck us, and killed the dinosaurs.
Life was indeed abundant before that change, and 5 million yrs or so after ---
greenman3610 1 month ago
@greenman3610
but there was a few million years of hell in there - that apparently you dont understand.
greenman3610 1 month ago
@greenman3610 Your logic is flawed, you are looking at moving averages over millions of years and deciding even in very small time scales these averages remain the same which is absurd. The climate change over millions of years can be averaged as well as over a few years and you will get grossly different numbers. Imagine if you measured the temp in the morning and then the afternoon, you'd have a massive change in a small time which doesn't indicate we are going to explode by the evening.
thebestsumoeva 1 month ago
@greenman3610 BTW I have a Physics Bachelors from the University of Texas in Austin, which is currently #14 in the world so while I admit I don't know everything, I'm probably smarter than you. I do however encourage debate so please do continue. Perhaps there is something I can learn from you yet...
thebestsumoeva 1 month ago
@thebestsumoeva
"I'm probably smarter than you"
is that why you are on the same page as Glenn Beck and Sara Palin?
presumably you are smarter than the National Academy, NASA, and the US Navy, as well as every major scientific organization on the planet?
google
dunning kruger
greenman3610 1 month ago
@greenman3610 Interesting appeal you are making to counter my logos appeal. Perhaps if your post had any logic I could provide a rebuttal but like most undeveloped people you simply ignored the logic I posted and tried to parallel me with unpopular people. Your post lacks proof and facts which seems to be how you prefer the world. So long as things agree with your prebuilt thoughts you are happy, pity you will never understand the true beauty of the world.
jonathasnyder 1 month ago
@jonathasnyder
you've demonstrated your gross ignorance of the paleo record, and refused to respond to the well documented videos I suggested you watch. Then you go into a rant about how smart you are.
on this site, you get respect by demonstrating actual thought, and backing it with citations and sources.
til then, you're just another ditto head, Foxtard, or Beck-ite.
again, google
dunning kruger
greenman3610 1 month ago
@greenman3610 All you do is bring up people that have nothing to do with anything we are talking about. Why would you bring up Glenn Beck or Fox News at all? What do they have to do with anything concerning anthropogenic global warming. All you are doing is bickering about people who may or may not share some of the same ideas as me and then try to call them one and the same. I feel as though you are the one suffering from the Dunning Kruger effect.
thebestsumoeva 4 weeks ago
@greenman3610 I find it funny how you bring up the Dunning Kruger effect as I find it funny how when people can not convince others they are correct they somehow try to claim the other is suffering from some sort of psychological problem without offering objective measurable proof of why they are correct. Psychology works both ways my friend so before you try and claim someone is crazy you should perhaps look in the mirror.
thebestsumoeva 4 weeks ago
@thebestsumoeva
"life was more abundant"
rapid increase in greenhouse gases have been identified as critical causes of the most catastrophic extinctions in the geo record.
watch?v=uE6at2IEUOU
greenman3610 1 month ago
@greenman3610 I've had teachers that were paleontologist and they admit it is quite well known that with warmer temperatures there is greater biodiversity as well as larger animals. A longer growing season and tropical temperatures seem to be good for life as I am sure you find many more animals in rain forest over the arctic. Perhaps warming may have occurred coincidentally with an extinction but correlation does not prove causality especially with 1 data point.
thebestsumoeva 4 weeks ago
@greenman3610 Your video reply is laughable. I can't even fit all the logical fallacies it contains, but I will give a short intro. When stating why climate millions of years ago was worse they reference Jurassic Park which is saying that quite possible dinosaurs will come back and eat us if CO2 levels rise which is completely ridiculous. They then reference that all people against the idea we are destroying the planet with a natural gas is a religious zealot, once again not true...
thebestsumoeva 4 weeks ago
@thebestsumoeva
that's right. the video says dinosaurs will eat us if we keep releasing co2.
google "metaphor".
then, on your way back from repeating 3rd grade science, make a pass thru high school english class.
greenman3610 4 weeks ago
@greenman3610 Have you ever taken a rhetoric class? Metaphor or not they implied we should be scared of global warming because dinosaurs will come back and eat us. If your good buddy Glenn Beck tried something so ridiculously stupid you'd be all over him so I ask why the double standards? Why are bed wetters allowed to use logical fallacies and others not? I'd think you'd enjoy my news as I'm proving the world isn't coming to an end, but I guess you'd rather fear monger some more.
thebestsumoeva 4 weeks ago
@thebestsumoeva
wow.
just wow.
that is all.
greenman3610 4 weeks ago
@greenman3610 Their evidence is also pointing towards the fact that CO2 can quite possibly raise global temperature or at least global temperature rose in a time of high CO2 concentrations due to large volcanic eruptions. The extinctions themselves were not a result of CO2 or warmer temperatures but of proliferation of bacteria which produced hydrogen sulfide following lava flows the size of Europe.
thebestsumoeva 4 weeks ago
@thebestsumoeva They then provide evidence that we release more CO2 then volcanoes today which is true, but the volcanoes that produced the amount of CO2 necessary for the proliferation of the hydrogen sulfide bacteria were significantly larger today as can be referenced by the fact that they produced lava flows the size of Europe. I'm not so sure solar panels will prevent volcanoes from erupting, but I don't have a YouTube video proving this...
thebestsumoeva 4 weeks ago
@thebestsumoeva It is easy to prove. Since volcanoes do not erupt permanently, their contribution to atmospheric CO2 levels would be easy to see.
Every time there's an eruption, one would see a peak of atmospheric CO2. NOPE - THERE AREN'T ANY THAT MAP TO VOLCANIC ACTIVITY.
Try again.
SafetyKap 4 weeks ago
@noodlezombie well what about you lot alarmist ass holes one minute it's global warming then there was no warming so you's say climate change typical dick head mother fucking son's of bitches
vmgqie 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The climate models are not actually models you know they are spherical crystal devices that when hands are laid on them a swirling mist reveals what will be happening in the future, failing that the backup system is used which employs a china teacup and some old fashioned tea, not the baggy stuff and voila predictions that would have as much bearing on reality as a climatologist riding the train of plenty.
RandomVersion 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Carbon tax is a disgusting crime against Humanity. CO2 whether man-made or otherwise doesn't drive global climate, it never has, it never will, the Sun does...
The Great Global Warming Swindle [Full Film]
watch?v=T8KgbUvsC_o
Galv140577 6 months ago
Cato Institure founded in 1977 by Edward H. Crane, who remains president and CEO, and Charles Koch, chairman of the board and chief executive officer of the conglomerate Koch Industries, Inc. FTW!
booksRbad 6 months ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
02:38 "we don't know why water vapour is fluctuating in the stratosphere"....
Try looking up dimwit, you might see a million 'con-trails' covering the planet at any one time!!!
ejbh3160 6 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
Would the paper that Michaels and McKitrick published @2.31, where they , or rather McKitrick confused radians and degrees, which utterly confounded the results, rendering them useless?
pseudotruth 8 months ago
When Happer testified before Congress under the Clinton administration in 1993, saying, "I think that there probably has been some exaggeration of the dangers of ozone and global climate change," he lost his government position.
"I had the privilege of being fired by Al Gore, since I refused to go along with his alarmism," Happer told Senate leaders .
Happer had stated of Gore shortly after his firing in 1993, "I was told that science was not going to intrude on policy."
HerecomestheGrump 8 months ago
@HerecomestheGrump
subsequent temperature rise and extreme events since that time, have proven Happer wrong, and Gore, once again, right. sorry. Happer should go back to promoting tobacco sales to children - it suits him better.
greenman3610 8 months ago 6
@greenman3610 No it suits him better to fight the carbon mafia.
HerecomestheGrump 8 months ago
Was Michaels under oath?
ReedYoung 9 months ago in playlist Climate Denial Crock of the Week
@ReedYoung
not sure if everyone was sworn in, but generally, I think it's a bad idea to make statements you know are false to a congressional committee.
greenman3610 9 months ago 3
@ReedYoung
Misleading congress comes naturally to Pat Michaels. It's not his first time. In 1998, he did a straw-man hatchet job on James Hansen.
pseudotruth 8 months ago
The bad thing about science is, to people who don't know about whatever is being discussed it looks like a battle of the graphs. I see similar problem with evolution. People who deny it often are looking for authoritative reasons behind it, instead of factual data. And when presented with it, they often don't understand/care. I wish more science classes in grade school included logic and application of the method not just facts.
mistereveready 10 months ago
He did address the four arguments, they were countered with the sulfate aerosols. You can read about Michaels in Marchants of Doubt, a great book about people like Michaels who are hired for the purposes of obfuscation. Such as claiming the need for more research in the cancer and tobacco debate. The truth is there is NO DEBATE!
Rhodacats 10 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Santer does not address or counter the 4 arguments of Michaels. Michaels wins! Sorry, is that not the conclusion you wanted us to come to after you loaded intro?
guydecervens 11 months ago
@guydecervens
read the comments, and you'll see that you are somewhat of an outlier in that conclusion.
greenman3610 11 months ago 7
@guydecervens
Guy, Did you hit your brain's off switch after the intro?
AustinCZ 9 months ago
guy
It looked to me like Santer tied Michaels' nose-hairs to his ass-hairs and kicked him around the aisles like a soccer ball...figuratively speaking.
But, if you feel like some issues were unanswered, let's discuss them here.
Rovinpiper 8 months ago
Ottmar Edenhofer, a German economist and co-chair of the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) Working Group III on Mitigation of Climate Change (say that twice), told the Neue Zurcher Zeitung : “The climate summit in Cancun at the end of the month is not a climate conference, but one of the largest economic conferences since the Second World War.” After all, redistributing global wealth is no small matter.
HerecomestheGrump 11 months ago
@HerecomestheGrump Get your tin hat ready, you are going to crazy town
thesparitan 8 months ago
A study by the Science and Public Policy Institute states that the U.S. government has spent $32 billion on climate research over the past 20 years.
Spending so much on studying on greenhouse gases is a misuse of resources, says William Happer a Princeton physicist who has a habit of injecting realism into the debate over global warming.
"I think most of the current climate change is natural, but people have become so fixated on CO-2 that people no longer look at natural causes," Happer said.
HerecomestheGrump 11 months ago
@HerecomestheGrump
and happer has published how many papers on climate?
greenman3610 11 months ago
William Happer Princeton physicist:
"Serious scientists, when they look at this, say this is an example of a theory that cannot be falsified," he told me.
"And a theory that cannot be falsified is not science. It’s religion."
HerecomestheGrump 1 year ago
@HerecomestheGrump
Happer -perfect example of a right wing ideological poser who has done no research in climate, published nothing on the subject, and regurgitates warmed-over talking points instead of thought.
greenman3610 1 year ago
@greenman3610 William Happer Princeton physicist:
"It’s unbelievable," "You hear of an event when the weather’s warm
and it’s proof of global warming. Then if the weather’s cold, that’s proof of global warming as well."
Very well put, you people are fanatics.
HerecomestheGrump 1 year ago
@HerecomestheGrump
I'm a fanatic for evidence and fact.
If you have some, present it, and you'll get a hearing.
greenman3610 1 year ago
@greenman3610 Interesting that you went right to politics calling him a rightwinger. In that case is Gore a rightwinger for being involved with a "rightwing" Republican former secretary of the Treasury?
Happer makes a great point, when its hot its global warming, when its cold, its again global warming. This way, your religion can never be wrong. LOL
HerecomestheGrump 1 year ago
@HerecomestheGrump
when you are ready to discuss facts or have some evidence to cite, I'm listening.
Quoting boilerplate from geriatric ideologues doesn't cut it.
greenman3610 1 year ago 2
@greenman3610 William Happer, Princeton University Physicist
“Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. Every time you exhale, you exhale air that has 4 percent carbon dioxide. To say that that’s a pollutant just boggles my mind. What used to be science has turned into a cult.”
Well said, you are cultist
HerecomestheGrump 1 year ago
@HerecomestheGrump
exhaling co2 nonsense
watch?v=WPA-8A4zf2c
greenman3610 1 year ago
@greenman3610 LOL. I heard about you but after I see your reaction to Happer's common sense and a while back with a fellow global warming fanatical nutcase named Deskset, you are a kook like the others, with a bit more savvy or time on your hands to make some videos.
What do you think is the proper level of CO-2 in the atmosphere?
HerecomestheGrump 1 year ago
@HerecomestheGrump
so you have no response to facts. got it.
greenman3610 1 year ago
HerecomestheGrump
What Happer said would be true, IF, the experiments and observational studies upon which AGW cited cold weather as proof of global warming. That's not the case.
Don't confuse arguments from poorly informed nonexperts with the real climate science.
Rovinpiper 11 months ago
William Happer Princeton physicist:
"It’s unbelievable,". "You hear of an event when the weather’s warm
and it’s proof of global warming. Then if the weather’s cold, that’s proof of global warming as well."
And that reveals the problem with the theory that man-made greenhouse gases are causing a climate catastrophe,
says Happer. It’s not falsifiable.
HerecomestheGrump 1 year ago
"The error bars are large, we just don't know anything," is climate denier for, "I am losing this argument."
Rovinpiper 1 year ago
8:05 the guy in behind, laugh out loud moment.
terriblefez 1 year ago
7:54 best moment in the clip.
terriblefez 1 year ago
Did you just call the CATO Institute a "conservative think-tank"? I think they bashed Dubya almost daily throughout his horrible, incompetent presidency.
hugesinker 1 year ago
@hugesinker
I think they would agree they are a conservative think tank.
They rightly criticized Bush - but are gutless, misguided and wrong on climate change - choosing to serve their patrons instead of the truth.
greenman3610 1 year ago 11
@greenman3610 More libertarianish but still right wing.
thecomputergurukid 1 year ago
Oh dear, Pat Michaels caught in a lie about his Big Oil funding. He told congress it was 3%, then let slip on CNN ( and elsewhere) it was actually more like 40%.
widebody123 1 year ago
Santer reduced Michaels to a quivering mass, quite literally. I've never seen better pwnage.
infinityand0 1 year ago
It's amazing these scientists can keep their cool. They're basically calling each other liars without yelling or punching each other.
ShawnD1 1 year ago 6
@ShawnD1
a lesson for us all.
greenman3610 1 year ago 3
Of course the Earth's climate is changing, its been changing for the last 4.5 billion years. What upsets me is politicians telling me that in order to solve it they have to raise my taxes. Figure out a way to do it without taxing me and we will be ok.
greekpapi 1 year ago
People just won't listen to scientist, because the scientists are geeks. They will, however, listen to the politicians, because they have better hair and say things that make nod your head! -- Never mind the fact of one of the previously mentioned factions enjoying the significant benefit of having the scientific truth on their side.
Muad420 1 year ago
"our best understanding"...."our best guess"......this is how our greatest scientific minds work? They don't take into account the things you don't yet FULLY understand, and even have knowledge of.
They think there can't be some, yet to be discovered, thing. They think there can't possibly be things they don't understand yet......But at the same time they use phrases like: "our best understanding"...."our best guess"
.I'd love that guy to come kick my ass. please do, I'd pay him to try.
DavesAV6 1 year ago
@DavesAV6
true science lives in uncertainty. Climate deniers are generally authoritarians, religious or otherwise, and are uncomfortable, as you demonstrate, with gray areas. But, because we don't know everything, does not mean we know nothing.
We don't know everything about how cigarettes cause lung disease, but our best understanding is that, they do. Just as the tobacco companies successfully used this to distort and confuse, climate deniers do likewise.
greenman3610 1 year ago 19
@greenman3610 True science is based on facts and figures. Philosophy is another class, and another major on its own. In court of law those words he used would make him not creditable as a witness, and testimony would be thrown out. They act like there arguing facts and figures, but using words like that makes them both sound like school kids fighting in the yard. And keep in mind, those people there talking in front of have to make serious decisions based on there words...pfft
DavesAV6 1 year ago
there using words that take accountability away from them if they happen to be wrong. There playing the old game of "cover yo ass". Read the rest of what I said. They sound like there not open to possibilities, yet use words like "our best understanding". So while dismissing possibilities they also admit they probably don't "fully" understand, and could be wrong. In science, if you know you don't fully understand, you must remain open minded until you do fully understand. Thats REAL science
DavesAV6 1 year ago
@DavesAV6
it is deniers who remain close minded.
we don't understand everything about gravity, but I can make an accurate prediction of what will happen if DavesAV6 were to jump off a bridge. Because we do not know everything, does not mean we know nothing.
there is still a small possibility that warming could be caused by flying saucers, fairies, or bigfoot. Just not a big possibility.
greenman3610 1 year ago 4
@DavesAV6 You don't seem to understand science at all. It's always about our best understanding. It's never about "fully understanding" anything. There are only levels of uncertainty.
infinityand0 1 year ago
@infinityand0 Could you imagine the chief of the IPCC discussing railroad engineering, because thats what his education is in... LOL
HerecomestheGrump 1 year ago
@DavesAV6 "In science, if you know you don't fully understand, you must remain open minded until you do fully understand. Thats REAL science".
So by that rationale, because we don't have the conclusive evidence that explains the big bang, we should therefore give creationists equal respect in their theory that a magical being farted the world into existence 6000 years ago for no particular reason? That's NOT science, and it certainly isnt reasonable
MrSyrett 1 year ago
@greenman3610 that is such a bad generalization. and to generalize while talking about the importance of science... highly ironic.
100CommonCents 10 months ago
@DavesAV6 ; Yes. If scientists do not use such phrases, they are not doing science. "Very likely;" "probably;" "most likely;" "could be;" etc. If scientists do not use such phrases, they are not good scientists. See for example Richard Feynman's essay on the subject. If you want certainty, stay in church where you won't get the truth but you will get certainty.
Desertphile 1 year ago
@DavesAV6 we also do not fully understand matter for that matter.
Aanthanur 1 year ago
He's mad -- and he isn't going to take it anymore! You can feel the emotion and it's understandable after the insults hurled by Michaels, at both Santer himself and science in general (if you don't think it's insulting, you are not paying attention). I also notice that Michaels' primary affiliation is given as Cato Institute -- what kind of scientific testimony would you expect from such an individual?
xchopp 1 year ago
There has been two parts per 1,000,000 carbon dioxide in the free air fall last 200 years. Man's carbon dioxide has boosted life on earth, and can't have affected the weather. That is all lie from nuclear power
JonThm 1 year ago
@robhoneycutt:
Well said, pardner! btw, Happy New Year.
nickschor1 1 year ago
High school biology predicts that plants have converted man is carbon dioxide into more life on earth. With no possible effect on the weather - as there is no more carbon dioxide left in the air than there was 200 years ago.
JonThm 1 year ago
I'm all for this series of videos. Huzzah for greenman361!
I think that the Deniers are extremely well-funded and well-connected in the political world, AND they have all the time in the world to spend on dreaming up this crap they feed the public. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that the Scientists don't have that kind of time to spend contradicting the accusations. Or the money. I think that the Scientists need some really first-class orators on their side.
IdrianKathe 1 year ago
How clever for Michaels to "throw in the towel" by asking for written questions AFTER the hearing. What that means is that anything he said henceforth became officially OFF the Congressional Record. I vote for Santer by way of TKO!
nickschor1 1 year ago
@nickschor1 It really was not a fair match. The status of these two people is entirely different. Pat Michaels is definitely a scientist but he's not anywhere the level of Ben Santer. It's a little like watching Bruce Lee beat up Winnie the Pooh.
robhoneycutt 1 year ago
Plants had taken in all man is carbon dioxide, to create more life on earth, but there is no more free carbon dioxide in the air to affect the weather.
JonThm 1 year ago
@JonThm More lies, Jon? Don't you ever get tired? You keep saying the exact think over and over as if somehow someone is going to believe you after you say it 6000 times.
robhoneycutt 1 year ago
Due to green plants man is carbon dioxide has increased life on earth by 15%. Though no possible effect on the world climate: that is a nuclear lie intended to scare the stupid
JonThm 1 year ago
More from 2000.
David Parker, at the Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research in Berkshire, says ultimately, British children could have only virtual experience of snow. Via the internet, they might wonder at polar scenes - or eventually "feel" virtual cold.
HerecomestheGrump 1 year ago
Here is a famous quote from 2000
According to Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia in 2000,within a few years winter snowfall will become "a very rare and exciting event".
"Children just aren't going to know what snow is," he said.
HerecomestheGrump 1 year ago
@HerecomestheGrump
Quite possible that day will come. For the time being, there's still a lot of cold air around, and for reasons we are just beginning to understand, it's spilling out of the arctic more so than in the past. See my blog posts on this -
google
White Christmas in Southeast. Heatwave in Hudson Bay.
greenman3610 1 year ago 2
@HerecomestheGrump Potholer54 has done a video on that subject
watch?v=5nJuAslQPaY
Richard482 1 year ago
Global warming was thought up in the 1970s, from a steam in Soylant Green, but also gave the unibomber his manifesto.
It was arguing that man is carbon dioxide would inevitably warm the weather. But there is no mechanism, or historical data are behind this idea. Green plants sink all the available carbon dioxide from the air. To give a global level of two PPM. So says a high school biology, as Harvard University agrees
JonThm 1 year ago
@JonThm
But for the general reader, the "70s Ice age" canard covered here:
watch?v=XB3S0fnOr0M
greenman3610 1 year ago 2
Global warming was thought up in the 1970s, from a steam in Soylant Green, but also gave the unibomber his manifesto.
It was arguing that man is carbon dioxide would inevitably warm the weather. But there is no mechanism, or historical data are behind this idea. Green plants sink all the available carbon dioxide from the air. To give a global level of two PPM.
JonThm 1 year ago
I love the guy just to the right of Pat Michaels at 8:04 hahaha!
ShikaNinja 1 year ago
Sure do wish I could follow the math better. I respect aggregate knowledge drawn from multi-disciplinary research, which is why I accept AGW. Just wish I could understand more of it.
TheSanityInspector 1 year ago
Pat Micheals just got pwned :D.
nn123654 1 year ago
Carbon dioxide boosts life on earth. Plants take in carbon dioxide. So last 200 years have seen no increase in free carbon dioxide in the air. Higher crop yields though
JonThm 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Just found some hot, Asian girls busizz4me.info
MoniRokse 1 year ago
There has been no increase in free carbon dioxide in the air for 200 years due to green plants doing photosynthesis with it. Life on earth has increased, there is no possible effect on the weather as there is no more carbon dioxide in the air
JonThm 1 year ago
@JonThm
I'll simplify this down, human land use has coursed a major decrease in plant life as more land is given over to agriculture and more urbanisation. As can be seen in the hundreds and thousands of satellite photos and models. In all my year studying the envir. iv never seen any data that says otherwise from any institution. As for decrease in CO2, i have no idea where you got that from, as ever scientific page says its been sky rocketing specially in the last 35yrs.
Get your facts right
pathfinder756 1 year ago
@pathfinder756 plants have sunk all man's carbon dioxide. No effect on the climate, but crop yields have gone up
JonThm 1 year ago
@JonThm where the hell are you getting your information? out of your ass???
NATEandtheMONKEY 1 year ago
High school biology predicts that all man is carbon dioxide has resulted in more life on earth, but no more carbon dioxide in the air to affect the weather
JonThm 1 year ago
Due to green plants doing photosynthesis, there has been no increase in carbon dioxide in the air for 200 years. Harvard confirmed this. But it is basic O level biology. Known to all scientists on the planet
JonThm 1 year ago
Greenpeace is well-intentioned, but is far less than even impotent. I don't know Zero Population Growth, but Greenpeace is pretty much the benchmark for how utterly ineffectual such groups are. PETA is simply a non-issue, as the fools would save baby gazelles from being eaten by lions if given the chance...an action I would find abhorrently irresponsible.
OriginalTharios 1 year ago
Animals die when carbon dioxide at eight per cent, but plants co2 great with carbon plants have made any increase in carbon dioxide at 40%. 2 PPM is all lie at the limit of photosynthesis taking in carbon dioxide. Man's carbon dioxide has increased life on earth but have no conceivable effect on the weather.
JonThm 1 year ago
High school biology predicts that green plants would convert all man is carbon dioxide into life on earth. You don't believe your school biology teacher? Go out there and take in the air sample a wave and towns and cities. Global carbon dioxide is at two PPM.
JonThm 1 year ago
@JonThm You should spend some time reviewing the papers of Charles Keeling.
robhoneycutt 1 year ago
High school biology tells you the outside of an ice-age carbon dioxide levels in the air can't rise. Man is carbon emissions have resulted in more life on earth, no possible effect on the weather: that is a lie from nuclear power and its paid stooges!
JonThm 1 year ago
Harvard University says that free carbon dioxide in the global air and and towns and cities, has remained at two parts per 1,000,000 fall last 200 years. As known to all scientists on the IPCC: a you know that man-made global warming or climate change is nuclear lies
JonThm 1 year ago
@JonThm No such study Jon. You're a liar.
robhoneycutt 1 year ago 4
@robhoneycutt Here's who you are arguing with: RbDzcjIWxTY . Note that I'm not intending to make fun of his physical disabilities, but he's clearly delusional in the extreme.
soylentgreenb 1 year ago
Any member of the IPCC knows that free carbon dioxide in the air has not increased fall last 200 years. They keep quiet about this, as nuclear power will give them loads of money otherwise.
JonThm 1 year ago
@JonThm As for every other time you tell your lie, just tell us where in New Scientist to find it. August 2010, I think you once said. I couldn't find it, so just give me issue and page number.
But you can't because you're talking a load of crap. You're giving denialists a bad name.
541iceman 1 year ago
@JonThm ; All IPCC scientists know atmospheric CO2 has increased. Take yuor medication like the doctor says.
Desertphile 1 year ago
Carbon dioxide have been at two parts per 1,000,000 fall last 200 years. As predicted by high school biology all over the world.
JonThm 1 year ago
The level of free carbon dioxide in the air tracks the wax and wane of green plants. It has been fixed at two parts per 1,000,000 fall last 200 years: date in source Harvard University through New Scientist
JonThm 1 year ago
@JonThm Again, you are posting a blatant lie. I've searched over and over for this so called Harvard study and it does not exist.
robhoneycutt 1 year ago 2
@robhoneycutt Oh don't bother. JonThm is a looney who thinks nature does "molecular nuclear fusion" in water and that global warming is a conspiracy by the nuclear power companies.
soylentgreenb 1 year ago
@soylentgreenb I know. He wants attention and I'm giving it to him.
robhoneycutt 1 year ago
@robhoneycutt dG take an entertainer air sample anywhere on earth. It is at home pre-industrial 2 PPM due to green plants. Basic high school biology. GW and CC are ideas produced by the mentally defective. To scare the stupid. You one?
JonThm 1 year ago
@JonThm Jon, if atmospheric CO2 were 2ppm all plant life on the planet would die. It would suffocate. Gardeners ADD up to 1000ppm CO2 to their greenhouses to spur growth.
robhoneycutt 1 year ago
@JonThm So, again, Jon. Where is this Harvard study? It doesn't exist does it. You're making it up.
robhoneycutt 1 year ago
@robhoneycutt go outside, away from towns, and measure carbon dioxide for yourself. Plants have ensured since the industrial revolution this is at 2 PPM. Man is carbon dioxide has increased life on earth, but there is no more in the air to affect the world climate. Just how stupid are you?
JonThm 1 year ago
@JonThm Jon, give it up. You know what you are saying is completely wrong. There is no science on the planet that agrees with anything you're saying. What you are suggesting is that we ignore ALL the thousands of papers on this matter and trust your word. Nothing could be more ludicrous.
robhoneycutt 1 year ago
@JonThm Here, Jon. Here is an animated graph of nearly all the locations on the planet where CO2 is currently being tracked. This is then appended with all the ice core data showing historical CO2 levels.
watch?v=H2mZyCblxS4
robhoneycutt 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@robhoneycutt = I've searched over and over for this so called Harvard study and it does not exist.=
Me too. JonThm has been peddling this 2ppm thing for many months, but he never provides anything more than vague references that you can't find. It doesn't matter if you point out that no land vegeatation would survive at that level. It's biizarre.
cdunford 1 year ago
@robhoneycutt basic high school biology. Green plants have taken in all man is carbon dioxide to create more life on earth. No possible effect on the weather, as there is no more carbon dioxide in the air.
JonThm 1 year ago
@JonThm teh stoopid, it burnsss....
TheSanityInspector 1 year ago
@JonThm are you fucking serious?
NATEandtheMONKEY 1 year ago
High school biology predicts that green plants have turned all man is carbon dioxide into life on earth. Man made global warming and climate change are fiction from the base stooges to nuclear power.
JonThm 1 year ago
@JonThm Would a railroad engineer that is the chief of the IPCC (snicker) know that friend?
CASEY JONES PACHURAI
HerecomestheGrump 1 year ago
OMG i just saw that you claim to have done work with Al Gore ........pppfffttt.
thedevos1981 1 year ago
I have my volume up 100%, and I can hardly hear a thing. :(
Vierotchka 1 year ago
@Vierotchka I don't have a problem hearing it at normal volume.
robhoneycutt 1 year ago
@robhoneycutt The first couple of minutes or so I can hear it fine, but when the narrator begins talking, I can hardly make out what he says, as with the rest of the video.
Vierotchka 1 year ago
lol, Michaels failed miserably.
superduperjew 1 year ago
Greenman: do the world a favor and STOP GIVING A VOICE to these fucking GW deniers. They have silenced Greenpeace and scientists for decades.
Blow up fucking C-span, which gives endless airtime to propaganda groups like the AEI but not Greenpeace, Zero Population Growth, or PETA.
deskset24 1 year ago
@deskset24
I think on balance, the opportunity to see climate deniers get roundly sacked by real scientists is a plus.
That seems to be the overwhelming reaction in the comments.
greenman3610 1 year ago 7
@deskset24 Greenpeace has been campaigning for fossil fuels for decades. They'd never admit it, but being vehemently anti-nuclear makes them vehemently pro-coal and they've got a kind of "bootleggers and baptists" alliance going with natural gas interests.
They are a bunch of buffoons and if they are given a soap box to argue for doing something about AGW they will do more to harm the cause. We need patient rebutal, as greenman provides, not airheaded nonsense.
soylentgreenb 1 year ago
@soylentgreenb And the oil, nuclear, and coal industries have long supported the Nazis in World War II and funded Holocaust deniers. At least my ridiculous generalization has a lot of truth to it.
Yours has none.
Stop wasting everyone's time making up bullshit lies.
deskset24 1 year ago