@david222444 actually nasa, harvard, oxford, stanford and every single university that has made a statement on the subject says that global warming is real and man made. These guys are the smartest people on the planet, so you need a reality check.
@truthofevolution You are in fanatasy land, Global cooling is real and natural. There is no Scientific proof that man warms the climate, if you find any scientific proof please inform the public. You can spout Oxford / Nasa all day long , concensus means nothing but a challenge to a scientist. It is proof that matters and there is no proof to this silly theory.
@david222444 so you are saying that the scientists at nasa and oxford are in fantasy land? I know that consensus means nothing, but when there is consensus of the smartest people in the world, and the dumb people are left saying that the smart people are in fantasy land, then you know you have a problem.
@david222444 the fact that you think that the scientists of the world would lie shows that you are a tinfoil hatted conspiracy theorist. ALL the universities of the world are lying? NONE of them knows that science is derived from evidence? Only Mr. David truly knows what science means? give me a break you are embarrassing yourself pretending you know more about science than the likes of harvard university.
@david222444 also all the evidence IS public. There have been many wonderful papers that have come out on the journal Nature, and the journal Science, which are the best scientific journals in the world. They have your evidence.
@david222444 your comment makes no sense. You know that nasa, oxford and all the other universities are from the 1950's? you know MIT came up with a lot of modern technology and they accept GW. Are you saying that MODERN technology is all from the 1950's?
@truthofevolution Stop parroting elitist propaganda from megalomanic idiots who think man can control the climate. At present the Pacific is cooling,the Atlantic is cooling , every level of the Atmosphere is cooling, Volcanic and techtonic activity is increasing and the Sun may be entering a Grand Minimum. A tiny anount of harmless trace gas is insignificant campared to these forces and it takes little intelect to come to this conclusion. The Planet is cooling abruptly.
@david222444 ok first of all " Stop parroting elitist propaganda from megalomanic idiots " are you calling American university scientists idiots? do you seriuosly think you are smarter than them? They use science and technology to save millions of lives. You have achieved NOTHING. And you are calling our scientists IDIOTS? You are the megalomaniac who thinks he is smarter than our scientists.
@david222444 im wondering if you would say the same thing about the moon landing. If nasa is full of megalomanic idiots who parrot elitist propaganda, Im sure you would also agree that they are parroting propaganda about the moon landing right?
@david222444 also my so called propaganda has been published 900 times in the past 20 years in some of the best, credible scientific journals that also publish medicine among other sciences. Unless you think modern medicine is full of lies, Im sure you would agree that this evidence is trustworthy. You on the otherhand have no evidence published in these journals because your side is full of lies, and you have the arrogance to turn it around all call american scientists liars.
@truthofevolution So what ? the Planet was warming x900 caused by an active Sun. I will repeat one more time maybe you will then understand THERE IS NO SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF MAN MADE GLOBAL WARMING. ok do you get it? Now get your head back to reality and out of a silly computer model which can show nothing of the future. The Planet is cooling abruptly and the climate does not care about your 900 odd papers. Co2 is a mere product of past warming caused by an active Sun.
@david222444 your comment makes no sense. I pointed to 900 papers wihch is PROOF of global warming and then you say the climate doesnt care about my evidence? How does that make any sense? You wanted evidence, I gave it. Rather than apologizing you repeat there is no evidence. That is what an idiot does. Also only an idiot thinks he is smarter than all the universities in america combined.
@david222444 its not my head you are telling to get back into reality. You are telling the smartest scientists in the WORLD that they dont know what they are takling about. Do you realize how dumb that makes you look? Do you seriously think you know science better than america's scientists?
When you achieve something in your life, you will realize how hard it is to achieve it. Until then you will think you are smarter than everyone else.
@david222444 youre telling me that all of the world's scientists are in some silly conspiracy to lie to the public and YOU are telling me I need to get MY head back to reality? Get your head back to reality man and realize that all of the universities in the US cant all possibly lie and you cant be smarter than all of them COMBINED.
@truthofevolution I will accept Scientific proof of AGW! that is what I am saying. After all Atmospheric Co2 enrichment benefits all life on the Planet and does nothing to harm the climate in any way. Meanwhile the planet is cooling abruptly and northern hemisphere winters are becoming progressively harsher. Concensus, even COMBINED concensus means nothing only SCIENTIFIC PROOF matters.
@david222444 the thing that you dont realize is that i have BOTH proof AND consensus. My proof is published in 900 scientific peer reviewed research papers published in journals that also publish medicine, physics among other uncorrupted sciences. You can read those. PROOF in science means peer reviewed research papers.
You should also know that scientists reach consensus when they have proof. Harvard doesnt need a lesson on proof from you.
@david222444 Im an MD/PhD student. I worked medical research and I can tell you that if it NOT published, it is NOT science. So you repeating that the sun warms the planet is utter nonsense that means nothing. Do you seriously think that you know more about the Sun than NASA? Im trying to get you to be humble and realize that you may not understand the subject you are discussing as well as people who have studied it for decades of their lives.
@david222444 " Atmospheric Co2 enrichment benefits all life", this shows your limited understanding on the subject. Changes in climate leads to extinction. Science has proven that. Also CO2 is beneficial at a MOLECULAR level to SOME species like plants. If I gave you CO2, you would hyperventilate, your blood would become acidotic and you would die. Where did you learn this utter nonsense? You are showing that you have no understanding of teh subject, you are NOT smarter than these scientists.
@david222444 "northern hemisphere winters are becoming progressively harsher." This is a PREDICTION made by GW that INITIALLY the winters would get harsher. This is because initially, the warming is small, so average temp can go from -10 degrees to -2 degrees. Notice that even though it is warming, it is still below freezing temp. Therefore you will have winter. HOWEVER, that winter will be harsher, because more moisture from warmer climates would evaporate into the air. This is a prediction.
@david222444 haha go ahead man. Yawn away. I provide evidence and you ignore it. I dont expect more from someone who cares more about his ego than the truth.
you think that co2 enrichment is good for all life. Even though that is medically incorrect and I give you proof about acidosis and hyperventilation, all you do is yawn. That shows your lacking of caring about the truth. You ask for proof from me, but when I show you proof that you are wrong, you ignore it.
@david222444 I gave you a detailed argument about why GW predicts initial harsher winters, instead of telling me why im wrong, you just yawn. I tried to get you to be humble enough to realize that nasa understands the sun better than you do. and you just yawn. Im trying to get you to realize that harvard scientists arent stupid enough to reach consensus without proof. Be humble enough to realize that these people know science better than you do.
According to good ol' Al, we now have less than 4.5 years before the earth's surface is scorched to an unbearably hot temperature and rendered uninhabitable. So who's selling ticket to Mars? Is Al building his spaceship arc yet? Why did he buy ocean front property in California a couple of years ago? The oceans are suppose to rise at a catastrophic height, killing millions. Won't that mean his 10 upstairs bathrooms will be flooded for generations to come? Does he have lots of flood insurance?
Baguio City councilors okays implementation of climate change plans
.
The Baguio City Council unanimously approved Monday a resolution requesting the City Government and barangays to formulate and implement a local climate change action plan.
@Saqu0007 other side of the issue completely? yes we should yet we havent. back in the mid 1990s, there was equal funding to both sides and the skeptics had and still have the science on their side yet they stopped getting funding and it went to the alarmists. (think of how rich al gore got) its completely political. its not science. in the debate i mentioned schlesinger admitted only 20% of the scientists
@tippman2k01 Coral bleaching occurs whenever the coral is stressed. This occurs through decreases in temperature true but more commonly through increases in temperature as well as water acidification (as a result of CO2 increase) and a number of other reasons. Global warming does not mean everywhere will get hotter but that global climates will change as the overall temperature increases. It may drop a couple of degrees in certain regions but others would more than make up for this drop.
@tippman2k01 sorry reply to the wrong person, to answer you, I am a scientist and I believe climate change is occuring, but I am not a climatologist so I shouldn't be counted amongst those 20%. Also I am not American so very little of political propoganda makes it across the Atlantic. Here in the EU I believe that the general consensus is that global warming is happening and its not party political over here.
@Saqu0007 have u even listened to the science on the "deniers" side? it demolishes the science on the alarmists side. that is why when there is a balanced debate we always win. for example co2 is a natural gas essential for all life. it is NOT a pollutant. it is plant food in simple terms. not to mention we are only responsible for 3% of the co2 in the atmosphere. plus, it lags behind temperature changes by 800 years which means temperature drives co2. not the other way around as alarmists claim
@tippman2k01 I have degrees in Chemistry and Biology and took electives in environmental chemistry, climatology, oceanography, meteorology and marine biology. You don't have to talk to me like I'm an idiot. Yes I have listened to the science on the deniers side, did you know that the majority of their research is funded by big oil?
@Saqu0007 the only reason why some scientists are funded by oil is the lack of state funding. AGW is a politically controlled subject. in 1998 when there was even funding towards both sides of the issue, the deniers had better support for their theory than alarmists, yet their funding was cut. therefore, the validity of the science is what matters. not the funding. if it still bothers u, look up 20/20 GMAB global warming. it shows theres plenty of scientists that arent funded by oil
@Saqu0007 Did you know that ALL of the warmist funding is from the government? See if you can find a climate scientist that is not funded by the government who agree's with AGW.
@MrOTLChamp Professor Nathan Bindoff, Professor Matthew England, Professor Dave Griggs, Professor Ann Henderson-Sellers, Professor Ove Hoegh-Guldberg, Professor Lesley Hughes, Professor Roger Jones, Professor David Karoly, Professor Nevill Nicholls, Professor Jean Palutikof, Professor Andy Pitman, Professor Chris Turney, Wallace Smith Broecke, Paul Jozef Crutzene to name just a few. Rather than spouting propaganda you've read on a blog, try doing some real research.
@uknowispeaksense I'm not going to waste much time on your names. However I just took one of them and researched him ( Paul Jozef Crutzene) and I'm pretty sure that NASA would be considered government funded.
@uknowispeaksense For shits and giggles, I decided to look at another name. Andy Pitman, also has done work for the IPCC. Does that organization sound familiar to you?
Maybe you ought to take your own advise, and do some real research. Even your Marxist Professor would give you an "F"
@MrOTLChamp ughh, spoken like someone who truly gets all his info from denier blogs. But go on, please educate me on how the IPCC actually works? I'd also like to know, do you deny global warming because you don't understand the science or because you do understand it?
@uknowispeaksense What, do you not think they are government funded? I already know how they work. And so does the UN. Thats why the UN has distance them from the IPCC. It's because they are surrounded in a cloud of fraud, and misrepresentations. Anyone that rely's on these bogus climate models is a joke. They have been almost completely wrong is all their predictions. Mainly because scientist have no clue for things like the effects of clouds, e.g.
@MrOTLChamp clouds hey? How about you tell me about the effect of clouds and I presume you'll then go on to discuss water vapour being the dominant greenhouse gas? If you do, please explain it to me? Don't be afraid to use scientific terms. I will understand it.
@uknowispeaksense I'm not saying I fully understand the effects of clouds. Apparently you misunderstood the point. Scientist themselves admit they really don't fully understand the effects of clouds, and therefore the models can't understand the effects of clouds. Unless your ego is so big that you think you know more than all the other scientist. Models can only interpit information based on what they are told the specific values are for various elements.
@MrOTLChamp cont... I mean no discussion of clouds would be complete without references to the absorption spectrum of different cloud types when it comes to long-wave radiation. Don't forget the degree of overlap with CO2 and other aerosols. Oh and the effect ofspatialdistributionof the different absorbers. Oh and also shortwave radiation. Be specific though. I want to be sure you actually know what you're talking about or if like most deniers, youcan only cut and paste blogs.
@uknowispeaksense Love how you go through all your mumbo jumbo about clouds, acting like you have it all figured out. LMAO Kinda like flooding your reply with names of scientist that you claimed to be not tied to government funding.What, thought I wouldn't check. I haven't found any of your scientist to be not affiliated with government funds.
@MrOTLChamp I'm glad you did butifyou are convinced that all agw scientists are corrupt then what's the point but using propaganda foryour argument against agw is a poor argument and ususally propagated by those who don't understand the science they are arguing against. It would seem you are one of them. if you're not going to tell me about the cloudsthen i shall assume you are a science illiterate who's speaking out his arse.
@uknowispeaksense I never said they are all corrupt. It's the movemnet that is currupt. The science has not proven that CO2 is causing catastrophic changes to our climate. Thats their claim...And it's completely a long shot at best. In fact, we could use even more CO2. It wouldn't harm humans, and it could help alot of the thirdworld cuntries by being able to grow more food faster.
@MrOTLChamp ok, 2 things. first is that CO2 is the cause. That is a strawman. CO@ is a forcing agent. There is a difference. next is the CO2=plant growth nonsense. Many deniers point to glasshouse studies of elevated CO2 and they show increased plant growth. You cannot extrapolate controlled environment studies to the field. In situ field studies of elevated CO2 plus increased temperature, and altered rainfall patterns demonstrate quite clearly that real world increases reduce yields.....
@MrOTLChamp cont.... increase pests and diseases in 5 of the 6 stable food crops. Unfortunately, people who rely on blogs for their information instead of searching the peer reviewed literature of in situ field trials for this research. The fact they think you its ok to extrapolate controlled environment studies like that demonstrates yet again more scientific illiteracy. Its funny though, often peer review is ok for them for the glasshouse studies but not any other times. what's next? the sun?
@uknowispeaksense I'm sure those studies are debatable. Where does your " increased temperature, and altered rainfall patterns" come from. CO2 does not cause any significant warming, and nowhere has it been proven that weather patters will change either.
@MrOTLChamp Mate if you think the modelling is wrong, I shall wait with baited breath for either your own paper, or at least a reputable peer reviewed reference or two. But beofre you produce either, google "google gallileo" and have a good read about yourself. I'll wait for that paper. Still waiting to hear about your clouds too.
@uknowispeaksense "Clouds remain one of the largest uncertainties in the climate system's response to temperature changes," laments Bruce Wielicki, a scientist at NASA's Langley Research Center.
@MrOTLChamp Hell no. I am smart enough to know what I don't know. Are you? I was however just today reading a paper or three about clouds and water vapour that sheds a fair bit of light on the subject.
@uknowispeaksense And your studies are full of crap suggesting plants will not do better with higher CO2. The fact is, tree's grew alot bigger, way back in history when CO2 was much higher. Still waiting for your list of scientist not taking gov. funds that agree with CO2 will cause a catastrophic rise in global temps. Your first list was pathetic. Maybe your greatly inflated ego got in the way.
@MrOTLChamp hmmm, that was a long long time ago and those species had several millions of years of to adapt and evolve to those conditions. But please, care to tell me what species of trees they were and if those same species are still around today? Oh, and propaganda and conspiracy theories aren't my forte so I'll leave them to you GG. I much prefer science.
@uknowispeaksense Recently, new ocean heat content (OHC) measurements revealed that the global ocean volume was not warming (retaining heat) as climate models predicted. This same phenomenon of model failure can be seen when examining the combined land/sea temperature record published by NASA-GISS, through the month of February, 2011.
@MrOTLChamp and now you are cutting and pasting directly from blogsites. You haven't even bothered to try and hide that. We're done GG. You are clearly out of your depth. Come back when you've at least got an undergraduate degree in science.
@uknowispeaksense In the case of HadCRUT temps, the difference between model and actual temps is now close to 1 degree. That's kind of like aiming a cruise missile at Tripoli and its ending up in downtown Cairo - definitely, robust incompetence at play.
@uknowispeaksense Got to laugh at the new revelations with your government funded IPCC. LMAO Your top scientist isn't even a scientist. All you idiots are a joke.
@MrOTLChamp actually calling you a google galileo is being far too generous on my part. At least they have the ability to put things, as incorrect as they are, into their own words.
@uknowispeaksense Conclusion...You failed. And you will will run. LMAO. Do I need to tell what LMAO means? Yup, I cut and pasted straight from the horses mouth. Infact, it was your own horse, the IPCC. And when your own organizations admit their models are flawed..You don't have a leg to stand on. Would you like a wheelchair?
@uknowispeaksense IPCC admits, “In climate research and modeling, we should realize that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.”
My guess is that you think you know more than all the other scientist. No surprise there..Your ego is out of control.
@MrOTLChamp and now you're quote mining from a report from an organisation you say can't be trusted so which is it? Do you trust the IPCC or not? You're a hypocrite buddy.
@uknowispeaksense By the way, I'm not the one making unsubstantiated claims that CO2 is causing catastophic global warming. The burden of proof is on you.
Believe what you want but when you look at the two options objectively the truth shines through. Since when is caring about the environment such a divisive and political issue? Since the notion of global warming scared the shit out of oil and energy companies. You really think so many scientists (not the few on big oils payroll) would make this climate trend up? Why? So everyone has to spend billions of dollars to change the complete energy infrastructure? That makes no sense. How
@MrAl3c scientists are only paid by government to say AGW is real. not to mention consensus is not science. consensus is a political notion. there was once a consensus that black people were genetically inferior than whites. that is obviously false. there was once a consensus on global cooling. there is no hard science behind AGW
@tippman2k01 As a scientist. Its the best possible answer we have to explain what we are currently observing. The majority of scientists believe that climate change is an ongoing event which is being brought on by global warming. Does it make it a fact? No, but there is a scientific backing to the theory and it has not yet been conclusively disproved, rather the more evidence is gathered the more it seems to be correct. The question is can we afford to wait and allow permanent damage to happen?
@Saqu0007 AGW has been conclusively disproved. alarmists "evidence" is based on computer models, which have been proved by dr. John Christy to be completely inaccurate. watch the debate between john christy and william schlesinger. schlesinger gets destroyed in the debate. and more evidence is not being gathered. its just another pseudoscience fraud like there was in the 1900s that black people were genetically inferior to whites. when it comes to costing billions shouldnt we investigate the
@Saqu0007 You're forgetting the good that would come from climate change. Think of all the coral that was lost last year to an abnormally harsh winter, all the plants that would grow in a warmer climate, all the land that is uninhabitable due to harsh cold. All climate change propaganda comes with inaccurate doomsday scenario's
@111imstupid111 wrong, all evidence points to global warming being caused by man. You can't add greenhouse gases to the atmosphere and expect no effect.
@quidproquo2004 What evidence? There's this thing...called the Sun. The sun has this thing called a cycle. Every four years the sun is either at its solar minimum or its solar maximum. The more activity there is the hotter it is; the less the lower. Greenhouse gasses absorb heat and it stays in the atmosphere. HERES THE KICKER! Heat travels up. Which means its not dropping onto the ice caps. AND the earth also regulates heat. Next you'll try to tell us its people's faults that brownouts occur.
1. The sun is not accountable for the vast majority of modern temperature ANOMALY -- anthropogenic greenhouse gases are.
"Heat goes up". Convection is not the only mechanism for heat transfer. There's also conduction and radiation.
2. Heat transfer can take on three forms: convection, conduction, and RADIATION.
3. The carbon dioxide's ability to absorb heat after the sun's radiation at shorter wavelengths has been absorbed and re-emitted at longer wavelengths.
@quidproquo2004 Big words and useless terms? Do you know the difference without googling it? First you say "all evidence...global warming being caused by man" with no real evidence, then you say "the sun is not accountable for the vast majority of modern temperature" when the sun is accountable for ALL modern temperature, for without the sun there is NO heat, and then right after mention the workings of the sun as if it helps your case? My handbook is called education. You should get one.
@Nyctitropist I agree that the Earth would be an ice ball without the sun; I never meant to imply anything to the contrary. However, it would also be an ice ball if there were no greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide.
We are not dealing with a static situation, but rather a dynamic one. Changes in solar activity do not account for modern temperature anomaly. Increasing carbon dioxide does account for this temperature anomaly.
Can you cite evidence to the contrary? I'll look at it.
@quidproquo2004 Too much trouble to cite information for your sake. I'm not that interested in the state of the world there are much more important things like life. The problem isn't just one thing, it's a little bit of everything. Certainly if you want information, you'll look for it. In fact, why don't you research it and come up with a solution, then publish it to a science magazine. You may win a Nobel prize.
@quidproquo2004 Lol. Am I antagonistic for encouraging you? Maybe it's that you don't believe in your own words then, they you would suddenly be offended when I tell you you may be right.
The UN who has even had a National Socialist at its helm at one time, its IPCC is headed by a Railroad Engineer, the Earth Institute is headed by a economist, and then you have Al Gore. Those are the three heads of Global Warming, Choo Choo Charlie, IMF meddler, and Al Fraud. The three stooges for the Goldman Sachs Carbon Tax racket.
@str84ever Now your trying to project yourself as an intelligent, university student, and an authority, I'm merely pointing out that people that really are those do not curse and project onto others. I'll add liar to your resume as here is your quote "according to you everything i was taught is a lie" What are "fews" that you stated after your lie that I had to re-list? Is jack shit more University newspeak? And perhaps "fews"? You get weirder by the comment
@str84ever Glad to see your school work is not being wasted as you said according to me (which I never said) " Everything i am taught is a lie" don't misquote or project your beliefs onto another person and using expletives make you look crass and not a university student. Did the railroad engineer promise to let you work the ticket booth or clean up the caboose when the ride is over?
@str84ever Wow, your an idiot, I can only presume from your ad hominen attack on the truth, from 6 months ago, that your either a troll, a full fledged AGW Cult member, work at an amusement park, or just a brainwashed child.
Perhaps Choo Choo Charlie has promised to increase your chocolate rations if you believe?
@xaviqaz Look at these weirdos on here now. The AGW Cultists who are usually brainwashed children, will stoop to anything to protect their religion. This str84ever is in my top ten youtube agw cult member weirdos.
The Bible for AGW freaks has long been "an inconvenient truth", unfortunately for all of you believers out there many "facts" in the film have long since been showed to be false and he has been proven to have lied in it also. these have all been PROVEN. Look at the start of his Time/CO2 graph, the error there is completely laughable!!!
climate fraud,wmd fraud,afghanistan fraud,avian flu fraud,swine flu/tamiflu fraud,flouride fraud,codex alimentarius fraud people need to wake up they are going to kill neutrality on the net soon the fraud will be cyber terror
@Thisawareness Al Gore is not the only person to mention Global Warming you idiot. Like the comment up top, I believe the scientists and the proof, not some conspiracy that you have adopted to fit your political view.
@OTSTRETFORD What am I "an Idiot" for listing dum dum? Whats your dispute, that the IPCC chief is a railroad engineer? Or that the head of the Earth Institute is in fact a "economist"? We know Gore is a flake, so there's no dispute there, hehe.
Better troll somewhere else dum-dum, before you embar-ass yourself more.
@OTSTRETFORD Do you know this str84ever weirdo? Do you know what he meant by "fews" in his comment? Is "jack shit" that he used, University Newspeak or grammar school playground lingo? (The bet is on grammar school hehe)
Another AGW fraud and weirdo, must be tired of cleaning choo choo charlie's caboose as the summer heat is getting him upset.
@0heyjc Ty for the compliment watch this thread, going to get funnier unless these elementary school dropout trolls find some smartz and scram from here.
The Christmas season got going with widespread snowfall that buried the nation's capital under almost 2 feet of snow. Dallas, which hasn't experienced a storm of blizzard proportions in 80 years, got socked with record snowfall. On Christmas Eve, half of the United States was covered with snow, according to an image that the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration released.
These climategate morons have no insight as to the nature of science. I've noticed that in most cases they tend to be racist and superstitious. It's as if they don't possess the capacity for logical thinking or even a basic understanding of what science is, but instead address every big idea as if its a religion to cling to.
rabideyemovement: The climategate folk are also usually a) religious and b) almost always conservative. Hmmmmmmm. Wonder why it's a political party association that thus somehow in turn gives them the capacity to also believe 180 degrees from the truth. Seems to be in most logic they have, so why should I be surprised. Cons are, by nature, the "know nothing" base. Conservative MEANS "holding back / restraint" for gawd sakes. McCain and a few others are their only saving grace as a party.
Removing or restricting C02 will not fix Climate Change.
What was the most productive (in terms of evolution) period in scientifically observed history?
The Cambrian Period saw the evolution of the Eye, and had more C02 in the atmosphere than today (today: 390ppm, Cambrian: 7000 ppm), AND during that period, the temperature was just as it is today.
@00dfm00 Climate change is alot different to Global Warming... Global Warming is caused by human activity/stupidity... Climate Change is a natural occourance, some people (Republicans mainly) do actually deny Global Warming through sheer ignorance.
Yeah JERK-OFF Shep, anyone who looks at the REAL science and talks about it is "crazy". Al Gore is your God? Good luck with that. It was recently revealed at senate hearings that Al Gore's personal biz interests stand to gain hundreds of billions if 'cap and trade" passes! Cap and Trade does NOTHING to address REAL pollution! It's just about CONTROL over all farming, industry and trade!
Anthropogenic climate change is the easiest pack of lies to debunk there is. Yesterday ex NASA supervisor of Hanson(agw's prophet) skewered Hanson and his faulty and self serving agenda and joined the 30,000 or so real scientist who know it is a joke.
Here's a little fact. The hottest year over the last 100 years was not 1998 as the global warming alarmists would tell us but 1934. The hottest decade was the 1930's not the 1990's. GW alarmist deal with that.
maybe you can deny global warming now and continue to make OPEC rich, but I would like to see you denying Global Warming 30 years from now when the population of this world reaches 14 billion or so---all those billions of people burning oil and polluting. we got some awesome years ahead of us. let's all drive to work and get stuck in the highway with our fuel inefficient cars.
it does pollute the air fella, and also, Oil is not an infinite resource, I hope i see it run out some day in the future, especially when the population of the world gets out of control and it reaches 14--20 billion. it would be a great world to live in. lot so of people, lots of cars, lots of traffic. awesome shit!!!!
But I don't live in Beijing or Mexico, there's certainly not too many people where I live, and I doubt where you are either. What right do you have to dictate how many people get to live, or how many children people can have! And what right do you have to tell people in other countries what they can and can't do or force them to pay a global tax to fund increasing your justification for it! Environmentalists are sounding more and more like a communists.
That's kind of selfish. Just because you live in a clean area or city, it doesn't mean that nothing should be done for the ideological satisfaction of some.
Shit, if I wish I could have a windmill to pump water from underground and solar panels on my roof, It would be great to reduce the electric bills.
people are free to do whatever they want but someday they will pay for it, regardless of what you think. The planet is doing fine, the people are fucked.
'Selfish' you want to control who can and can't breed globally, and apparently its poorer people who are the bigger problem causers with it.
Why don't you first find out how much C02 you use compared to the guy in Mexico or Beijing who can't afford a car or central heating before you think of new things to spend your money on and lord over others.
And yes I want to be able to go abroad on holiday without being taxed for someone else's entertaining ideological beliefs. Which is all environmentalism is!
If you live in a country below sea level like the Netherlands you would be more concern with environmental issues. It's better to err on the side of caution than do nothing because people like you feel irritated.
Oh, so something like Chinas one child policy is just airing on the side of caution for you.
And when exactly is the sea level going to start rising in a man made and preventable way? I heard by 2030 there won't be an ice sheet in summer in the north according to Greenpeace. Completely untrue of course!
And so are you going to stop buying unnecessary Chinese produced goods? Are you going to reduce your carbon emission levels to the same levels of people in poorer countries like Mexico and China where a lot of people don't even own cars, because obviously as you must know Americans per individual produce more C02 than any other countries population?
And not all of the Netherlands is bellow sea level... 27% of the country is, and is that way as dikes are used and the sea water drained; unnaturally as it happens.
And well according to wiki scientists that use that term also claim to have proof of this...
"may be considered to start in the late 18th century when the activities of humans first began to have a significant global impact on the Earth's climate and ecosystems. "
Sorry but I was honestly afraid of the moment that you would start using science against me until then.
Maybe we should work to force them to follow humane working practices and build electronics according to environmental regulations. But the West is afraid of China, after all it's not easy to bully a country of over a billion people. That's why the US keeps doing business with the Chinese, who by the way are the ones paying for the war in Iraq. The US keeps borrowing money from them to pay its wars.
What and adopt their one child policy as just a helpful by-product of the process?
Why not really get some leverage over those one billion people with a global tax! That way we can bankrupt the next US war and save some people! ...But to who will it go and how will that money be spent I wonder...?
No I'm just seeing more interests and appeals. It wouldn't be honest of me to come over to the side of belief on that.
You don't need one child policy to encourage women to have less children. There's no one child policy in Italy or Russia, and yet those countries have a declining population. The more education a woman has the less children she has. You don't need coercion to tell people what to do.
you are just a ideological selfish lunatic.
I just hope we stop buying oil fro of OPEC. In the 60s the used to sell oil for $3 a barrel, in the 70s it went up to 30 and last year it was over 100 dollars.
Well are you sure it isn't actually the more money a women has? Maybe a mixture of the two, and throw in a little personal liberty. Very appealing. You got all that then to give to every women in second and third world countries?
And like I said in another post you don't need environmentalism, just economics and technological progress to deal with the price of oil. Now don't I sound even cleverer.
Every time I see children in Africa running around being raised by single women, I ask myself where are the irresponsible men who impregnated these women? More men should get vasectomies instead of making women suffer more than they need to
people in Africa and elsewhere don't need charity but sexual education and contraception. First world countries are the first ones to cry out because poor immigrants are trying to get into their fortress Europe. Let's do something that could benefit all us.
myths. I can tell you that there are no myths nor truths only compromises. There are no facts only interpretations.
Reality seems to be unreachable or hidden somewhere. For instance, according to the world health organization the number one caused of violent death is suicide which is probably related to poverty. it's not terrorism, nor crime, nor war or anything like that. but do we really give a shit about facts? or do we care more about ideology and fear?
This dude is straight from the 1950's, he is the crazy one. Someone get him a reality check , this is 2011 and the Planet is cooling.
david222444 3 months ago
@david222444 actually nasa, harvard, oxford, stanford and every single university that has made a statement on the subject says that global warming is real and man made. These guys are the smartest people on the planet, so you need a reality check.
truthofevolution 2 months ago
@truthofevolution You are in fanatasy land, Global cooling is real and natural. There is no Scientific proof that man warms the climate, if you find any scientific proof please inform the public. You can spout Oxford / Nasa all day long , concensus means nothing but a challenge to a scientist. It is proof that matters and there is no proof to this silly theory.
david222444 2 months ago
@david222444 so you are saying that the scientists at nasa and oxford are in fantasy land? I know that consensus means nothing, but when there is consensus of the smartest people in the world, and the dumb people are left saying that the smart people are in fantasy land, then you know you have a problem.
truthofevolution 2 months ago
@david222444 the fact that you think that the scientists of the world would lie shows that you are a tinfoil hatted conspiracy theorist. ALL the universities of the world are lying? NONE of them knows that science is derived from evidence? Only Mr. David truly knows what science means? give me a break you are embarrassing yourself pretending you know more about science than the likes of harvard university.
truthofevolution 2 months ago
@david222444 also all the evidence IS public. There have been many wonderful papers that have come out on the journal Nature, and the journal Science, which are the best scientific journals in the world. They have your evidence.
truthofevolution 2 months ago
@david222444 an idiot is telling harvard university that they are in fantasy land. Do you realize how stupid that makes you look?
truthofevolution 2 months ago
@david222444 your comment makes no sense. You know that nasa, oxford and all the other universities are from the 1950's? you know MIT came up with a lot of modern technology and they accept GW. Are you saying that MODERN technology is all from the 1950's?
truthofevolution 2 months ago
@truthofevolution Stop parroting elitist propaganda from megalomanic idiots who think man can control the climate. At present the Pacific is cooling,the Atlantic is cooling , every level of the Atmosphere is cooling, Volcanic and techtonic activity is increasing and the Sun may be entering a Grand Minimum. A tiny anount of harmless trace gas is insignificant campared to these forces and it takes little intelect to come to this conclusion. The Planet is cooling abruptly.
david222444 2 months ago
@david222444 ok first of all " Stop parroting elitist propaganda from megalomanic idiots " are you calling American university scientists idiots? do you seriuosly think you are smarter than them? They use science and technology to save millions of lives. You have achieved NOTHING. And you are calling our scientists IDIOTS? You are the megalomaniac who thinks he is smarter than our scientists.
truthofevolution 2 months ago
@david222444 im wondering if you would say the same thing about the moon landing. If nasa is full of megalomanic idiots who parrot elitist propaganda, Im sure you would also agree that they are parroting propaganda about the moon landing right?
truthofevolution 2 months ago
@david222444 also my so called propaganda has been published 900 times in the past 20 years in some of the best, credible scientific journals that also publish medicine among other sciences. Unless you think modern medicine is full of lies, Im sure you would agree that this evidence is trustworthy. You on the otherhand have no evidence published in these journals because your side is full of lies, and you have the arrogance to turn it around all call american scientists liars.
truthofevolution 2 months ago
@truthofevolution So what ? the Planet was warming x900 caused by an active Sun. I will repeat one more time maybe you will then understand THERE IS NO SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF MAN MADE GLOBAL WARMING. ok do you get it? Now get your head back to reality and out of a silly computer model which can show nothing of the future. The Planet is cooling abruptly and the climate does not care about your 900 odd papers. Co2 is a mere product of past warming caused by an active Sun.
david222444 2 months ago
@david222444 your comment makes no sense. I pointed to 900 papers wihch is PROOF of global warming and then you say the climate doesnt care about my evidence? How does that make any sense? You wanted evidence, I gave it. Rather than apologizing you repeat there is no evidence. That is what an idiot does. Also only an idiot thinks he is smarter than all the universities in america combined.
truthofevolution 2 months ago
@david222444 its not my head you are telling to get back into reality. You are telling the smartest scientists in the WORLD that they dont know what they are takling about. Do you realize how dumb that makes you look? Do you seriously think you know science better than america's scientists?
When you achieve something in your life, you will realize how hard it is to achieve it. Until then you will think you are smarter than everyone else.
truthofevolution 2 months ago
@david222444 " Co2 is a mere product of past warming caused by an active Sun." Not according to 900 research papers full of evidence.
truthofevolution 2 months ago
@david222444 youre telling me that all of the world's scientists are in some silly conspiracy to lie to the public and YOU are telling me I need to get MY head back to reality? Get your head back to reality man and realize that all of the universities in the US cant all possibly lie and you cant be smarter than all of them COMBINED.
truthofevolution 2 months ago
@truthofevolution I will accept Scientific proof of AGW! that is what I am saying. After all Atmospheric Co2 enrichment benefits all life on the Planet and does nothing to harm the climate in any way. Meanwhile the planet is cooling abruptly and northern hemisphere winters are becoming progressively harsher. Concensus, even COMBINED concensus means nothing only SCIENTIFIC PROOF matters.
david222444 2 months ago
@david222444 the thing that you dont realize is that i have BOTH proof AND consensus. My proof is published in 900 scientific peer reviewed research papers published in journals that also publish medicine, physics among other uncorrupted sciences. You can read those. PROOF in science means peer reviewed research papers.
You should also know that scientists reach consensus when they have proof. Harvard doesnt need a lesson on proof from you.
truthofevolution 2 months ago
@david222444 Im an MD/PhD student. I worked medical research and I can tell you that if it NOT published, it is NOT science. So you repeating that the sun warms the planet is utter nonsense that means nothing. Do you seriously think that you know more about the Sun than NASA? Im trying to get you to be humble and realize that you may not understand the subject you are discussing as well as people who have studied it for decades of their lives.
truthofevolution 2 months ago
@david222444 " Atmospheric Co2 enrichment benefits all life", this shows your limited understanding on the subject. Changes in climate leads to extinction. Science has proven that. Also CO2 is beneficial at a MOLECULAR level to SOME species like plants. If I gave you CO2, you would hyperventilate, your blood would become acidotic and you would die. Where did you learn this utter nonsense? You are showing that you have no understanding of teh subject, you are NOT smarter than these scientists.
truthofevolution 2 months ago
@david222444 "northern hemisphere winters are becoming progressively harsher." This is a PREDICTION made by GW that INITIALLY the winters would get harsher. This is because initially, the warming is small, so average temp can go from -10 degrees to -2 degrees. Notice that even though it is warming, it is still below freezing temp. Therefore you will have winter. HOWEVER, that winter will be harsher, because more moisture from warmer climates would evaporate into the air. This is a prediction.
truthofevolution 2 months ago
@truthofevolution Yawn
david222444 2 months ago
@david222444 haha go ahead man. Yawn away. I provide evidence and you ignore it. I dont expect more from someone who cares more about his ego than the truth.
truthofevolution 2 months ago
you think that co2 enrichment is good for all life. Even though that is medically incorrect and I give you proof about acidosis and hyperventilation, all you do is yawn. That shows your lacking of caring about the truth. You ask for proof from me, but when I show you proof that you are wrong, you ignore it.
truthofevolution 2 months ago
@david222444 I gave you a detailed argument about why GW predicts initial harsher winters, instead of telling me why im wrong, you just yawn. I tried to get you to be humble enough to realize that nasa understands the sun better than you do. and you just yawn. Im trying to get you to realize that harvard scientists arent stupid enough to reach consensus without proof. Be humble enough to realize that these people know science better than you do.
Pathetic.
truthofevolution 2 months ago
According to good ol' Al, we now have less than 4.5 years before the earth's surface is scorched to an unbearably hot temperature and rendered uninhabitable. So who's selling ticket to Mars? Is Al building his spaceship arc yet? Why did he buy ocean front property in California a couple of years ago? The oceans are suppose to rise at a catastrophic height, killing millions. Won't that mean his 10 upstairs bathrooms will be flooded for generations to come? Does he have lots of flood insurance?
Boris82much 3 months ago
This guy is a tool who, like most people sadly, thinks he knows the realities of the situation despite having done zero research into it.
damvid21 4 months ago
Evidence / impacts of climate change series:
.
Baguio City councilors okays implementation of climate change plans
.
The Baguio City Council unanimously approved Monday a resolution requesting the City Government and barangays to formulate and implement a local climate change action plan.
.
Baguio Sun Star, Philippines
13 August 2011
Nightversionn 6 months ago
LOL
wipemysmile 6 months ago
@Saqu0007 other side of the issue completely? yes we should yet we havent. back in the mid 1990s, there was equal funding to both sides and the skeptics had and still have the science on their side yet they stopped getting funding and it went to the alarmists. (think of how rich al gore got) its completely political. its not science. in the debate i mentioned schlesinger admitted only 20% of the scientists
tippman2k01 8 months ago
@tippman2k01 Coral bleaching occurs whenever the coral is stressed. This occurs through decreases in temperature true but more commonly through increases in temperature as well as water acidification (as a result of CO2 increase) and a number of other reasons. Global warming does not mean everywhere will get hotter but that global climates will change as the overall temperature increases. It may drop a couple of degrees in certain regions but others would more than make up for this drop.
Saqu0007 6 months ago
@tippman2k01 sorry reply to the wrong person, to answer you, I am a scientist and I believe climate change is occuring, but I am not a climatologist so I shouldn't be counted amongst those 20%. Also I am not American so very little of political propoganda makes it across the Atlantic. Here in the EU I believe that the general consensus is that global warming is happening and its not party political over here.
Saqu0007 6 months ago
@Saqu0007 have u even listened to the science on the "deniers" side? it demolishes the science on the alarmists side. that is why when there is a balanced debate we always win. for example co2 is a natural gas essential for all life. it is NOT a pollutant. it is plant food in simple terms. not to mention we are only responsible for 3% of the co2 in the atmosphere. plus, it lags behind temperature changes by 800 years which means temperature drives co2. not the other way around as alarmists claim
tippman2k01 6 months ago
@tippman2k01 I have degrees in Chemistry and Biology and took electives in environmental chemistry, climatology, oceanography, meteorology and marine biology. You don't have to talk to me like I'm an idiot. Yes I have listened to the science on the deniers side, did you know that the majority of their research is funded by big oil?
Saqu0007 6 months ago
@Saqu0007 the only reason why some scientists are funded by oil is the lack of state funding. AGW is a politically controlled subject. in 1998 when there was even funding towards both sides of the issue, the deniers had better support for their theory than alarmists, yet their funding was cut. therefore, the validity of the science is what matters. not the funding. if it still bothers u, look up 20/20 GMAB global warming. it shows theres plenty of scientists that arent funded by oil
tippman2k01 6 months ago
@Saqu0007 Did you know that ALL of the warmist funding is from the government? See if you can find a climate scientist that is not funded by the government who agree's with AGW.
MrOTLChamp 5 months ago
@MrOTLChamp Professor Nathan Bindoff, Professor Matthew England, Professor Dave Griggs, Professor Ann Henderson-Sellers, Professor Ove Hoegh-Guldberg, Professor Lesley Hughes, Professor Roger Jones, Professor David Karoly, Professor Nevill Nicholls, Professor Jean Palutikof, Professor Andy Pitman, Professor Chris Turney, Wallace Smith Broecke, Paul Jozef Crutzene to name just a few. Rather than spouting propaganda you've read on a blog, try doing some real research.
uknowispeaksense 4 months ago
@uknowispeaksense I'm not going to waste much time on your names. However I just took one of them and researched him ( Paul Jozef Crutzene) and I'm pretty sure that NASA would be considered government funded.
MrOTLChamp 4 months ago
@uknowispeaksense For shits and giggles, I decided to look at another name. Andy Pitman, also has done work for the IPCC. Does that organization sound familiar to you?
Maybe you ought to take your own advise, and do some real research. Even your Marxist Professor would give you an "F"
MrOTLChamp 4 months ago
@MrOTLChamp ughh, spoken like someone who truly gets all his info from denier blogs. But go on, please educate me on how the IPCC actually works? I'd also like to know, do you deny global warming because you don't understand the science or because you do understand it?
uknowispeaksense 4 months ago
@uknowispeaksense What, do you not think they are government funded? I already know how they work. And so does the UN. Thats why the UN has distance them from the IPCC. It's because they are surrounded in a cloud of fraud, and misrepresentations. Anyone that rely's on these bogus climate models is a joke. They have been almost completely wrong is all their predictions. Mainly because scientist have no clue for things like the effects of clouds, e.g.
MrOTLChamp 4 months ago
@MrOTLChamp clouds hey? How about you tell me about the effect of clouds and I presume you'll then go on to discuss water vapour being the dominant greenhouse gas? If you do, please explain it to me? Don't be afraid to use scientific terms. I will understand it.
uknowispeaksense 4 months ago
@uknowispeaksense I'm not saying I fully understand the effects of clouds. Apparently you misunderstood the point. Scientist themselves admit they really don't fully understand the effects of clouds, and therefore the models can't understand the effects of clouds. Unless your ego is so big that you think you know more than all the other scientist. Models can only interpit information based on what they are told the specific values are for various elements.
MrOTLChamp 4 months ago
@MrOTLChamp cont... I mean no discussion of clouds would be complete without references to the absorption spectrum of different cloud types when it comes to long-wave radiation. Don't forget the degree of overlap with CO2 and other aerosols. Oh and the effect ofspatialdistributionof the different absorbers. Oh and also shortwave radiation. Be specific though. I want to be sure you actually know what you're talking about or if like most deniers, youcan only cut and paste blogs.
uknowispeaksense 4 months ago
@uknowispeaksense Love how you go through all your mumbo jumbo about clouds, acting like you have it all figured out. LMAO Kinda like flooding your reply with names of scientist that you claimed to be not tied to government funding.What, thought I wouldn't check. I haven't found any of your scientist to be not affiliated with government funds.
MrOTLChamp 4 months ago
@MrOTLChamp I'm glad you did butifyou are convinced that all agw scientists are corrupt then what's the point but using propaganda foryour argument against agw is a poor argument and ususally propagated by those who don't understand the science they are arguing against. It would seem you are one of them. if you're not going to tell me about the cloudsthen i shall assume you are a science illiterate who's speaking out his arse.
uknowispeaksense 4 months ago
@uknowispeaksense I never said they are all corrupt. It's the movemnet that is currupt. The science has not proven that CO2 is causing catastrophic changes to our climate. Thats their claim...And it's completely a long shot at best. In fact, we could use even more CO2. It wouldn't harm humans, and it could help alot of the thirdworld cuntries by being able to grow more food faster.
MrOTLChamp 4 months ago
@MrOTLChamp ok, 2 things. first is that CO2 is the cause. That is a strawman. CO@ is a forcing agent. There is a difference. next is the CO2=plant growth nonsense. Many deniers point to glasshouse studies of elevated CO2 and they show increased plant growth. You cannot extrapolate controlled environment studies to the field. In situ field studies of elevated CO2 plus increased temperature, and altered rainfall patterns demonstrate quite clearly that real world increases reduce yields.....
uknowispeaksense 4 months ago
@MrOTLChamp cont.... increase pests and diseases in 5 of the 6 stable food crops. Unfortunately, people who rely on blogs for their information instead of searching the peer reviewed literature of in situ field trials for this research. The fact they think you its ok to extrapolate controlled environment studies like that demonstrates yet again more scientific illiteracy. Its funny though, often peer review is ok for them for the glasshouse studies but not any other times. what's next? the sun?
uknowispeaksense 4 months ago
@uknowispeaksense I'm sure those studies are debatable. Where does your " increased temperature, and altered rainfall patterns" come from. CO2 does not cause any significant warming, and nowhere has it been proven that weather patters will change either.
MrOTLChamp 4 months ago
@MrOTLChamp Mate if you think the modelling is wrong, I shall wait with baited breath for either your own paper, or at least a reputable peer reviewed reference or two. But beofre you produce either, google "google gallileo" and have a good read about yourself. I'll wait for that paper. Still waiting to hear about your clouds too.
uknowispeaksense 4 months ago
@uknowispeaksense "Clouds remain one of the largest uncertainties in the climate system's response to temperature changes," laments Bruce Wielicki, a scientist at NASA's Langley Research Center.
But, I'm sure you think you know more than NASA.
MrOTLChamp 4 months ago
@MrOTLChamp Hell no. I am smart enough to know what I don't know. Are you? I was however just today reading a paper or three about clouds and water vapour that sheds a fair bit of light on the subject.
DOI: 10.1126/science.1182488
doi:10.1029/2009GL037527
DOI: 10.1126/science.1190653
uknowispeaksense 4 months ago
@uknowispeaksense cont...let me know if you need me to explain them to you GG.
uknowispeaksense 4 months ago
@uknowispeaksense And your studies are full of crap suggesting plants will not do better with higher CO2. The fact is, tree's grew alot bigger, way back in history when CO2 was much higher. Still waiting for your list of scientist not taking gov. funds that agree with CO2 will cause a catastrophic rise in global temps. Your first list was pathetic. Maybe your greatly inflated ego got in the way.
MrOTLChamp 4 months ago
@MrOTLChamp hmmm, that was a long long time ago and those species had several millions of years of to adapt and evolve to those conditions. But please, care to tell me what species of trees they were and if those same species are still around today? Oh, and propaganda and conspiracy theories aren't my forte so I'll leave them to you GG. I much prefer science.
uknowispeaksense 4 months ago
@uknowispeaksense Recently, new ocean heat content (OHC) measurements revealed that the global ocean volume was not warming (retaining heat) as climate models predicted. This same phenomenon of model failure can be seen when examining the combined land/sea temperature record published by NASA-GISS, through the month of February, 2011.
MrOTLChamp 4 months ago
@MrOTLChamp and now you are cutting and pasting directly from blogsites. You haven't even bothered to try and hide that. We're done GG. You are clearly out of your depth. Come back when you've at least got an undergraduate degree in science.
uknowispeaksense 4 months ago
@uknowispeaksense In the case of HadCRUT temps, the difference between model and actual temps is now close to 1 degree. That's kind of like aiming a cruise missile at Tripoli and its ending up in downtown Cairo - definitely, robust incompetence at play.
MrOTLChamp 4 months ago
@MrOTLChamp more cutting and pasting. Obviously you can't even think for yourself. You're a classic.
uknowispeaksense 4 months ago
@uknowispeaksense Got to laugh at the new revelations with your government funded IPCC. LMAO Your top scientist isn't even a scientist. All you idiots are a joke.
MrOTLChamp 4 months ago
@MrOTLChamp actually calling you a google galileo is being far too generous on my part. At least they have the ability to put things, as incorrect as they are, into their own words.
uknowispeaksense 4 months ago
@uknowispeaksense Conclusion...You failed. And you will will run. LMAO. Do I need to tell what LMAO means? Yup, I cut and pasted straight from the horses mouth. Infact, it was your own horse, the IPCC. And when your own organizations admit their models are flawed..You don't have a leg to stand on. Would you like a wheelchair?
MrOTLChamp 4 months ago
@uknowispeaksense IPCC admits, “In climate research and modeling, we should realize that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.”
My guess is that you think you know more than all the other scientist. No surprise there..Your ego is out of control.
MrOTLChamp 4 months ago
@MrOTLChamp and now you're quote mining from a report from an organisation you say can't be trusted so which is it? Do you trust the IPCC or not? You're a hypocrite buddy.
uknowispeaksense 4 months ago
@uknowispeaksense By the way, I'm not the one making unsubstantiated claims that CO2 is causing catastophic global warming. The burden of proof is on you.
MrOTLChamp 4 months ago
@Saqu0007 Did you know that the top scientist at the IPCC isn't even a scientist?
How about a third of the citations from the IPCC AR4's report aren't even peer reviewed?
How about the wheels are falling off your globull worming buggy. LMAO
MrOTLChamp 4 months ago
@Nyctitropist
Believe what you want but when you look at the two options objectively the truth shines through. Since when is caring about the environment such a divisive and political issue? Since the notion of global warming scared the shit out of oil and energy companies. You really think so many scientists (not the few on big oils payroll) would make this climate trend up? Why? So everyone has to spend billions of dollars to change the complete energy infrastructure? That makes no sense. How
MrAl3c 1 year ago
@MrAl3c scientists are only paid by government to say AGW is real. not to mention consensus is not science. consensus is a political notion. there was once a consensus that black people were genetically inferior than whites. that is obviously false. there was once a consensus on global cooling. there is no hard science behind AGW
tippman2k01 10 months ago
@tippman2k01 As a scientist. Its the best possible answer we have to explain what we are currently observing. The majority of scientists believe that climate change is an ongoing event which is being brought on by global warming. Does it make it a fact? No, but there is a scientific backing to the theory and it has not yet been conclusively disproved, rather the more evidence is gathered the more it seems to be correct. The question is can we afford to wait and allow permanent damage to happen?
Saqu0007 8 months ago
@Saqu0007 AGW has been conclusively disproved. alarmists "evidence" is based on computer models, which have been proved by dr. John Christy to be completely inaccurate. watch the debate between john christy and william schlesinger. schlesinger gets destroyed in the debate. and more evidence is not being gathered. its just another pseudoscience fraud like there was in the 1900s that black people were genetically inferior to whites. when it comes to costing billions shouldnt we investigate the
tippman2k01 8 months ago
@Saqu0007 You're forgetting the good that would come from climate change. Think of all the coral that was lost last year to an abnormally harsh winter, all the plants that would grow in a warmer climate, all the land that is uninhabitable due to harsh cold. All climate change propaganda comes with inaccurate doomsday scenario's
40joel 6 months ago
Maybe he wasn't a global warming denier, maybe he went down into the tank to try to stop the methane from entering atmosphere.
calamagrostis88 1 year ago
And let me guess, you judge 'corrupt' as being those who disagree with your pre-existing prejudices?
rickelmonoggin 1 year ago
Shepard Smith is a massive douchebag!
Slave2Reason 1 year ago
global warming is happening, but we aren't causing it
learn the history of world climate and realize they are trying to use this to control and tax the global population
111imstupid111 1 year ago
@111imstupid111 wrong, all evidence points to global warming being caused by man. You can't add greenhouse gases to the atmosphere and expect no effect.
quidproquo2004 1 year ago
@quidproquo2004 What evidence? There's this thing...called the Sun. The sun has this thing called a cycle. Every four years the sun is either at its solar minimum or its solar maximum. The more activity there is the hotter it is; the less the lower. Greenhouse gasses absorb heat and it stays in the atmosphere. HERES THE KICKER! Heat travels up. Which means its not dropping onto the ice caps. AND the earth also regulates heat. Next you'll try to tell us its people's faults that brownouts occur.
Nyctitropist 1 year ago
@Nyctitropist
1. The sun is not accountable for the vast majority of modern temperature ANOMALY -- anthropogenic greenhouse gases are.
"Heat goes up". Convection is not the only mechanism for heat transfer. There's also conduction and radiation.
2. Heat transfer can take on three forms: convection, conduction, and RADIATION.
3. The carbon dioxide's ability to absorb heat after the sun's radiation at shorter wavelengths has been absorbed and re-emitted at longer wavelengths.
Chew on that
quidproquo2004 1 year ago
@quidproquo2004 WHOA! So what you're saying is...the air is radioactive! Good job. Take an oceanography and an astronomy class.
Nyctitropist 1 year ago
@Nyctitropist You must have an excellent handbook on how to make fallacious arguments, because your style is textbook strawman.
I never said anything about radioactivity. There's a big difference between radioactivity and (electromagnetic) radiation.
quidproquo2004 1 year ago
@quidproquo2004 Big words and useless terms? Do you know the difference without googling it? First you say "all evidence...global warming being caused by man" with no real evidence, then you say "the sun is not accountable for the vast majority of modern temperature" when the sun is accountable for ALL modern temperature, for without the sun there is NO heat, and then right after mention the workings of the sun as if it helps your case? My handbook is called education. You should get one.
Nyctitropist 1 year ago
@Nyctitropist I agree that the Earth would be an ice ball without the sun; I never meant to imply anything to the contrary. However, it would also be an ice ball if there were no greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide.
We are not dealing with a static situation, but rather a dynamic one. Changes in solar activity do not account for modern temperature anomaly. Increasing carbon dioxide does account for this temperature anomaly.
Can you cite evidence to the contrary? I'll look at it.
quidproquo2004 1 year ago
@quidproquo2004 Too much trouble to cite information for your sake. I'm not that interested in the state of the world there are much more important things like life. The problem isn't just one thing, it's a little bit of everything. Certainly if you want information, you'll look for it. In fact, why don't you research it and come up with a solution, then publish it to a science magazine. You may win a Nobel prize.
Nyctitropist 1 year ago
@Nyctitropist Clearly you're more interested in being antagonistic, so you can keep your patronage and choke on it for all I care.
quidproquo2004 1 year ago
@quidproquo2004 Lol. Am I antagonistic for encouraging you? Maybe it's that you don't believe in your own words then, they you would suddenly be offended when I tell you you may be right.
Nyctitropist 1 year ago
@111imstupid111 Who's they, mother nature?
quidproquo2004 1 year ago
The UN who has even had a National Socialist at its helm at one time, its IPCC is headed by a Railroad Engineer, the Earth Institute is headed by a economist, and then you have Al Gore. Those are the three heads of Global Warming, Choo Choo Charlie, IMF meddler, and Al Fraud. The three stooges for the Goldman Sachs Carbon Tax racket.
Thisawareness 1 year ago
@Thisawareness If I could I would give you a standing ovation.
Syn427 1 year ago
@str84ever Now your trying to project yourself as an intelligent, university student, and an authority, I'm merely pointing out that people that really are those do not curse and project onto others. I'll add liar to your resume as here is your quote "according to you everything i was taught is a lie" What are "fews" that you stated after your lie that I had to re-list? Is jack shit more University newspeak? And perhaps "fews"? You get weirder by the comment
Thisawareness 1 year ago
@str84ever Glad to see your school work is not being wasted as you said according to me (which I never said) " Everything i am taught is a lie" don't misquote or project your beliefs onto another person and using expletives make you look crass and not a university student. Did the railroad engineer promise to let you work the ticket booth or clean up the caboose when the ride is over?
Is that your summer job? Or fulltime work?
Thisawareness 1 year ago
@str84ever You must be in grammar school studying.
Thisawareness 1 year ago
FAO DENIERS
If AGW is a con & the effect of CO2 is negligible, then perhaps you'd like to discuss what would happen if we removed all CO2 from the atmosphere.
I EXPECT A 'COLD' RESPONSE
TheElasticJesus 1 year ago
People like the AGW Cult members, who believe in nothing, will fall for anything.
Thisawareness 1 year ago
@str84ever Wow, your an idiot, I can only presume from your ad hominen attack on the truth, from 6 months ago, that your either a troll, a full fledged AGW Cult member, work at an amusement park, or just a brainwashed child.
Perhaps Choo Choo Charlie has promised to increase your chocolate rations if you believe?
Thisawareness 1 year ago
When you stop believing in God, you start to believe in anything else.
xaviqaz 1 year ago
@xaviqaz Look at these weirdos on here now. The AGW Cultists who are usually brainwashed children, will stoop to anything to protect their religion. This str84ever is in my top ten youtube agw cult member weirdos.
Thisawareness 1 year ago
@Thisawareness yeah hottest year on record AGAIN... the Earth must be in on this whole AGW cult too.
fringelife 1 year ago
The Bible for AGW freaks has long been "an inconvenient truth", unfortunately for all of you believers out there many "facts" in the film have long since been showed to be false and he has been proven to have lied in it also. these have all been PROVEN. Look at the start of his Time/CO2 graph, the error there is completely laughable!!!
beaker2407 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
climate fraud,wmd fraud,afghanistan fraud,avian flu fraud,swine flu/tamiflu fraud,flouride fraud,codex alimentarius fraud people need to wake up they are going to kill neutrality on the net soon the fraud will be cyber terror
monicabrsgooglemail 2 years ago
whats next... 911 was a inside job?
leenooi31 2 years ago
Global Warming is a pseudo-science like they had in the Soviet Union. The top three gurus for the Global Warming Cult are
A flake, who has a load of character, credibility & possible mental issues
A Railroad Engineer (Choo Choo Charlie) who is the chief quack of the quacks of the IPCC
Head of the CUEI is an economist with ties to the IMF
Yeah Global warming is a pseudo-science
These bums are more qualified working at an amusement park train ride
1984 Choo Choo!
Thisawareness 2 years ago
@Thisawareness Global Warming is infact happening, and you are an idiot.
OTSTRETFORD 1 year ago
@OTSTRETFORD , your right idiot, Global warming is indeed happening, its Summer now.
Have you also been promised increased chocolate rations to believe that Al Gore is your new savior?
Thisawareness 1 year ago
@Thisawareness Al Gore is not the only person to mention Global Warming you idiot. Like the comment up top, I believe the scientists and the proof, not some conspiracy that you have adopted to fit your political view.
OTSTRETFORD 1 year ago
@OTSTRETFORD What am I "an Idiot" for listing dum dum? Whats your dispute, that the IPCC chief is a railroad engineer? Or that the head of the Earth Institute is in fact a "economist"? We know Gore is a flake, so there's no dispute there, hehe.
Better troll somewhere else dum-dum, before you embar-ass yourself more.
Thisawareness 1 year ago
@OTSTRETFORD Do you know this str84ever weirdo? Do you know what he meant by "fews" in his comment? Is "jack shit" that he used, University Newspeak or grammar school playground lingo? (The bet is on grammar school hehe)
Another AGW fraud and weirdo, must be tired of cleaning choo choo charlie's caboose as the summer heat is getting him upset.
Thisawareness 1 year ago
@Thisawareness Ahah you're funny! You should write a script for a show or something.
0heyjc 1 year ago
@0heyjc Ty for the compliment watch this thread, going to get funnier unless these elementary school dropout trolls find some smartz and scram from here.
Thisawareness 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The Christmas season got going with widespread snowfall that buried the nation's capital under almost 2 feet of snow. Dallas, which hasn't experienced a storm of blizzard proportions in 80 years, got socked with record snowfall. On Christmas Eve, half of the United States was covered with snow, according to an image that the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration released.
BaronVonLichtenstein 2 years ago
These climategate morons have no insight as to the nature of science. I've noticed that in most cases they tend to be racist and superstitious. It's as if they don't possess the capacity for logical thinking or even a basic understanding of what science is, but instead address every big idea as if its a religion to cling to.
rabideyemovement 2 years ago
rabideyemovement: The climategate folk are also usually a) religious and b) almost always conservative. Hmmmmmmm. Wonder why it's a political party association that thus somehow in turn gives them the capacity to also believe 180 degrees from the truth. Seems to be in most logic they have, so why should I be surprised. Cons are, by nature, the "know nothing" base. Conservative MEANS "holding back / restraint" for gawd sakes. McCain and a few others are their only saving grace as a party.
rightsideofhistory 2 years ago
Removing or restricting C02 will not fix Climate Change.
What was the most productive (in terms of evolution) period in scientifically observed history?
The Cambrian Period saw the evolution of the Eye, and had more C02 in the atmosphere than today (today: 390ppm, Cambrian: 7000 ppm), AND during that period, the temperature was just as it is today.
comedytracker 2 years ago
People aren't denying global warming. They recognize it is part of a very long cycle that happened even before humans were around.
What they deny is that humans are contributing to it through CO2 emissions.
00dfm00 2 years ago
Why is global warming (now referred to as climate change) being pushed as such an issue?
watch?v=PMe5dOgbu40
PonguigPeopinn 2 years ago
Because they are getting out of control
& need more ways to Tax the People.
& also, because they think the people are stupid enough to actually believe it.
toxsickdog 2 years ago
@00dfm00 Climate change is alot different to Global Warming... Global Warming is caused by human activity/stupidity... Climate Change is a natural occourance, some people (Republicans mainly) do actually deny Global Warming through sheer ignorance.
OTSTRETFORD 1 year ago
Its funny how they never seem to say that global warming is proven to be natural and unstoppable...
Yes that's right, all those terrible things you have been told are going to happen must then also be unstoppable!
GlobalCooling2009 2 years ago
so why don't you kill yourself? why live if we all going do die someday, right? why bother living, then?
tristanXIV 2 years ago
That bad is it...
GlobalCooling2009 2 years ago
Typical media presenter ignoramus
Wawnie 2 years ago
climate change is natural its been happening for billions of years and its gonna keep happening
vermonofdeceit 2 years ago
Yeah JERK-OFF Shep, anyone who looks at the REAL science and talks about it is "crazy". Al Gore is your God? Good luck with that. It was recently revealed at senate hearings that Al Gore's personal biz interests stand to gain hundreds of billions if 'cap and trade" passes! Cap and Trade does NOTHING to address REAL pollution! It's just about CONTROL over all farming, industry and trade!
joygarner 2 years ago
Joy this (global warming) is real. This is not politics. Its a pity it is perceived to be political.
mutantstrain 2 years ago
I say go with what the scientists say, not the politically motivated whack-jobs.
rickelmonoggin 2 years ago 10
@rickelmonoggin Scientist are motivated by money if you follow every word they say then you are just a sheep.
MrGilles1990 1 year ago
@MrGilles1990 And your whackjobs aren't?
rickelmonoggin 1 year ago
@rickelmonoggin My whack jobs?, no sir i look at the scientific facts and form my own opinion.
I do not blindly follow anyone.
MrGilles1990 1 year ago
@MrGilles1990 That's what you should do. However, your dismissive remarks about scientists make me doubt that you do that.
rickelmonoggin 1 year ago
@rickelmonoggin i am dismissive of corrupt scientists, which are not a small minority.
MrGilles1990 1 year ago
Anthropogenic climate change is the easiest pack of lies to debunk there is. Yesterday ex NASA supervisor of Hanson(agw's prophet) skewered Hanson and his faulty and self serving agenda and joined the 30,000 or so real scientist who know it is a joke.
Badactor67 3 years ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
@Badactor67 Holy shit you are ignorant and gullible.
uniteordie1 1 year ago
Here's a little fact. The hottest year over the last 100 years was not 1998 as the global warming alarmists would tell us but 1934. The hottest decade was the 1930's not the 1990's. GW alarmist deal with that.
Finnbar01 3 years ago
Wow! Shep Smith was right!
detoth67 3 years ago
Gee, not according to NOAA.
But I guess everyone should trust what YOU say more than what they say, right?
BeondaPale 3 years ago
maybe you can deny global warming now and continue to make OPEC rich, but I would like to see you denying Global Warming 30 years from now when the population of this world reaches 14 billion or so---all those billions of people burning oil and polluting. we got some awesome years ahead of us. let's all drive to work and get stuck in the highway with our fuel inefficient cars.
tristanXIV 2 years ago
burning oil and polluting does not make the sun hotter fella
kamahuha 2 years ago
it does pollute the air fella, and also, Oil is not an infinite resource, I hope i see it run out some day in the future, especially when the population of the world gets out of control and it reaches 14--20 billion. it would be a great world to live in. lot so of people, lots of cars, lots of traffic. awesome shit!!!!
tristanXIV 2 years ago
Yeah that's right isn't it... The oils going to run out in a few decades.
...Must be why we're really using windmills again.
GlobalCooling2009 2 years ago
Maybe you should take a vacation in Mexico City of Beijing and see if you like the quality of the air.
why is Venus hotter than Mercury even though it's further from the Sun? isn't because Venus' atmosphere is full of CO2 gases, which trap the heat?
tristanXIV 2 years ago
But I don't live in Beijing or Mexico, there's certainly not too many people where I live, and I doubt where you are either. What right do you have to dictate how many people get to live, or how many children people can have! And what right do you have to tell people in other countries what they can and can't do or force them to pay a global tax to fund increasing your justification for it! Environmentalists are sounding more and more like a communists.
And yes, yes gas traps heat.
GlobalCooling2009 2 years ago
Its why we aren't living at -200c. Wow stunning knowledge though, I'm already feeling a little more educated!
GlobalCooling2009 2 years ago
That's kind of selfish. Just because you live in a clean area or city, it doesn't mean that nothing should be done for the ideological satisfaction of some.
Shit, if I wish I could have a windmill to pump water from underground and solar panels on my roof, It would be great to reduce the electric bills.
people are free to do whatever they want but someday they will pay for it, regardless of what you think. The planet is doing fine, the people are fucked.
tristanXIV 2 years ago
'Selfish' you want to control who can and can't breed globally, and apparently its poorer people who are the bigger problem causers with it.
Why don't you first find out how much C02 you use compared to the guy in Mexico or Beijing who can't afford a car or central heating before you think of new things to spend your money on and lord over others.
GlobalCooling2009 2 years ago
And yes I want to be able to go abroad on holiday without being taxed for someone else's entertaining ideological beliefs. Which is all environmentalism is!
GlobalCooling2009 2 years ago
Oh and if you don't like the air quality of Beijing and feel those people need to be stopped from having childen...
STOP BUYING ALL THE CRAP MADE THERE BEFORE YOU DICTATE COMMUNIST BIRTH CONTROL POLICY TO ME OR ANYONE OTHER HUMAN BEING.
...YES THAT'S RIGHT! THAT KEYBOARD, YOUR IPOD, THOSE TRAINERS, ALL UNNECESSARY CRAP FOR THE HONEST SELFLESS PROCLAIMING ECO HERO.
GlobalCooling2009 2 years ago
If you live in a country below sea level like the Netherlands you would be more concern with environmental issues. It's better to err on the side of caution than do nothing because people like you feel irritated.
tristanXIV 2 years ago
Oh, so something like Chinas one child policy is just airing on the side of caution for you.
And when exactly is the sea level going to start rising in a man made and preventable way? I heard by 2030 there won't be an ice sheet in summer in the north according to Greenpeace. Completely untrue of course!
GlobalCooling2009 2 years ago
And so are you going to stop buying unnecessary Chinese produced goods? Are you going to reduce your carbon emission levels to the same levels of people in poorer countries like Mexico and China where a lot of people don't even own cars, because obviously as you must know Americans per individual produce more C02 than any other countries population?
GlobalCooling2009 2 years ago
And not all of the Netherlands is bellow sea level... 27% of the country is, and is that way as dikes are used and the sea water drained; unnaturally as it happens.
GlobalCooling2009 2 years ago
A part is below sea level and the rest is not any better, it's just barely above sea level.
it was precisely scientist from the Netherlands who first coined the term "Anthropocene"
tristanXIV 2 years ago
So how much and exactly when will man made see level increase begin?
...I know, I know, better safe than sorry!
GlobalCooling2009 2 years ago
"Anthropocene"
And well according to wiki scientists that use that term also claim to have proof of this...
"may be considered to start in the late 18th century when the activities of humans first began to have a significant global impact on the Earth's climate and ecosystems. "
Sorry but I was honestly afraid of the moment that you would start using science against me until then.
GlobalCooling2009 2 years ago
Maybe we should work to force them to follow humane working practices and build electronics according to environmental regulations. But the West is afraid of China, after all it's not easy to bully a country of over a billion people. That's why the US keeps doing business with the Chinese, who by the way are the ones paying for the war in Iraq. The US keeps borrowing money from them to pay its wars.
tristanXIV 2 years ago
What and adopt their one child policy as just a helpful by-product of the process?
Why not really get some leverage over those one billion people with a global tax! That way we can bankrupt the next US war and save some people! ...But to who will it go and how will that money be spent I wonder...?
No I'm just seeing more interests and appeals. It wouldn't be honest of me to come over to the side of belief on that.
GlobalCooling2009 2 years ago
You don't need one child policy to encourage women to have less children. There's no one child policy in Italy or Russia, and yet those countries have a declining population. The more education a woman has the less children she has. You don't need coercion to tell people what to do.
you are just a ideological selfish lunatic.
I just hope we stop buying oil fro of OPEC. In the 60s the used to sell oil for $3 a barrel, in the 70s it went up to 30 and last year it was over 100 dollars.
tristanXIV 2 years ago
Well are you sure it isn't actually the more money a women has? Maybe a mixture of the two, and throw in a little personal liberty. Very appealing. You got all that then to give to every women in second and third world countries?
And like I said in another post you don't need environmentalism, just economics and technological progress to deal with the price of oil. Now don't I sound even cleverer.
GlobalCooling2009 2 years ago
Every time I see children in Africa running around being raised by single women, I ask myself where are the irresponsible men who impregnated these women? More men should get vasectomies instead of making women suffer more than they need to
people in Africa and elsewhere don't need charity but sexual education and contraception. First world countries are the first ones to cry out because poor immigrants are trying to get into their fortress Europe. Let's do something that could benefit all us.
tristanXIV 2 years ago
Well there all you've done is jumped on to the humanitarian band wagon.
I want to know how many true environmental causes suffer with all the money and resources going to fight a mythical global problem...?
GlobalCooling2009 2 years ago
And why do I have to feel guilty for what supposedly happens to third world people!?
How many starving third word children is your charity feeding exactly?
GlobalCooling2009 2 years ago
Europe doesn't want immigrants on its shores, then you should care about what happens in the Third World.
tristanXIV 2 years ago
myths. I can tell you that there are no myths nor truths only compromises. There are no facts only interpretations.
Reality seems to be unreachable or hidden somewhere. For instance, according to the world health organization the number one caused of violent death is suicide which is probably related to poverty. it's not terrorism, nor crime, nor war or anything like that. but do we really give a shit about facts? or do we care more about ideology and fear?
tristanXIV 2 years ago