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...
@mecher3k Yes for the last year or two. It was peaking a decade ago when all the man-made-global-warming-alarmists were getting hysterical over fuck all. Don't you know the global climate is actually cooling despite the continuous lies that we are all being cooked alive by our own CO2? I've done my research & reached the inevitable conclusion that man made global warming can't possibly account for any more than 10% of climate change. The Sun provides the driving energy which the Oceans regulate.
either its getting HOTTER because we are in the midst of AGW
or we are in the midst of a solar minimum
problem is, according to SOLAR patterns (that we dont understand either) the solar minimum that started in 2006 should have been GRADUAL to where we are today. it wasnt, we dont understand why, but in 2006, solar flares nearly stopped, and so did AGW
and you dont get to simply ignore that when solar activity increases, that this is part of a NORMAL cycle.
oh, and were you to actually LISTEN to what Asimov said, READ much of his non-fiction, do some critical thinking, and STOP DRINKING THE KOOLAID.
you wouldnt be using his video, because if there was one thing in this world Sir Isaac didnt stand for it would be the mere THOUGHT that "the science (of ANYTHING) is essentially complete"
he knew better
his writings are LACED with examples of how WRONG "accepted peer reviewed accepted science" have been throughout history.
the science of AGW was dismissed in the peer reviewed literature from the early 20th century until Gilbert Plass's work in the 50s filled in some of the blanks, and addressed some of the misconceptions, such as the idea that co2 wavelengths were "saturated". People like Asimov then were far sighted enough to recognize it was important, and, as he said, began to talk about it seriously.
Less far sighted people still have not gotten it. They will, eventually.
we know enough about quantum mechanics to build the computer you are using, and the internet on which it depends. We will never know everything about anything. That is no reason not to act on what we do know.
Tobacco causes cancer, but the climate denial movement grew out of the well funded tobacco denial campaigns of the 90s, and includes some of the very same people at the top. see
maybe you aught to enlighten the quantum physicists then, because all THEY have is theories, and theoretical "extra dimensions" that we know precisely NOTHING about, other than some VERY esoteric mathematical equations
correctly speaking, we have built the computers we use IN SPITE of the very little we really KNOW about quantum physics
even WITH CERN, quantum physicists aren't proposing to "carbon tax" us back the stone age
this bad "science" told us in 2005 that we were at the tipping point, all the huricaines were proof that it was all down hill from there, and we got 5 years of lull
the same bad "science" went on and on in the '80s about "the hole in the ozone" that we were all going to be fried to crisps in 2010, until the "holes" mysteriously disappeared
all this is is a bunch of guys staring at graphs, making theories without really understanding the underlying factors
so, in YOUR little mind, the great and powerful HUMANS fixed the "ozone hole"? really?
the TRUTH is, we could have released all the flouro-carbons, freon, and every other "ozone depleting" agent we had, and the INCREASED SOLAR ACTIVITY that strangely coincided with the disappearance of the "ozone hole" would STILL have erased all traces of any human "factor"
THAT was when all you AGWers lost me
It's CLEVER how "Climate truthers" try to isolate your "inconvenient" 2005 rhetoric
you know, those same guys who were running around in 2005 screaming "SEE, ALL THE HURRICAINES, THATS AGW, PROOF THE END IS NEAR"
but strangely, you "Climatte Truthers" were silent, almost as if you were protecting the rears of your "shock troops"
and the CREEPY part, had the trends they so breathlessly proclaimed continued, you would have GLADLY taken their hysteria induced momentum to further your cause, wouldnt you?
@whodathunkit1960 There was and is no consensus on hurricane activity in a warming atmosphere. hurricanes remain a mystery in a warming environment. However they will most definitely be affected in some way as those things that drive it are changing. The ozone hole still exists. An ozone hole is any part of the ozone layer that drops below 200DU. You have no idea what you're talking about.
SIT UP, PAY ATTENTION, AND KEEP BOTH HANDS WHERE WE CAN SEE THEM!
so, YOU dont consider "the Lancet" (one of the world's best known, oldest, and most respected general medical journals) an "actual science journal", seriously?
or is your point that "the Lancet" had to first withdraw "peer review" status, then retract the entire article. nah, THAT was MY point!
and if you didnt surf SO much porn you could get a decent search.
If you knew shit from shinola, or ANYTHING about what you are professing SUCH in depth knowledge, you would know that mr Wakefield's problem wasnt further research
Mr Wakefield had 2 issues
1) he TAMPERED with HIS "RESEARCH" data, which when "the Lancet" discovered this, they retracted their "peer reviewed" status
2) before he STARTED his "research", he had taken payments from law firms suing the vaccine manufacturers
you think that EITHER of those may have influenced his results?
YOUR spin is IMPRESSIVE, even for a "climate truther"
do you have problems with reading comprehension? is the word "WAS" causing you issues? it definitively infers PAST TENSE
as in the Autism link WAS "peer reviewed"
MY point WAS; the perceived "credibility" that "peer reviewed" status infers DOES NOT mean it is "a proven fact", like "climate truthers" may LIKE it to be
AGW believer = "climate truther" = NUTTER
if you ARENT a "climate truther", GO BACK, READ IT AGAIN, and STFU
Funny how when it actually was his findings were found to be bullshit. No spin, just facts.
"MY point WAS; the perceived "credibility" that "peer reviewed" status infers DOES NOT mean it is "a proven fact", like "climate truthers" may LIKE it to be"
But your point fails as when it was peer reviewed, to you it was peer reviewed again, his findings were found to be bullshit.
I so love dissecting idiotic "climate truther" spin
'Wakefield "was dishonest", said Horton. "He deceived the journal." The Lancet had done what it could to establish that the research was valid, by having it peer-reviewed. But there is a limit, he said, to what peer-review can ascertain.' - the guardian, 2/2/2010
let me say it again, this is a PRIME example of how "peer review" DIDNT work, and it took 10 years to FINALLY set it straight
you will discover that the wakefield article was peer reviewed by 12 others, and wakefields employer at the time was contacted and verified his credibility... OUCH...
if you DONT read the guardian article, I predict you will try and claim that the "peer review" happened AFTER it was published
see pubs like "the Lancet" are NOT debate rags, their credibility is important to them, unlike "climate truther" TARDS lol
clearly, the reference to the guardian was for the statement from Richard Horton, editor of "the Lancet". which CLEARLY states that the autism article HAD BEEN peer reviewed prior to publication, "but there is only so much we can do"
but, true to your "climate truther" status, facts and actual timelines are "inconveniences" to be ignored
I noteice you havent cited a single journal who uses YOUR timeline, where they publish ludicrous theories, THEN go to peer review
All the facts point to AGW. All the facts point to Wakefield's study being bullshit, this was found in a year or so of his study being published. Try to deny the fact the world is warming, this is an indisputable fact.
"where they publish ludicrous theories, THEN go to peer review"
Wakefield's stuudy was published, was quickly ripped apart. Obviously real peer review never happened. Once it did it was found out to be BS by everyone.
clearly you state: "So where is the articles from actual science journals?"
excuse me, but (in your astute, but quite obviously MOUTHBREATHING opinion) arent you stating that "the Lancet" is not an "actual science journal"?
unless of course you are NOW going to claim that this is somehow "taken out of context" being ONE of FOUR sentences, 2 of which affirm your "mouthbreathing" status. go ahead and try to spin it that way.
"It's been a recurring theme in this series - that the science was essentially complete long before Al Gore, long before the IPCC, long before the Hockey Stick."
would interpreting this quote as "the science (of AGW) is essentially complete" adequately represent your views?
or would that be taking what you said, out of context?
that would be out of context. think of it this way.
Obviously, the science of gravity is not yet complete, and may not be for a thousand years, or forever.
Yet, if you were to go jump off a bridge, there is enough science for me to make a reasonably accurate prediction of where you will land, and how hard.
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"
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
This moron, like his pal Sagan or the pedophile C. Clark, his nothing but a media creation, a narcissist and a pseudo-intellectual. The Cheerleaders of science pretending they can play football. He knows ZERO about the sciences involved in this GW discussion.
@GodHatesPortugal And yet he is a world-renowned author and scientist, while you are just going to be some person on youtube that bad-mouths others. Hope that works out for you!
because there is a massive, well coordinated campaign to distort, dissemble and deny the science, modeled on the very successful efforts of tobacco companies.
There's another Asimov on the Greenhouse effect clip on Youtube too which seems to date back even further to May 1977. Asimov was my all-time favourite author & one of the smartest and nicest people I've read, he's a personal hero of mine. Thanks. (Tried to post a link to it but it seems it won't let me.)
You know, I sort of expected Asimov to have a deep, ominous voice, like the guy who reads "War of the Worlds", rather than a New York twang :-) Thanks for the upload!
@MartijnHover If you want to get real scientific info on CAGW my advice would be to look into the work of Richard Lindzen, Roy Spencer and Henrick Svensmark. Whenever anyone tries to get to grips with the actual 'science' of CAGW it always turns eventually into a kaleidoscope of technical images that have no coherent logical relationships and which leave the enquirer no clearer or better-informed. You would have to try to get to the bottom of it yourself to know what I am talking about here.
@MartijnHover Quite so. It does not change facts. It does not change the fact that atomic absorption spectroscopy shows CO2 only absorbs infrared over three very narrow frequencies which can be generously estimated at 8% of the total IR-spectrum which means 92% of all radiation that is reflected from earth is not absorbed by CO2. It is a fact CO2 only has an atmospheric-lifespan of 5 years, established by Bert-Bolin, which means humans cannot control the amount of CO2 to any significant extent.
To save the planet and stop Global Warming we need to get that Carbon Tax implemented on the cause of it, the fascist USA. Make sure you do not let any deniers try and say that Global Warming is BS because India and China are not getting carbon taxed, as they are not responsible for Anthropogenic Global Warming, the US is!
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Al Gore's climate scientists have found that CO2 emissions from the US are the sole cause for Global Warming and that carbon taxes implemented on the US, will stop Global Warming. China and India's CO2 emissions have nothing to do with it.
@JoeJohn90 "Al Gore's climate scientists " Were they the same scientists who told him sea levels could rise by 23 FEET when the IPCC's worst case scenario was 23 INCHES? Never mind he didn't believe them and has bought a seaside mansion.
@greenman3610 Dude, I'm a fellow communist just like you. Once we get carbon taxes implemented on fascist capitalist countries, Global Warming will stop.
@JoeJohn90 Do you realize how idiotic your comment sounds? Do you even know, what communism is and what it is not? I guess the answer is no on boht questions. Communist China is one of greatest pollutors in the world, and former USSR had a whole political machinerie in place in order to manipulate media and possible effects of global warming were one of censored issues.
@chstoney Then polluting AGW-denying corporate fascists should love so-called "communist" China and so-called "communist" USSR. In fact, corporate fascists do, because they love having cheap slave-labor in China make unnecessary crap for American consumers to make corporate fascists like Wal-Mart immensely and criminally powerful. And the American military-corporate-welfare depended on the USSR to keep the Cold War going to steal everyone's tax dollars.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
@CygnusRising001 What did Isaac Asimov know about climate science? Apparently nothing. His review was based fundamentally on the assumption that CO2 causes global warming in precisely the way that the IPCC said that it does. But are the IPCC's claims in that regard true? They have not been empirically proven. Indeed, they have never been empirically tested! Also, while I think deforestation is an area of concern, according to satellite observations the global biomass has increased (Nemani 2003).
@MartijnHover Thanks, but I have checked out the info presented by CAGW-advocates and found it to be based on no real science - just garbage-in garbage-out computer models which purport to know how the climate will be in 50 years, despite the fact that with the best equipment meteorologists struggle to tell us how the weather and climate will be next week. The science behind CAGW is political and always has been, it's a shame so many seemingly intelligent people have been taken in by the scam.
Yeah, that's right, Chippy. There's "no real science" in Science Magazine ... or in Nature ... or in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences ... or in hundreds of other scientific periodicals ... or at hundreds of colleges and universities.
No ... no ... it's all a Bolshevik scam to steal your tax dollars. Bwa-ha-haaaa ...
@CHIPSTERO7 And what exaclty are your scientific credentials? You have it completely backwards and upside down: it's the climate change deniers who have a political agenda. You are the one being taken in by the scam. Of course, with you being of the purposely ignorant persuasion I have no hope whatsoever of ever convincing you.
@MartijnHover What do my scientific credentials have to do with anything? There are a myriad of scientists who reject the CAGW-proposition with the requisite credentials, like Lindzen and Spencer, just to name a few. A 10-second Google search will show you that there are over 800-peer-reveiwed papers rejecting the CAGW-hypothesis. The CAGW-theory to me seems to be contradicted by quite elementary physical principles. I'm afraid your whole case appears misconceived and founded on fantasies to me.
@CHIPSTERO7 If you criticize GW science you need to have some scientific credentials. Just parroting right-wing fairy tales about the "political agenda" of honest scientists does not really qualify. An overwhelming majority of climate scientists agree with the hypothesis that global warming is largely due to human activity. You should compare your 800 peer-reviewed papers to the thousands and thousands of papers, equally peer-reviewed, that arrive at the opposite conclusion.
@MartjnHoer No. I need no credentials. As free, sovereign individuals we all have the intrinsic, inalienable right to decide for ourselves what we will believe is truth and reality. If the CAGW-lobby want the rational public to accept it, the onus is wholly upon them to prove it rationally to us. And we don't care how many hapless corrupted or intimidated scientists who have been side flanked, out manoeuvred and trapped in the institutional CAGW-mega cult may say that they believe in it already.
@CHIPSTERO7 Of course. You are free to believe that the Earth is flat, that a man in the sky created the universe in less than a week 6000 years ago, and whatever you like. But that doesn't change the facts, i.e. that world is not flat and that the universe wasn't created in 6 days by a tribal deity. You may be a free and sovereign individual, but that doesn't mean that everything you choose to believe is the truth. The truth does NOT depend on your opinion. Sorry to disappoint you.
@MrHicks091 The fact that atomic absorption spectrometer experiments determining the absorption characteristics of CO2 in the atmosphere, adiabatic lapse, Einstein coefficients, Beer-Lambert law, and other processes that contradict CAGW have all been well-known to meteorologists for donkeys' years suggests to me that the warmist cabal have little inkling of the real science on which they pretend to be expert. I'd hate to be a meteorologist who had to work under their rule and in their domain.
@CHIPSTERO7 You'd probably also hate to be a meteorologist for the simple reason that vomiting stuff you read on the internet wouldn't work as well in science as it does on the internet.
@CHIPSTERO7 Good. As long as you allow people to believe that just because someone's a soldier in the US military doesn't mean that they in anyway fight for Americans' freedoms or that anyone "owes" that soldiers ANYTHING. Doesn't matter whether you or I believe that. According to what you just said, you'd damned well better allow that person the freedom to say that.
We don't need to listen to the military-cult. Or the "OJ Simpson is guilty" cult.
@CHIPSTERO7 More ad hominem attacks like calling CAGW a "lobby" and using words like "corrupted" and "intimidated". Luckily, only subhuman morons believe that crap. Of course, such shitheads cannot scientifically prove any of their dumbass political rants.
Anyway, being ad hominem attacks on scientists and groups like 350.org totally destroys any credibility the deniers have. Not that they ever had any.
Our credibility is not at issue here. Yours is. We CAGW-sceptics are not the ones putting forward a proposal for the radical upheaval and restructuring of world society so as to fulfil a global political, economic, environmental and demographic agenda. You are.
@CHIPSTERO7 Again, YOU have that backwards. You AGW-deniers want the massive radical annihilation of mankind and other species by massive starvation and climate change due to your insistence on burning every last molecule of hydrocarbon on the planet just to make your fossil fuel CEOs unjustly rich instead of taking the necessary steps NOW to get off fossil fuels, which will only get HARDER and HARDER to do because of the interference by your AGW-deniers.
@deskset24 You are just telling yourself what you want to believe and are deluding yourself accordingly. You do not know anything about me to be able to say whether I am a sceptic, or a 'denialist', or anything else. You only describe your own psychopathology by making such unsubstantiated assertions about me of if us sceptics may be harbouring unscrupulous, surreptitious plans encompassing, as you say, the 'radical annihilation of mankind and other species'. Now who's the conspiracy theorist?
@CHIPSTERO7: Well, I don't know; what would a doctorate in biochemistry and 700+ book titles to his credit know? after all, he wrote on Shakespeare, Milton, the Bible, history, physics, chemistry, biology, books of limericks, mystery fiction, science fiction, ... What would he know? I'll bet it was more then you know, even about climate. WattsUp is not an education.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
"the broad outlines of the climate change story have been understood for decades" That is undisputed. The greenhouse hypothesis has been in the media for decades, including intellectuals. The dispute is about the policy, i.e. if it's wise to effectively shut down all western economies because of this perceived fear, regardless if it's real or not. Isn't the damage of the economic shutdown much larger than any hypothetical "global warming" could ever be?
@greenman3610 Capping the absolute amount of CO2 a country may produce, and reducing the cap each year with a planned goal 90%, is equivalent to rationing energy up to the point of making it almost unavailable in the end. That is equivalent with shutting down one's economy. The EU commission is planning to do that and has already started to implement it. The EU commission is not a democratically elected body FYI.
@anorak2 Good. I hope that is true, although I doubt it, given the source (you). That is the massive kind of commitment need to combat AGW. We need a multilateral military-level action.
Ironically, AGW-deniers are always conservatives, who love to tax and spend and tax and spend on the military, no matter HOW much it destroys economies. They absolutely REFUSE to cut down military spending, when it's use to steal oil and coal and to pollute.
@deskset24 "We need a multilateral military-level action." Beware us of ideologies who demand "multilateral military-level action". In case you didn't think it through, forced reduction of CO2 output to any level considerably lower than now spells famine. A mild capping spells "merely" unemployment and social unrest. I'd rather not have that. " AGW-deniers are always conservatives" Wrong. Left and right are meaningless concepts. From your POV I'm probably left wing.
@anorak2 You think I think you're leftwing because I suggested using the help of militaries on this?
Or, is it because you work for some Communist Chinese coal plant?
Multilateral military action is what stopped the Nazis and Japanese imperialists. Yes - the names of the oppressors change with time (e.g. the US oppresses others, but not ALL oppression is caused by the USA today; e.g. NK). But now, BOTH oppressors and oppressed will come to an end when FFs run out, but not too soon for AGW
@deskset24 No you would probably call me left wing because I'm a pinko European who supports a generous welfare state, socialised medicine, socialised transport systems, civil liberties, gay rights and that sort of thing. Your demand for "military action" makes you just a nutter. "military action is what stopped the Nazis" Hey Godwin's Law invoked. You got that wrong though. It was the nazis who went for "multilateral military action" for solving a perceived problem that really didn't exist.
@anorak2 Well, good. You should be proud of being a pinko, and European. But, it was the Red Army that defeated the Nazis. It's always only the SAME 2 ideas ever allowed in public: leftwingers like you who support war for NO reason, and rightwingers (theocrats in Iran, corporatists in USA) who support war for BAD reasons. We need OTHER views, like war for GOOD reasons. Yet, hypocritically, I'll bet you don't oppose putting people in jail for good reasons, but I do.
@deskset24 I'm not left wing, I just said that you being a yank probably would think I am. I do not support war for any reason, or puttin gpeople in jail without reason. I think you are very confused, first you go on about the climate thing and now you are a fan of the red army, that doesn't really compute. I think you need to sort out some things for yourself. Or maybe you're trolling and I swallowed the bait.
@deskset24 : Well the Soviet Union played its part in winning WWII on the allied side at terrible cost to themsleves. I suggest you research Operation Barbarossa & the Battle of Leningrad for starters. Hitler may have won had he not repeated Napoleon's mistake and invaded Russia when he didn't have to.
Also you don't support putting people injail for *any* reason - like murder, rape, child molesting ?? Really???
@anorak2 not sure where you are getting the idea of shutting down the economy. Now I have heard those who deny global warming use that statement as a tool to scare people but what many who understand what is going on with our climate have been suggesting that we change how we use energy. But if climate change isn't enough to bring people around to alternative energy maybe the understanding that right now China his passing us on this front or the understanding of the global market for oil.
@momentofsciencetx It's the other way round, I am scared of shutting down the economy and I'm trying to wake people up to it. I could care less about "global warming", there would be no point discussing it beyond the scientific community, were it not used as a political tool for policies, some of which are quite imbecile and hurt us all. Re China .. Doing business by selling wind turbines, and using them to generate one's own electricity are different things. You can do one without the other.
@anorak2 How do you propose to bring the western lifestyle to the majority of the population of the planet without bankrupting our economy. Because, whether you like it or not, the little rural villages in the third world know that westerners live better than them, and have all sorts of tools and technology they want.
And all of that tech uses energy. And the majority of the transportation tech uses fossil fuels/oil.
@jwcornish "How do you propose to bring the western lifestyle" The same way we did it, industrial growth. Expansion of industry, trade, traffic, services, agriculture for many decades to come. It's already happening, but we need more of it. That is not our job to do, but of those nations who want to do it. Of course if they ask for our assistance we should offer it, but it's not about us presenting gifts. "without bankrupting our economy" On the contrary, everyone will benefit.
@anorak2 Clearly you cannot do math. Infinite growth is impossible on a finite planet.
I am definitely not one to be self-sufficient. I need modern inventions. That is why *I* have done MY part to cut down world overpopulation by not having kids and to reduce # animals tortured and murdered by being vegan. And for everyone else to live the same as me, we need to go forward to solar-wind-geothermal power, not back to coal-oil-gas. And we need to cut world pop to 1 billion.
@deskset24 " Infinite growth is impossible on a finite planet." I never said anything about infinite growth. Everyhing is limited. But that doesn't mean scarcity is imminent. E.g. rock is undoubtedly limited, but that doesn't mean we need to worry about running out of it, ever. The stone age didn't end because of a scarcity of rock, but because humans found metals long before it ran out. That is how human development works. Your POV is called "malthusianism", look it up.
@anorak2 Boy, you sure do love to fantasy without filling in the details.
Those disturbing details that will hit you in the face and force you to face reality that your fantasy is BULLSHIT.
I remember seeing some general on tv once after the Gulf War who said:
"Amateurs talk strategies. Professionals talk logistics." - i.e. getting the energy and food and medicine to where-ever it's needed when it's needed and NOT polluting and destroying the environment at the same time.
@anorak2 again who is talking about shutting down the economy??? And yes it is being used for political gain mostly buy those who are funded by the oil and gas industry they have major influence in our government. What you must provide is the evidence of a mass conspiracy among climate scientist. You said I could care less about "global warming there would be no point discussing it beyond the scientific community.
I hope you are joking..there are severe ramifications for this.
@momentofsciencetx "who is talking about shutting down" Implicitly everyone who is talking about taxing or capping CO2. "influence in our government" What government? Here in Europe all media, all governments, all industries do parrot the "CO2 is a problem" mantra, no opposition at all. It's everywhere Even in car, petrol, electricity, light bulb advertising!! Supposedly if I buy certain light bulbs I'm helping Knut the icebear to survive, utter madness. It looks like orchestrated campaign.
@anorak2 Taxing CO2 I do not believe would be effective. Will it shut down the economy no..Is it useless..in my opinion yes. The talk is to reduce..again reduce carbon output. If you think this is an orchestrated campaign then see if you can get the many scientist claiming its too late to change the effects and get them on board to make a quick buck as many of your like believe is happening. Do you think dumping billions of CO2 into the atmosphere has any negative effect?
@momentofsciencetx What scientists think is mostly irrelevant to the campaign. The campaign is orchestrated by politics, companies, ideologies and other interest groups. They just use an excuse that comes in handy, and apparently they found the "CO2 is dangerous" hypothesis (which was around before, but largely unnoticed) would be it. If the public stops believing in it one day, they will just retarget their efforts. So discussing if CO2 is or isn't dangerous is futile, it misses the point.
@anorak2 No discussing the effects of CO2 on climate is not futile, that is just a weak excuse to not discuss the problem. What I have found it that denyers like yourself dodge the science due to a lack of understanding it. It is the politics and people beliefs wich are as you say "futile." What you chose to believe or not to believe does not change the facts though many like yourself tend to not let the facts get in the way of their argument.
@momentofsciencetx I said nothing about "climate science" and I'm not intending to. Of course I don't understand it, I'm not a trained climatologist, so what do I know. Most discussions between laymen about a subject they barely understand are ridiculous, but at the same time irrelevant, because at the core the public "climate change" debate is about politics, not science. The "climate politics" affect everyone, so everyone has a right to speak about them without having a climate science PhD.
@anorak2 You can talk about the politics involved. but thats not what is going on right now. It is a complete denial that climate change is happening because of political disagreements. You can debate policy all day but when you start to deny the science because you don't like someones solution to the problem, then we are in trouble. Its like telling your doctor that you disagree with him or her that you have cancer because you don't like what the Dr. suggests as a fix.
Good ol' Isaac Asimov, may the Prime Integral preserve his memory. I grew up reading his science columns (though my tastes in SF were more along the lines of the Sixties New Wave & after) First video clip I've ever seen of him, thanks.
@Elmoogle: He was a famous speaker, much sought after in the 50s, 60s and 70s, mainly. Unfortunately, this clip was recorded after his bout with throat cancer and a heart attack, so while it demonstrates his ability to talk off-the-cuff without hesitation, it doesn't show his power.
Great video, thanks. I think later humanity will look back on this time, and all the evidence pointing toward human climate change (massive burning of fossil fuels, desertification of areas of the earth, destruction of forest, out of control pop growth, increased demands for massive quantities of energy, etc.), and wonder why previous generations did not DO more about the problem. It was b/c of pro-corporate legislators and leaders, protecting monetary interests, they will learn. It is sad, very
Isaac Asimov, 22 years on & big oil PR has replaced your words with the same liars4hire science that big tobacco used b4 Al Gore had nerve to expose them. Now he's taking on that other southern religion big oil which means he's a traitor x2 to his southern homeland which accounts for why they hate him so much. Asimov has been replace by someone more convenient named La Haye. Glenn Beck's next best seller should be about finding his dream gold mine in outer space where he lives.
I assume the 97 percent stuff comes from Peter Doran's survey. He asked, "Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?" This question doesn't even specify warming! Spencer estimates the human contribution as 25 percent, so even he would answer, "yes." What does it matter how many articles on climate are published in a year? The editors at Popular Technology obviously can't read them all.
We've known of it for so long and yet we have done nothing but accelerate. It's like we are paralysed in our tracks, able only to complain about our condition.
Originally, I hadn't seen the "1989" part of the title! I thought; "I thought Asimov was dead! Maybe he's an android! Ghost in the machine?" lol Funny, in the 70's and 80's, it was "greenhouse effect" then "global warming" now "climate change." Different words, same idea. Someone explain this, please, to the conservatives!
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
The warming effect of CO2 has been greatly exxagerated for political ends.It is is an inconsequential greenhouse gas.Atomic spectroscopy analysis shows that it is only capable of absorbing 8% of the total infrared radiation in the electromagnetic frequency range which means 92% of the radiation emitted by the sun is not absorbed by CO2.
Isaac Asimov, Steven Hawking, Carl Sagan, and the National Science Academies of every major country apparently are misinformed on that issue. You'll have to get busy educating these ignoramuses.
@greenman3610 Not misinformed on the issue Greenman.Just information that the public are unaware of and unlikely to go looking for.The information is available here. Atomic absorption studies of CO2, laser-induced atomization of samples confined in a graphite furnace by J. P. Matousek and B. J. Orr.
@ezeeskank I am not an expert on this area but i can tell you that statistically 8% is a very significant figure.
I can also tell you that not only does rain forest destruction have an effect upon the absorption of carbon but it is vital as a stabiliser of moisture within the context of earth's climate.
The only people who have anything to lose on this matter are the highly vocal denialists such as the big corporations.
@greenman3610 And what about Freeman Dyson, Richard Lindzen, Roy Spencer, John Christy, or the 800 peer reviewed skeptical articles that Popular Technology came up with? Two can play at the name dropping game.
@kauffner The legitimate skeptic you mention represent about 3% of climate scientists. The "800 peer reviewed papers" are an amazing stretch of logic if you actually go through the list. But even if you accept Poptech's very lax reading of the papers, that is 800 papers out of about 2 million published papers on climate science. (Yes, I did a google scholar search.) So that puts the rate at about 0.04%. Not impressive.
@kauffner The legitimate skeptic you mention represent about 3% of climate scientists (although Dyson is not a climate scientist). The "800 peer reviewed papers" are an amazing stretch of logic if you actually go through the list. But even if you accept Poptech's very lax reading of the papers, that is 800 papers out of about 2 million published papers on climate science. (Yes, I did a google scholar search.) So that puts the rate at about 0.04%. Not impressive.
@greenman3610 And Fred Singer "The grandfather of climate science" and John Christy with his 30 years experience and NASA award are wrong by your standards?
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
@Galv140577
Dumbfuck. The sun as been at a solar minimum.
mecher3k 5 months ago
@mecher3k Yes for the last year or two. It was peaking a decade ago when all the man-made-global-warming-alarmists were getting hysterical over fuck all. Don't you know the global climate is actually cooling despite the continuous lies that we are all being cooked alive by our own CO2? I've done my research & reached the inevitable conclusion that man made global warming can't possibly account for any more than 10% of climate change. The Sun provides the driving energy which the Oceans regulate.
Galv140577 5 months ago
@Galv140577 We've told them. but they don't believe us.
CHIPSTERO7 5 months ago
@mecher3k
lets get this straight
either its getting HOTTER because we are in the midst of AGW
or we are in the midst of a solar minimum
problem is, according to SOLAR patterns (that we dont understand either) the solar minimum that started in 2006 should have been GRADUAL to where we are today. it wasnt, we dont understand why, but in 2006, solar flares nearly stopped, and so did AGW
and you dont get to simply ignore that when solar activity increases, that this is part of a NORMAL cycle.
whodathunkit1960 5 months ago
@whodathunkit1960 solar activity has been decreasing for 60 years...
WaxItYourself 1 week ago
@mecher3k
um the "maunder minimum" indicates an observed minimum of SOLAR FLARES....
Solar Flares do not necessarily equate to overall solar output.
is this a concept you can accept?
whodathunkit1960 4 months ago
I find this a very interesting video. The world's formost authority on SCIENCE FICTION is the perfect person to comment on AGW.
VictorLepanto 6 months ago
oh, and were you to actually LISTEN to what Asimov said, READ much of his non-fiction, do some critical thinking, and STOP DRINKING THE KOOLAID.
you wouldnt be using his video, because if there was one thing in this world Sir Isaac didnt stand for it would be the mere THOUGHT that "the science (of ANYTHING) is essentially complete"
he knew better
his writings are LACED with examples of how WRONG "accepted peer reviewed accepted science" have been throughout history.
whodathunkit1960 6 months ago
@whodathunkit1960
the science of AGW was dismissed in the peer reviewed literature from the early 20th century until Gilbert Plass's work in the 50s filled in some of the blanks, and addressed some of the misconceptions, such as the idea that co2 wavelengths were "saturated". People like Asimov then were far sighted enough to recognize it was important, and, as he said, began to talk about it seriously.
Less far sighted people still have not gotten it. They will, eventually.
greenman3610 6 months ago 3
we know about as much about AGW as we do Quantum mechanics,
we've observed some patterns, but really have no idea what the underlying REALITIES are.
we don't even know all the factors affecting our local climate.
70% of all the "matter" in the universe is unaccounted for.
nobody in their right mind thinks we should burn all the CO2 stores
dont cut your nose to spite your face & dont try to cut mine
dont try to ram it down our throats
you want a "sin tax" on carbon GET BETTER SCIENCE
whodathunkit1960 6 months ago
@whodathunkit1960
we know enough about quantum mechanics to build the computer you are using, and the internet on which it depends. We will never know everything about anything. That is no reason not to act on what we do know.
Tobacco causes cancer, but the climate denial movement grew out of the well funded tobacco denial campaigns of the 90s, and includes some of the very same people at the top. see
watch?v=i1RyHTDycng
greenman3610 6 months ago
@greenman3610
"we know enough about quantum mechanics", really?
maybe you aught to enlighten the quantum physicists then, because all THEY have is theories, and theoretical "extra dimensions" that we know precisely NOTHING about, other than some VERY esoteric mathematical equations
correctly speaking, we have built the computers we use IN SPITE of the very little we really KNOW about quantum physics
even WITH CERN, quantum physicists aren't proposing to "carbon tax" us back the stone age
whodathunkit1960 6 months ago
@greenman3610
the "science" of AGW
this bad "science" told us in 2005 that we were at the tipping point, all the huricaines were proof that it was all down hill from there, and we got 5 years of lull
the same bad "science" went on and on in the '80s about "the hole in the ozone" that we were all going to be fried to crisps in 2010, until the "holes" mysteriously disappeared
all this is is a bunch of guys staring at graphs, making theories without really understanding the underlying factors
whodathunkit1960 6 months ago
@whodathunkit1960
not aware of any consensus in the literature on hurricanes as of 2005. The media of course, is something else.
The ozone hole was dealt with by international agreement, which was effective in eliminating most of the effluents that cause the damage. Again, see
watch?v=i1RyHTDycng
the same paid disinformers who tell you there is no climate change, told you that there was no ozone hole, and that tobacco smoke is just fine.
I prefer the science, rather than propoganda.
greenman3610 6 months ago 2
@greenman3610
so, in YOUR little mind, the great and powerful HUMANS fixed the "ozone hole"? really?
the TRUTH is, we could have released all the flouro-carbons, freon, and every other "ozone depleting" agent we had, and the INCREASED SOLAR ACTIVITY that strangely coincided with the disappearance of the "ozone hole" would STILL have erased all traces of any human "factor"
THAT was when all you AGWers lost me
It's CLEVER how "Climate truthers" try to isolate your "inconvenient" 2005 rhetoric
whodathunkit1960 6 months ago
@greenman3610
@greenman3610
hey, if you WANT some cred out your lunatics
you know, those same guys who were running around in 2005 screaming "SEE, ALL THE HURRICAINES, THATS AGW, PROOF THE END IS NEAR"
but strangely, you "Climatte Truthers" were silent, almost as if you were protecting the rears of your "shock troops"
and the CREEPY part, had the trends they so breathlessly proclaimed continued, you would have GLADLY taken their hysteria induced momentum to further your cause, wouldnt you?
whodathunkit1960 6 months ago
@whodathunkit1960 There was and is no consensus on hurricane activity in a warming atmosphere. hurricanes remain a mystery in a warming environment. However they will most definitely be affected in some way as those things that drive it are changing. The ozone hole still exists. An ozone hole is any part of the ozone layer that drops below 200DU. You have no idea what you're talking about.
WaxItYourself 1 week ago
@greenman3610
woah,
you "climate truthers" like to use "peer reviewed" scientific THEORY as your shield.
now YOU come out and ADMIT that "the science of AGW was dismissed in the peer reviewed literature"
so, the "peer"s, they had it dead wrong then? but NOW, what they say is GOLDED (regardless of how much they fudged their data)?
Need I point out that the Imunization/Autism link was (<5 yrs ago) considered "peer reviewed" also?
Who's playing the part of the great and powerful Oz now?
whodathunkit1960 6 months ago
@whodathunkit1960
Lol fucking idiot.
"Need I point out that the Imunization/Autism link was (<5 yrs ago) considered "peer reviewed" also?"
Lol no it wasn't.
mecher3k 6 months ago
@mecher3k
lol.... so now you "climate truthers" will pick and choose what "peer reviewed" means?
try Google-ing "imunization autism peer review"
"the Lancet" roughly equivalent to the New England Journal of Medicine
you REALLY should at least LOOK IT UP...
but you go ahead, shoot your mouth off.... I'll show you what that hole is for
whodathunkit1960 6 months ago
@whodathunkit1960
Lol Andrew Wakefield study from Lancet? You are fucking retarded for not reading up on it.
"imunization autism peer review"
All I get is nutter sites and new articles from places like ny times.
So where is the articles from actual science journals?
It's you who should look it up retard.
mecher3k 6 months ago
@mecher3k
typical "climate truther" slackjawed mouthbreathing FOOL
SIT UP, PAY ATTENTION, AND KEEP BOTH HANDS WHERE WE CAN SEE THEM!
so, YOU dont consider "the Lancet" (one of the world's best known, oldest, and most respected general medical journals) an "actual science journal", seriously?
or is your point that "the Lancet" had to first withdraw "peer review" status, then retract the entire article. nah, THAT was MY point!
and if you didnt surf SO much porn you could get a decent search.
whodathunkit1960 6 months ago
@whodathunkit1960
"SIT UP, PAY ATTENTION, AND KEEP BOTH HANDS WHERE WE CAN SEE THEM!"
How mentally retarded are you?
"so, YOU dont consider "the Lancet""
You are talking about Andrew Wakefield's article in it. I suggest you read up on it. His findings were ripped apart dumb ass.
Just because I respect something doesn't mean I accept everything in it, especially when it get's ripped to shreds by farther science.
Retarded troll.
mecher3k 6 months ago
@mecher3k
If you knew shit from shinola, or ANYTHING about what you are professing SUCH in depth knowledge, you would know that mr Wakefield's problem wasnt further research
Mr Wakefield had 2 issues
1) he TAMPERED with HIS "RESEARCH" data, which when "the Lancet" discovered this, they retracted their "peer reviewed" status
2) before he STARTED his "research", he had taken payments from law firms suing the vaccine manufacturers
you think that EITHER of those may have influenced his results?
whodathunkit1960 6 months ago
@whodathunkit1960
So you destroyed your own point on "Need I point out that the Imunization/Autism link was (<5 yrs ago) considered "peer reviewed" also?"
When it was actually peer reviewed his findings were shown to be false.
Are you a creationist btw? You are acting like one.
mecher3k 6 months ago
@mecher3k
YOUR spin is IMPRESSIVE, even for a "climate truther"
do you have problems with reading comprehension? is the word "WAS" causing you issues? it definitively infers PAST TENSE
as in the Autism link WAS "peer reviewed"
MY point WAS; the perceived "credibility" that "peer reviewed" status infers DOES NOT mean it is "a proven fact", like "climate truthers" may LIKE it to be
AGW believer = "climate truther" = NUTTER
if you ARENT a "climate truther", GO BACK, READ IT AGAIN, and STFU
whodathunkit1960 6 months ago
@whodathunkit1960
"as in the Autism link WAS "peer reviewed""
Funny how when it actually was his findings were found to be bullshit. No spin, just facts.
"MY point WAS; the perceived "credibility" that "peer reviewed" status infers DOES NOT mean it is "a proven fact", like "climate truthers" may LIKE it to be"
But your point fails as when it was peer reviewed, to you it was peer reviewed again, his findings were found to be bullshit.
Peer review works, your example PROVES THAT.
mecher3k 6 months ago
@mecher3k
I so love dissecting idiotic "climate truther" spin
'Wakefield "was dishonest", said Horton. "He deceived the journal." The Lancet had done what it could to establish that the research was valid, by having it peer-reviewed. But there is a limit, he said, to what peer-review can ascertain.' - the guardian, 2/2/2010
let me say it again, this is a PRIME example of how "peer review" DIDNT work, and it took 10 years to FINALLY set it straight
so how do you like your CROW, truther TARD?
whodathunkit1960 6 months ago
@whodathunkit1960
"this is a PRIME example of how "peer review" DIDNT work, and it took 10 years to FINALLY set it straight"
What? It was set straight within a year of the "study" posted by him you fucking piece of shit retard.
mecher3k 5 months ago
@mecher3k
"the Lancet" published in 1998 & it took me about 5 seconds to see the BS, it took you a full year? r u slow?
peer review status was revoked (BY THE PUBLISHER, "the Lancet") in 2004
THAT would be SIX years in big boy math
I know, you got all confused when you counted from one hand to the other
or is 6 years actually 1 in "climate truther" years
the article was retracted in 2008
sorry, in big boy math, 10 is TEN years, not one year
sorry if this is confusing for your little brain
whodathunkit1960 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@whodathunkit1960
""the Lancet" published in 1998 & it took me about 5 seconds to see the BS, it took you a full year? r u slow?"
What the fuck is your deranged mind going on about now?
"THAT would be SIX years in big boy math"
Yea by the publisher, ignoring all the actual peer reviewed studies destroying his posted before that. Retard.
You're a hopeless retard, I'm through with you.
You ignore all the studies done within that timeframe shredding his study. You fail4ever.
mecher3k 5 months ago
@mecher3k = truther TARD
oh, and if you actually READ the guardian article
you will discover that the wakefield article was peer reviewed by 12 others, and wakefields employer at the time was contacted and verified his credibility... OUCH...
if you DONT read the guardian article, I predict you will try and claim that the "peer review" happened AFTER it was published
see pubs like "the Lancet" are NOT debate rags, their credibility is important to them, unlike "climate truther" TARDS lol
whodathunkit1960 6 months ago
@whodathunkit1960
The guardian is not a scientific journal. Fail for trying to pass off like it is.
The only tard is idiots like you.
"you will discover that the wakefield article was peer reviewed by 12 others"
Obviously not as after it was published it was shredded by peer review.
Then again you think the guardian matters, lol piece of shit AGW denier. Actually, just science denier in general.
mecher3k 6 months ago
@mecher3k = "Truther-tard"
clearly, the reference to the guardian was for the statement from Richard Horton, editor of "the Lancet". which CLEARLY states that the autism article HAD BEEN peer reviewed prior to publication, "but there is only so much we can do"
but, true to your "climate truther" status, facts and actual timelines are "inconveniences" to be ignored
I noteice you havent cited a single journal who uses YOUR timeline, where they publish ludicrous theories, THEN go to peer review
whodathunkit1960 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@whodathunkit1960
""Truther-tard""
All the facts point to AGW. All the facts point to Wakefield's study being bullshit, this was found in a year or so of his study being published. Try to deny the fact the world is warming, this is an indisputable fact.
"where they publish ludicrous theories, THEN go to peer review"
Wakefield's stuudy was published, was quickly ripped apart. Obviously real peer review never happened. Once it did it was found out to be BS by everyone.
mecher3k 5 months ago
@mecher3k = EMO "climate truther"
you DIDNT read the article, and JUST as I predicted, you claimed that the peer review happened AFTER publication, lol
please, READ the article, DO SOME CRITICAL THINKING, before you shoot your mouth off AGAIN
wasnt it YOU who flew your ignorance across the internet by claiming "the Lancet" wasnt a science journal?
who is the science denier?
you seem to be verifying your tard status over, and over, and over again
guess that makes you the RE-TARD, but go on
whodathunkit1960 6 months ago
@whodathunkit1960
"wasnt it YOU who flew your ignorance across the internet by claiming "the Lancet" wasnt a science journal?"
Nope never did. But then again you're a retard so I can see how your mind could think that.
"guess that makes you the RE-TARD"
It's retard, you retard.
mecher3k 5 months ago
@mecher3k
oh truther tard,
where to begin.... how about HERE?
clearly you state: "So where is the articles from actual science journals?"
excuse me, but (in your astute, but quite obviously MOUTHBREATHING opinion) arent you stating that "the Lancet" is not an "actual science journal"?
unless of course you are NOW going to claim that this is somehow "taken out of context" being ONE of FOUR sentences, 2 of which affirm your "mouthbreathing" status. go ahead and try to spin it that way.
whodathunkit1960 5 months ago
um greenman
please explain this quote
"It's been a recurring theme in this series - that the science was essentially complete long before Al Gore, long before the IPCC, long before the Hockey Stick."
would interpreting this quote as "the science (of AGW) is essentially complete" adequately represent your views?
or would that be taking what you said, out of context?
whodathunkit1960 6 months ago
@whodathunkit1960
that would be out of context. think of it this way.
Obviously, the science of gravity is not yet complete, and may not be for a thousand years, or forever.
Yet, if you were to go jump off a bridge, there is enough science for me to make a reasonably accurate prediction of where you will land, and how hard.
greenman3610 6 months ago
Forests regrow. Period.
AtheistRightWing 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
This comment has received too many negative votes show
This moron, like his pal Sagan or the pedophile C. Clark, his nothing but a media creation, a narcissist and a pseudo-intellectual. The Cheerleaders of science pretending they can play football. He knows ZERO about the sciences involved in this GW discussion.
GodHatesPortugal 8 months ago
@GodHatesPortugal
thank God we have you to set us straight.
Ok, go.
greenman3610 8 months ago
@GodHatesPortugal And yet he is a world-renowned author and scientist, while you are just going to be some person on youtube that bad-mouths others. Hope that works out for you!
psalm405 8 months ago
@GodHatesPortugal This "moron" had a degree in biology before he even started writing science fiction books.
technatezin 7 months ago
@technatezin Well, biochemistry to be more precise. He was also professor at Columbia university.
polymath7 7 months ago
@GodHatesPortugal Google "Dunning-Kruger effect" you fucking bacterium.
polymath7 7 months ago
he's just brilliant!
beforeyoulove 8 months ago
OMG, this is sooo cool. I was a total fan of his in HS. Thanks so much.
heyyou150 9 months ago
@0zyzzyz0
you're welcome!
greenman3610 1 year ago
sideburns for days,.....he was a badass mofo,... and smart too !!!
420ESSC 1 year ago
its seems like common sense i don't know why people think its a big controversy.
GoldenVulpes 1 year ago 6
@GoldenVulpes
because there is a massive, well coordinated campaign to distort, dissemble and deny the science, modeled on the very successful efforts of tobacco companies.
Tobacco managed to kill millions.
Climate deniers are going for billions.
greenman3610 1 year ago 21
There's another Asimov on the Greenhouse effect clip on Youtube too which seems to date back even further to May 1977. Asimov was my all-time favourite author & one of the smartest and nicest people I've read, he's a personal hero of mine. Thanks. (Tried to post a link to it but it seems it won't let me.)
Astrostevo 1 year ago
@Astrostevo : D'oh! I've just seen it was actually you who posted the other 1977 Asimov one as well. Oh well.
Astrostevo 1 year ago
Asimov was the man.
marigailtheamazing 1 year ago
I suppose robot cars will refuse to run on the grounds that they're violating the First Law of Robotics.
FluffyFeralMarmot 1 year ago
You know, I sort of expected Asimov to have a deep, ominous voice, like the guy who reads "War of the Worlds", rather than a New York twang :-) Thanks for the upload!
mugwumpG 1 year ago
@MartijnHover If you want to get real scientific info on CAGW my advice would be to look into the work of Richard Lindzen, Roy Spencer and Henrick Svensmark. Whenever anyone tries to get to grips with the actual 'science' of CAGW it always turns eventually into a kaleidoscope of technical images that have no coherent logical relationships and which leave the enquirer no clearer or better-informed. You would have to try to get to the bottom of it yourself to know what I am talking about here.
CHIPSTERO7 1 year ago
@MartijnHover Quite so. It does not change facts. It does not change the fact that atomic absorption spectroscopy shows CO2 only absorbs infrared over three very narrow frequencies which can be generously estimated at 8% of the total IR-spectrum which means 92% of all radiation that is reflected from earth is not absorbed by CO2. It is a fact CO2 only has an atmospheric-lifespan of 5 years, established by Bert-Bolin, which means humans cannot control the amount of CO2 to any significant extent.
CHIPSTERO7 1 year ago
Asimov is the fucking man.
dek5704 1 year ago
@dek5704 Whoa! Don't bring Asimov's sexuality into this discussion! ;) :)
(kidding!) I agree, but I'm not a fan of science fiction writers in general.
deskset24 1 year ago
To save the planet and stop Global Warming we need to get that Carbon Tax implemented on the cause of it, the fascist USA. Make sure you do not let any deniers try and say that Global Warming is BS because India and China are not getting carbon taxed, as they are not responsible for Anthropogenic Global Warming, the US is!
JoeJohn90 1 year ago
i should just say that the most efficient consumers of co2 are actually single celled organisms called phytoplankton, not trees.
gilgtc 1 year ago
Damn, i love Asimov's writing... but i had no idea that he sounded like a jewish kermit-the-frog.
darius2025tube 1 year ago
Thank you for posting this!
bamboo4tameshigiri 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Al Gore's climate scientists have found that CO2 emissions from the US are the sole cause for Global Warming and that carbon taxes implemented on the US, will stop Global Warming. China and India's CO2 emissions have nothing to do with it.
JoeJohn90 1 year ago
@JoeJohn90 "Al Gore's climate scientists " Were they the same scientists who told him sea levels could rise by 23 FEET when the IPCC's worst case scenario was 23 INCHES? Never mind he didn't believe them and has bought a seaside mansion.
lewisner 1 year ago
@JoeJohn90
best not to embarrass yourself with bogus denial talking points. Watch the sea level video first.
watch?v=kffsux-ifKk
Ignorance hurts. I'm here to help.
greenman3610 1 year ago 28
@greenman3610 Dude, I'm a fellow communist just like you. Once we get carbon taxes implemented on fascist capitalist countries, Global Warming will stop.
JoeJohn90 1 year ago
@JoeJohn90 Do you realize how idiotic your comment sounds? Do you even know, what communism is and what it is not? I guess the answer is no on boht questions. Communist China is one of greatest pollutors in the world, and former USSR had a whole political machinerie in place in order to manipulate media and possible effects of global warming were one of censored issues.
chstoney 1 year ago
@chstoney Then polluting AGW-denying corporate fascists should love so-called "communist" China and so-called "communist" USSR. In fact, corporate fascists do, because they love having cheap slave-labor in China make unnecessary crap for American consumers to make corporate fascists like Wal-Mart immensely and criminally powerful. And the American military-corporate-welfare depended on the USSR to keep the Cold War going to steal everyone's tax dollars.
deskset24 1 year ago
@greenman3610
"Ignorance hurts. I'm here to help." I really liked that :-)
menonfire12 1 year ago
@JoeJohn90 Please tell me that you were being sarcastic here...please!
madlittlesis 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@CygnusRising001 What did Isaac Asimov know about climate science? Apparently nothing. His review was based fundamentally on the assumption that CO2 causes global warming in precisely the way that the IPCC said that it does. But are the IPCC's claims in that regard true? They have not been empirically proven. Indeed, they have never been empirically tested! Also, while I think deforestation is an area of concern, according to satellite observations the global biomass has increased (Nemani 2003).
CHIPSTERO7 1 year ago
@CHIPSTERO7 (deep sigh) My god, you are dumb!
MartijnHover 1 year ago
@MartijnHover I'm impressed with your insightful reply. Care to elaborate?
CHIPSTERO7 1 year ago
@CHIPSTERO7 Not really. All the info you need is readily available. If you care not to believe it that is really your problem.
MartijnHover 1 year ago
@MartijnHover Thanks, but I have checked out the info presented by CAGW-advocates and found it to be based on no real science - just garbage-in garbage-out computer models which purport to know how the climate will be in 50 years, despite the fact that with the best equipment meteorologists struggle to tell us how the weather and climate will be next week. The science behind CAGW is political and always has been, it's a shame so many seemingly intelligent people have been taken in by the scam.
CHIPSTERO7 1 year ago
@CHIPSTERO7
Yeah, that's right, Chippy. There's "no real science" in Science Magazine ... or in Nature ... or in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences ... or in hundreds of other scientific periodicals ... or at hundreds of colleges and universities.
No ... no ... it's all a Bolshevik scam to steal your tax dollars. Bwa-ha-haaaa ...
wfmkk 1 year ago 38
@CHIPSTERO7 And what exaclty are your scientific credentials? You have it completely backwards and upside down: it's the climate change deniers who have a political agenda. You are the one being taken in by the scam. Of course, with you being of the purposely ignorant persuasion I have no hope whatsoever of ever convincing you.
MartijnHover 1 year ago 3
@MartijnHover What do my scientific credentials have to do with anything? There are a myriad of scientists who reject the CAGW-proposition with the requisite credentials, like Lindzen and Spencer, just to name a few. A 10-second Google search will show you that there are over 800-peer-reveiwed papers rejecting the CAGW-hypothesis. The CAGW-theory to me seems to be contradicted by quite elementary physical principles. I'm afraid your whole case appears misconceived and founded on fantasies to me.
CHIPSTERO7 1 year ago
@CHIPSTERO7 If you criticize GW science you need to have some scientific credentials. Just parroting right-wing fairy tales about the "political agenda" of honest scientists does not really qualify. An overwhelming majority of climate scientists agree with the hypothesis that global warming is largely due to human activity. You should compare your 800 peer-reviewed papers to the thousands and thousands of papers, equally peer-reviewed, that arrive at the opposite conclusion.
MartijnHover 1 year ago 2
@MartjnHoer No. I need no credentials. As free, sovereign individuals we all have the intrinsic, inalienable right to decide for ourselves what we will believe is truth and reality. If the CAGW-lobby want the rational public to accept it, the onus is wholly upon them to prove it rationally to us. And we don't care how many hapless corrupted or intimidated scientists who have been side flanked, out manoeuvred and trapped in the institutional CAGW-mega cult may say that they believe in it already.
CHIPSTERO7 1 year ago
@CHIPSTERO7 Of course. You are free to believe that the Earth is flat, that a man in the sky created the universe in less than a week 6000 years ago, and whatever you like. But that doesn't change the facts, i.e. that world is not flat and that the universe wasn't created in 6 days by a tribal deity. You may be a free and sovereign individual, but that doesn't mean that everything you choose to believe is the truth. The truth does NOT depend on your opinion. Sorry to disappoint you.
MartijnHover 1 year ago
Comment removed
CHIPSTERO7 1 year ago
@MrHicks091 The fact that atomic absorption spectrometer experiments determining the absorption characteristics of CO2 in the atmosphere, adiabatic lapse, Einstein coefficients, Beer-Lambert law, and other processes that contradict CAGW have all been well-known to meteorologists for donkeys' years suggests to me that the warmist cabal have little inkling of the real science on which they pretend to be expert. I'd hate to be a meteorologist who had to work under their rule and in their domain.
CHIPSTERO7 1 year ago
@CHIPSTERO7 You'd probably also hate to be a meteorologist for the simple reason that vomiting stuff you read on the internet wouldn't work as well in science as it does on the internet.
Muad420 1 year ago
@CHIPSTERO7 If there's one universal, infallible sign of the crank, it is the belief in conspiracies.
CristinaFernandez 6 months ago
@CHIPSTERO7 Really? Well, I guess that's up to you.
CHIPSTERO7 6 months ago
@CHIPSTERO7 Good. As long as you allow people to believe that just because someone's a soldier in the US military doesn't mean that they in anyway fight for Americans' freedoms or that anyone "owes" that soldiers ANYTHING. Doesn't matter whether you or I believe that. According to what you just said, you'd damned well better allow that person the freedom to say that.
We don't need to listen to the military-cult. Or the "OJ Simpson is guilty" cult.
deskset24 1 year ago
@CHIPSTERO7 More ad hominem attacks like calling CAGW a "lobby" and using words like "corrupted" and "intimidated". Luckily, only subhuman morons believe that crap. Of course, such shitheads cannot scientifically prove any of their dumbass political rants.
Anyway, being ad hominem attacks on scientists and groups like 350.org totally destroys any credibility the deniers have. Not that they ever had any.
deskset24 1 year ago
Our credibility is not at issue here. Yours is. We CAGW-sceptics are not the ones putting forward a proposal for the radical upheaval and restructuring of world society so as to fulfil a global political, economic, environmental and demographic agenda. You are.
CHIPSTERO7 1 year ago
@CHIPSTERO7 Again, YOU have that backwards. You AGW-deniers want the massive radical annihilation of mankind and other species by massive starvation and climate change due to your insistence on burning every last molecule of hydrocarbon on the planet just to make your fossil fuel CEOs unjustly rich instead of taking the necessary steps NOW to get off fossil fuels, which will only get HARDER and HARDER to do because of the interference by your AGW-deniers.
deskset24 1 year ago
@deskset24 You are just telling yourself what you want to believe and are deluding yourself accordingly. You do not know anything about me to be able to say whether I am a sceptic, or a 'denialist', or anything else. You only describe your own psychopathology by making such unsubstantiated assertions about me of if us sceptics may be harbouring unscrupulous, surreptitious plans encompassing, as you say, the 'radical annihilation of mankind and other species'. Now who's the conspiracy theorist?
CHIPSTERO7 1 year ago
@CHIPSTERO7: Well, I don't know; what would a doctorate in biochemistry and 700+ book titles to his credit know? after all, he wrote on Shakespeare, Milton, the Bible, history, physics, chemistry, biology, books of limericks, mystery fiction, science fiction, ... What would he know? I'll bet it was more then you know, even about climate. WattsUp is not an education.
puncheex 1 year ago
@CHIPSTERO7
"no proof" crock
watch?v=yLYqzIhhT6o
"biomass increased" crock, google
NASA | Plant Productivity in a Warming World
greenman3610 1 year ago 10
This comment has received too many negative votes show
"the broad outlines of the climate change story have been understood for decades" That is undisputed. The greenhouse hypothesis has been in the media for decades, including intellectuals. The dispute is about the policy, i.e. if it's wise to effectively shut down all western economies because of this perceived fear, regardless if it's real or not. Isn't the damage of the economic shutdown much larger than any hypothetical "global warming" could ever be?
anorak2 1 year ago
@anorak2 (deep sigh) My god, you are dumb!
MartijnHover 1 year ago
@anorak2
Oh look a dumb ass! Let's all point and laugh at him!
*points at the retard and proceeds to LOL at it.*
mecher3k 1 year ago
@anorak2
not aware of anyone that proposes shutting down economies.
perhaps you saw that somewhere else.
greenman3610 1 year ago 21
@greenman3610 Capping the absolute amount of CO2 a country may produce, and reducing the cap each year with a planned goal 90%, is equivalent to rationing energy up to the point of making it almost unavailable in the end. That is equivalent with shutting down one's economy. The EU commission is planning to do that and has already started to implement it. The EU commission is not a democratically elected body FYI.
anorak2 1 year ago
@anorak2 Good. I hope that is true, although I doubt it, given the source (you). That is the massive kind of commitment need to combat AGW. We need a multilateral military-level action.
Ironically, AGW-deniers are always conservatives, who love to tax and spend and tax and spend on the military, no matter HOW much it destroys economies. They absolutely REFUSE to cut down military spending, when it's use to steal oil and coal and to pollute.
deskset24 1 year ago
@deskset24 "We need a multilateral military-level action." Beware us of ideologies who demand "multilateral military-level action". In case you didn't think it through, forced reduction of CO2 output to any level considerably lower than now spells famine. A mild capping spells "merely" unemployment and social unrest. I'd rather not have that. " AGW-deniers are always conservatives" Wrong. Left and right are meaningless concepts. From your POV I'm probably left wing.
anorak2 1 year ago
@anorak2 You think I think you're leftwing because I suggested using the help of militaries on this?
Or, is it because you work for some Communist Chinese coal plant?
Multilateral military action is what stopped the Nazis and Japanese imperialists. Yes - the names of the oppressors change with time (e.g. the US oppresses others, but not ALL oppression is caused by the USA today; e.g. NK). But now, BOTH oppressors and oppressed will come to an end when FFs run out, but not too soon for AGW
deskset24 1 year ago
@deskset24 No you would probably call me left wing because I'm a pinko European who supports a generous welfare state, socialised medicine, socialised transport systems, civil liberties, gay rights and that sort of thing. Your demand for "military action" makes you just a nutter. "military action is what stopped the Nazis" Hey Godwin's Law invoked. You got that wrong though. It was the nazis who went for "multilateral military action" for solving a perceived problem that really didn't exist.
anorak2 1 year ago
@anorak2 Well, good. You should be proud of being a pinko, and European. But, it was the Red Army that defeated the Nazis. It's always only the SAME 2 ideas ever allowed in public: leftwingers like you who support war for NO reason, and rightwingers (theocrats in Iran, corporatists in USA) who support war for BAD reasons. We need OTHER views, like war for GOOD reasons. Yet, hypocritically, I'll bet you don't oppose putting people in jail for good reasons, but I do.
deskset24 1 year ago
@deskset24 I'm not left wing, I just said that you being a yank probably would think I am. I do not support war for any reason, or puttin gpeople in jail without reason. I think you are very confused, first you go on about the climate thing and now you are a fan of the red army, that doesn't really compute. I think you need to sort out some things for yourself. Or maybe you're trolling and I swallowed the bait.
anorak2 1 year ago
@anorak2 Listen, dumbass troll that you are, constantly changing your view on things:
are you a proud leftist pinko or not? I don't care one way or the other. Just be consistent.
If you are, then you should honor the Red Army in WWII, for starters.
And maybe *I* support war but only for a good reason, whereas I do not support putting people in jail for any reason.
Do you GET the concept that freedom of speech and viewpoints allows THAT idea, THAT idea that is beyond your mental ...
deskset24 1 year ago
@deskset24 .. ability to comprehend?
Dying in war is terrible, but often at least, whether one is the friend or enemy, the dying at least is quick.
Being in prison is long slow torture.
deskset24 1 year ago
@deskset24 Al Gore takes a lie detector test. Watch, learn, and enjoy! v=9h1YutiAUzw&feature=channel_video_title
HerecomestheGrump 11 months ago
@HerecomestheGrump There is no such thing as a lie detector test, just as there is no such thing as hypnosis.
Al Gore is not a scientist and absolutely nothing he says is remotely relevant to the veracity of climate science.
polymath7 7 months ago
@deskset24 : Well the Soviet Union played its part in winning WWII on the allied side at terrible cost to themsleves. I suggest you research Operation Barbarossa & the Battle of Leningrad for starters. Hitler may have won had he not repeated Napoleon's mistake and invaded Russia when he didn't have to.
Also you don't support putting people injail for *any* reason - like murder, rape, child molesting ?? Really???
Astrostevo 1 year ago
@greenman3610
taxes on things like CARBON, serve to shut down economic growth.
precisely WHAT kind of hypocrisy is Carbon Tax anyway?
the idea behind that is you give the "carbon credits" to the 3rd world countries, who can sell them to the industrialized nations?
you ARE aware that the WORST polluters on the planet are those 3rd world countries
the "inconvenient truth" is that the g8 produce less pollution than the 3rd world
so how do 3rd world countries have ANY carbon credits to sell?
whodathunkit1960 6 months ago
@anorak2 not sure where you are getting the idea of shutting down the economy. Now I have heard those who deny global warming use that statement as a tool to scare people but what many who understand what is going on with our climate have been suggesting that we change how we use energy. But if climate change isn't enough to bring people around to alternative energy maybe the understanding that right now China his passing us on this front or the understanding of the global market for oil.
momentofsciencetx 1 year ago
@momentofsciencetx It's the other way round, I am scared of shutting down the economy and I'm trying to wake people up to it. I could care less about "global warming", there would be no point discussing it beyond the scientific community, were it not used as a political tool for policies, some of which are quite imbecile and hurt us all. Re China .. Doing business by selling wind turbines, and using them to generate one's own electricity are different things. You can do one without the other.
anorak2 1 year ago
@anorak2 How do you propose to bring the western lifestyle to the majority of the population of the planet without bankrupting our economy. Because, whether you like it or not, the little rural villages in the third world know that westerners live better than them, and have all sorts of tools and technology they want.
And all of that tech uses energy. And the majority of the transportation tech uses fossil fuels/oil.
What do you propose as an action?
jwcornish 1 year ago
@jwcornish "How do you propose to bring the western lifestyle" The same way we did it, industrial growth. Expansion of industry, trade, traffic, services, agriculture for many decades to come. It's already happening, but we need more of it. That is not our job to do, but of those nations who want to do it. Of course if they ask for our assistance we should offer it, but it's not about us presenting gifts. "without bankrupting our economy" On the contrary, everyone will benefit.
anorak2 1 year ago
@anorak2 Clearly you cannot do math. Infinite growth is impossible on a finite planet.
I am definitely not one to be self-sufficient. I need modern inventions. That is why *I* have done MY part to cut down world overpopulation by not having kids and to reduce # animals tortured and murdered by being vegan. And for everyone else to live the same as me, we need to go forward to solar-wind-geothermal power, not back to coal-oil-gas. And we need to cut world pop to 1 billion.
deskset24 1 year ago
@deskset24 " Infinite growth is impossible on a finite planet." I never said anything about infinite growth. Everyhing is limited. But that doesn't mean scarcity is imminent. E.g. rock is undoubtedly limited, but that doesn't mean we need to worry about running out of it, ever. The stone age didn't end because of a scarcity of rock, but because humans found metals long before it ran out. That is how human development works. Your POV is called "malthusianism", look it up.
anorak2 1 year ago
@anorak2 Boy, you sure do love to fantasy without filling in the details.
Those disturbing details that will hit you in the face and force you to face reality that your fantasy is BULLSHIT.
I remember seeing some general on tv once after the Gulf War who said:
"Amateurs talk strategies. Professionals talk logistics." - i.e. getting the energy and food and medicine to where-ever it's needed when it's needed and NOT polluting and destroying the environment at the same time.
deskset24 1 year ago
@anorak2 again who is talking about shutting down the economy??? And yes it is being used for political gain mostly buy those who are funded by the oil and gas industry they have major influence in our government. What you must provide is the evidence of a mass conspiracy among climate scientist. You said I could care less about "global warming there would be no point discussing it beyond the scientific community.
I hope you are joking..there are severe ramifications for this.
momentofsciencetx 1 year ago
@momentofsciencetx "who is talking about shutting down" Implicitly everyone who is talking about taxing or capping CO2. "influence in our government" What government? Here in Europe all media, all governments, all industries do parrot the "CO2 is a problem" mantra, no opposition at all. It's everywhere Even in car, petrol, electricity, light bulb advertising!! Supposedly if I buy certain light bulbs I'm helping Knut the icebear to survive, utter madness. It looks like orchestrated campaign.
anorak2 1 year ago
@anorak2 Taxing CO2 I do not believe would be effective. Will it shut down the economy no..Is it useless..in my opinion yes. The talk is to reduce..again reduce carbon output. If you think this is an orchestrated campaign then see if you can get the many scientist claiming its too late to change the effects and get them on board to make a quick buck as many of your like believe is happening. Do you think dumping billions of CO2 into the atmosphere has any negative effect?
momentofsciencetx 1 year ago
@momentofsciencetx What scientists think is mostly irrelevant to the campaign. The campaign is orchestrated by politics, companies, ideologies and other interest groups. They just use an excuse that comes in handy, and apparently they found the "CO2 is dangerous" hypothesis (which was around before, but largely unnoticed) would be it. If the public stops believing in it one day, they will just retarget their efforts. So discussing if CO2 is or isn't dangerous is futile, it misses the point.
anorak2 1 year ago
@anorak2 No discussing the effects of CO2 on climate is not futile, that is just a weak excuse to not discuss the problem. What I have found it that denyers like yourself dodge the science due to a lack of understanding it. It is the politics and people beliefs wich are as you say "futile." What you chose to believe or not to believe does not change the facts though many like yourself tend to not let the facts get in the way of their argument.
momentofsciencetx 1 year ago
@momentofsciencetx I said nothing about "climate science" and I'm not intending to. Of course I don't understand it, I'm not a trained climatologist, so what do I know. Most discussions between laymen about a subject they barely understand are ridiculous, but at the same time irrelevant, because at the core the public "climate change" debate is about politics, not science. The "climate politics" affect everyone, so everyone has a right to speak about them without having a climate science PhD.
anorak2 1 year ago
@anorak2 You can talk about the politics involved. but thats not what is going on right now. It is a complete denial that climate change is happening because of political disagreements. You can debate policy all day but when you start to deny the science because you don't like someones solution to the problem, then we are in trouble. Its like telling your doctor that you disagree with him or her that you have cancer because you don't like what the Dr. suggests as a fix.
momentofsciencetx 1 year ago
If facts don't convince people, why would Isaac Asimov?
metainfinity 1 year ago
Good ol' Isaac Asimov, may the Prime Integral preserve his memory. I grew up reading his science columns (though my tastes in SF were more along the lines of the Sixties New Wave & after) First video clip I've ever seen of him, thanks.
TheSanityInspector 1 year ago
"understood for decades by, well, intelligent men"
What about intelligent women?
fedaykin6 1 year ago
X stands for unknown by assimov is a great book!
rccaulfield 1 year ago
Top stuff there.
dancedissadent2 1 year ago
I honestly had no idea Isaac Asimov sounded so much like Woody Allen. I now hear the Foundation novels in his voice.
Elmoogle 1 year ago
@Elmoogle: He was a famous speaker, much sought after in the 50s, 60s and 70s, mainly. Unfortunately, this clip was recorded after his bout with throat cancer and a heart attack, so while it demonstrates his ability to talk off-the-cuff without hesitation, it doesn't show his power.
puncheex 1 year ago
Great video, thanks. I think later humanity will look back on this time, and all the evidence pointing toward human climate change (massive burning of fossil fuels, desertification of areas of the earth, destruction of forest, out of control pop growth, increased demands for massive quantities of energy, etc.), and wonder why previous generations did not DO more about the problem. It was b/c of pro-corporate legislators and leaders, protecting monetary interests, they will learn. It is sad, very
coil311 1 year ago
danger0usknowledge 1 year ago
I assume the 97 percent stuff comes from Peter Doran's survey. He asked, "Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?" This question doesn't even specify warming! Spencer estimates the human contribution as 25 percent, so even he would answer, "yes." What does it matter how many articles on climate are published in a year? The editors at Popular Technology obviously can't read them all.
kauffner 1 year ago
great job great vid
fallbread 1 year ago
I think the earliest warning was as early as 1950.
Took us over 60 years to ban DDT , maybe it will take us another 50 to actually do something about global warming :((
gaglamesh731 1 year ago
@gaglamesh731: No, it was Svante Arhenius, in 1890 or thereabouts.
puncheex 1 year ago
epic mutton chops
evanWith7 1 year ago
I love those mutton chops...
KemaTheAtheist 1 year ago
We've known of it for so long and yet we have done nothing but accelerate. It's like we are paralysed in our tracks, able only to complain about our condition.
slipcurve 1 year ago
Originally, I hadn't seen the "1989" part of the title! I thought; "I thought Asimov was dead! Maybe he's an android! Ghost in the machine?" lol Funny, in the 70's and 80's, it was "greenhouse effect" then "global warming" now "climate change." Different words, same idea. Someone explain this, please, to the conservatives!
RadarKat73080 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
The warming effect of CO2 has been greatly exxagerated for political ends.It is is an inconsequential greenhouse gas.Atomic spectroscopy analysis shows that it is only capable of absorbing 8% of the total infrared radiation in the electromagnetic frequency range which means 92% of the radiation emitted by the sun is not absorbed by CO2.
ezeeskank 1 year ago
@ezeeskank
right.
Isaac Asimov, Steven Hawking, Carl Sagan, and the National Science Academies of every major country apparently are misinformed on that issue. You'll have to get busy educating these ignoramuses.
greenman3610 1 year ago 80
@greenman3610 Not misinformed on the issue Greenman.Just information that the public are unaware of and unlikely to go looking for.The information is available here. Atomic absorption studies of CO2, laser-induced atomization of samples confined in a graphite furnace by J. P. Matousek and B. J. Orr.
ezeeskank 1 year ago
@ezeeskank I am not an expert on this area but i can tell you that statistically 8% is a very significant figure.
I can also tell you that not only does rain forest destruction have an effect upon the absorption of carbon but it is vital as a stabiliser of moisture within the context of earth's climate.
The only people who have anything to lose on this matter are the highly vocal denialists such as the big corporations.
pilgrimpater 1 year ago
@greenman3610 And what about Freeman Dyson, Richard Lindzen, Roy Spencer, John Christy, or the 800 peer reviewed skeptical articles that Popular Technology came up with? Two can play at the name dropping game.
kauffner 1 year ago
@kauffner The legitimate skeptic you mention represent about 3% of climate scientists. The "800 peer reviewed papers" are an amazing stretch of logic if you actually go through the list. But even if you accept Poptech's very lax reading of the papers, that is 800 papers out of about 2 million published papers on climate science. (Yes, I did a google scholar search.) So that puts the rate at about 0.04%. Not impressive.
robhoneycutt 1 year ago
@kauffner The legitimate skeptic you mention represent about 3% of climate scientists (although Dyson is not a climate scientist). The "800 peer reviewed papers" are an amazing stretch of logic if you actually go through the list. But even if you accept Poptech's very lax reading of the papers, that is 800 papers out of about 2 million published papers on climate science. (Yes, I did a google scholar search.) So that puts the rate at about 0.04%. Not impressive.
robhoneycutt 1 year ago
@kauffner John Christy doesn't deny man-made climate change.
BaileysBeads 1 year ago
@greenman3610 And Fred Singer "The grandfather of climate science" and John Christy with his 30 years experience and NASA award are wrong by your standards?
lewisner 1 year ago
@lewisner
Fred Singer "The grandfather of climate science"?? What are you smoking?
cthulhu11111111 1 year ago
@lewisner Fred Singer is also the grandfather of denial of cancer caused by smoking and is also a creationist.
WaxItYourself 1 year ago
@WaxItYourself Nice ad hominem attack.Very convincing.
lewisner 1 year ago
@lewisner if you watched more of greenman's videos you'd know exactly who Fred Singer is
WaxItYourself 1 year ago