The debate has changed from whether the planet's climate is warming to whether humans are responsible, rather what can we do to slow to the warming. Corporations have won public relations debate.
- You only use 10% of your brain capacity at any one time.
- You are on YouTube less than 1% of the time.
- The average I Q =100.
- Therefore recent dumbo comments about CO2 reflect 10%x1%x100 = an I Q level of 0.1
tiny url. com / co2 -3- p c t-f a ll a c y
This shows why the exchange of carbon between the atmosphere and other carbon reservoirs (ocean, living things), and explains the "3% fallacy" loved by m1aws.
@indulis1 My iq is 143 and I spend 80% of my time on youtube, baited by fools like yourself. Funny that. I just boiled the kettle to make a cup of tea, the bl**dy water turned milky when warmed! Out gassing billions of bubbles of aromatics. I wonder what non existence caused this huh!
You should be hanging on to that theory to PROVE your lies but hey, even school kids know CO2 precedes warming.
berkeleyearth . org study results show that with the "bad stations" in or out, the temperature rise is happening, and matches the rise seen by other methods (satellite data etc). So endeth any credibility for your anti-science view and belief in the "worldwide government communist climate change scientist conspiracy".
""Our biggest surprise was that the new results agreed so closely with the warming values published previously by other teams in the US and the UK," said Prof Muller.
@m1aws You are completely incorrect. The latest analysis was funded in part by oil magnates the Koch brothers. "UC Berkeley physicists and statisticians that set out to challenge the scientific consensus on global warming is finding that ... [it]is producing results nearly identical to those underlying the prevailing view. The Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project was launched by physics prof. Richard Muller" ber kel e y earth.org
Very true ... Co2 is not rising sharply robzed you moron ... the greenhouse gases protect the planet ... global warming and cooling is cyclical .... the sun controls our weather.
@Salubriousme The sun is just ONE of the factors that controls the climate. There are people who study the different factors, and correct for them. For example, in the past when volcanoes were very active, there was more CO2, and the planet was hotter. Simple minds think that if the sun controlled the climate in the past, then *only* the sun can control it now. The truth is more complicated. And as far as CO2 not rising, where the bleep did you dream that up from? It is completely untrue!
This guy is just some failed IT data-entry monkey, he's obviously had "HR" issues with the rest of the team- his sneering and his demeanour speaks volumes.
Ice age temperature rises were not caused by Co2 increase and no-one is claiming that it was. The precession of the earth on its axis causes the earth to go in and out of ice ages. The CO2 profile is merely responding to that rather than causing it.
The physics of CO2 heat absorption is well known, and CO2 is definitely rising sharply.
The temperature on the moon varies from -387 Fahrenheit (-233 Celsius), at night, to 253 Fahrenheit (123 Celsius) during the day. This is evidence of the power of the sun across its static surface, for CD Global Warmists to say our Carbon Dioxide excess (390-450 ppm) has any relevance is absurd under such cosmic power! The TAX is purely to allow the UN to raid (steal) 3rd world economies, redesign their fuel resources and claim benefits from capping fossil fuels to regulate higher prices.
@Mezzaaaaa What is so interesting about your question is that you can use 400 million year old proxy data and represent it as fact, but thermometers are outright fallacious. Please remember that probably the greatest marine extinctions took place then and it lasted only about 500 thousand years. This is further evidence of CO2 as a strong amplifier of climate change. There, how did I do?
@Mezzaaaaa Wow, I love these questions. I know it is a loaded question, but I'll try not to be presumptuous. So what source tells you 4400 ppm? Do you reject the last 130 years measured w/ a thermometer? Young 2009, and Young 2010, both use proxy data to explain why it wasn't 4400, more like 3000 and was probably the reason this glacial period was so short lived. And no one is saying that CO2 is the primary driver of climate. The sun's output was also lower. So much was different than today.
Regarding most sunspot CO2 global warming science the dancing Wu-Shu Masters of Washington & Whitehall discovered that not only can you curve space & bend time but you can also warp the laws of solar physics merely by getting tenured scientists to repeat unscientific drivel about magnetic anomalies causing sunspots rather than the other way around & as for the reality of the star beginning to burn it’s iron all you’ve got to do is believe what you’re told & then dance & SHAKE YOUR BOOTY on cue.
He also keeps trotting out the "US temp stations are poorly sited on purpose- its a conspiracy!" rubbish. Just recently the Koch brothers who are oil barons co-funded Mueller (a nuclear physicist) to reanalyze all of the weather station data in the USA excluding the "suspect stations". And the result- "a global warming trend that is very similar to that previously reported by the other groups". So no conspiracy. Dr Evans keeps talking about this so-called (nonexistent) conspiracy. Even today.
@indulis1 The US temperature stations are nearly alln built up areas now. So your point of view is a fallacy. Here's the proof in four parts. I think yours is on part 4:
@m1aws You just don't get it do you- the new analysis was done by a CO2 climate change SKEPTIC & proved that there is no effect on the temperature rise if you leave the "suspect" urban stations in or out. You get pretty much the same rising temperature trend whether the "consipracy placed" stations are included or excluded from the analysis. Do you get it now? So David Evans is categorically wrong yet again-just like his claim that Argo data was hidden, took me 2 mins in google to find it
@indulis1 You just don't get it do you- If you remove all the stations that were included which showed a false positive then you end up with a true negative.
Your 2 mins on Google ended up on other sites which make its money out of this scam.
Lets do this by maths:
CO2 absorption by light bandwidth =7%
Amount of CO2 man made = 3%
Total quantity of abortion in those bands = 50%
So: 0.5x0.03x0.07 = The grand total of 1.28625e-06. That is mans influence on the atmosphere.
@m1aws Your "maths" shows how little you understand the complexities of feedback in the climate system. Multiplying a few number together is invalid. Also, your"facts" that 3% of CO2 is man-made is also wrong. 1960 to 2010 CO2 rose from about 300ppm to about 380ppm. A lot more than 3%. CO2 cycles through various sinks and sources (like plants, our bodies, coral reef) so it is cycling in and out. So over time some fossil fuel CO2 gets absorbed there, and non-fossil fuel CO2 gets released.
@indulis1 As goes maths, I love maths, a lifelong aerospace stress engineer of the old school.
The maths behind a wheel can get stupid complicated but its still a bl**dy wheel! The maths are simple.
I'm happy CO2 is being returned into the atmosphere. This will help feed the hungry. Apart from water, the other main ingredient by far in your food is CO2. We can return the last half of the Earths CO2 until the cows keel over and the difference in temp will never reach mid Holocene levels.
@indulis1 You have proved you have no idea on the feedback on the system. There isn't much of one at all!
Reality is not invalid, your words (is all they are) is.
Coral reefs huh? They get so big and deep islands are formed! The Alps are mainly limestone. Trillions of tons of chalk make up England alone. When the big "A" hit the Earth 75M yr ago, it hit limestone releasing so much CO2 it would of literally turned the Earth into another Venus by your reckoning. Plants flourished after this.
@indulis1 The papers that were released on redoing the readings against modern urban heat island effect was done by Wang and another by Jones. Professor Bob Carter checked their work and loudly calls them liars, so the temperature data is effectively defrauded. They can try to sue him but he has the facts on his side.
So endeth your conspiracy theory of the denialists. I reckon you'll just not get it will you.
He obviously doesn't know what he's talking about, as he gets it wrong in regards to what part of the atmosphere should be warming (it's the troposphere -- the lower atmosphere -- both in theory and by measurements, while the stratosphere is cooling since less heat is escaping.)
You are willing to believe this guy when thousands of real climate scientists are saying otherwise? Do your homework.
Find out how to profit from a forward contract in the carbon credit markets
Investment entry level from only 2000 Euros!The price of carbon is expected to double by 2013 and double again by 2020 according to research carried out by Sceptre, just complete the form on the right hand side to receive your FREE investment report and find out more
OUTSTANDING..... all this from 2007! where has the TRUTH been - swept under the carpet like CLIMATEGATE by the media and political propaganda - all Carbon Faithists WAKE UP! you are led by dogma and diatribe = not FACTS... but never let facts get in the way of a good story....
@Mezzaaaaa You state this as fact, am I right? Where does the evidence for this conclusion come from? If you want to cite Paleoclimate data, I suggest you use all of the data and not just what you want to see. If you'd like links to the last 800,000 years and the source for this, let me know, I'll give it to you. I apologize if I sound terse, but usually these questions do not want a scientific answer, they want to turn their view extolled as fact.
Having 6 irrelevant Phd's makes you a wanker not an expert.
If you want to listen to this side of the argument - good on you, every complicated argument has 2 sides and that's healthy, just know that by fighting on this dickheads side (his side consists of about as many retarded pricks that would vote for the mad monk right now), if you are wrong where does that leave you?
havent the govt operates in the global warming scam ever heard of geo engineering and weather machines like haarp? Perhaps they should study biowarfare instead of blaming carbon dioxide for all the weather manipulations they are creating with HAARP! I'm impressed that this guy has seen the light, only took him ten years..!
‘This week, a study has shown that the devastating floods which damaged nearly 10,000 properties in England and Wales in 2000, and cost £1.3 billion in insurance losses, were made significantly more likely by climate change caused by humans…The bottom line of all this? Allen and his team found that human greenhouse gas emissions "significantly increased" the likelihood of the 2000 floods.’
w w w .newscientist. c o m/article/dn20141-blame-human-emissions-for-british-floods.html
David Evans did a 180 deg. turn just like Kepler! ... "When [Kepler] found that his long cherished beliefs did not agree with the most precise observations, he accepted the uncomfortable facts. He preferred the hard truth to his dearest illusions. That is the heart of science." (Carl Sagan) ... good job!
To paraphrase. The trees in Northern Russia near the arctic circle are being attacked by beetles as they survive the winter, that used to be killed of by the colder weather.
And from weather station in northern Norway, they have detected increase levels of methane, from the melting permafrost...temperature rise at the same rate the arctic ocean will be free of ice in a few decades.
w w w.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00ylx9f/Arctic_with_Bruce_Parry_Northern_Europe/
To paraphrase. The trees in Northern Russia near the arctic circle are being attacked by beetles as they survive the winter, that used to be killed of by the colder weather.
And from weather station in northern Norway, they have detected increase levels of methane, from the melting permafrost...temperature rise at the same rate the arctic ocean will be free of ice in a few decades.
w w w.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00ylx9f/Arctic_with_Bruce_Parry_Northern_Europe/
‘Bruce travels to the far north of Canada to live with the Caribou people and witness their annual spring hunt. The Gwitchin tribe has hunted migrating caribou in the Arctic wilderness for thousands of years, but this tradition is now under threat from oil exploration’
‘Unusually warm winter…The caribou are very sensitive….to the warming climate’
w w w .bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00ydbl9/Arctic_with_Bruce_Parry_Canada/
‘Bruce travels to the far north of Canada to live with the Caribou people and witness their annual spring hunt. The Gwitchin tribe has hunted migrating caribou in the Arctic wilderness for thousands of years, but this tradition is now under threat from oil exploration’
‘Unusually warm winter…The caribou are very sensitive….to the warming climate’
w w w .bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00ydbl9/Arctic_with_Bruce_Parry_Canada/
At 5.10 he says global warming should warm the upper atmosphere faster than the lower atmosphere. But actually the opposite is true. If carbon dioxide was responsible the troposphere should warm while the stratosphere cools which is exactly what's happening. This is even shown at 5.19. Credibility for this video, none
@Richard482 Carbon dioxide could warm the atmosphere only if it received sunlight (UV light is transformed into infra red). More sunlight reaches the upper atmosphere than the lower atmosphere, and so if CO2 is resonsible, the troposphere (Where there isn't much UV) should be cooler than the air above.
@Twick78 You're wrong on that one Teresa. For a good explanation of the greenhouse effect watch the video link below. If you like this one the rest of his series are just as good.
@Twick78 CO2 is essentially transparent to most wavelengths of sunlight, so CO2 absorbs very little of the solar radiation. Much of the solar radiation reaches the earth surface, then the surface radiates at 15C (infrared) into the atmosphere, where some of the radiation is absorbed by CO2, CH4, and H2O. Infrared absorption is one thing that heats the troposphere, which is one reason why the troposphere is warmer than the stratosphere.
‘ARCTIC’ TV programme with Bruce Parry on the BBC iplayer. In this episode he is in Greenland and examines how CC is changing the lives of people there!
/w w w .bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00xjyfx/Arctic_with_Bruce_Parry_Greenland/
About the lag issue, he says: "causality did not run the way we thought it did".
Hmmmm.... climatologists never asserted that CO2 changes are what initiated prior major climate changes, so this statement is odd indeed. "We thought"? Evans is part of the club of climatologists? He's speaking for them?
With so silly a statement, I find it hard to believe this guy is a climatologist at all. Perhaps he's a "modeller", in the sense of being a computer programmer - I don't know.
Furthermore, his comment about the hotspot issue "falsifying" AGW shows that he has, at best, an undergraduate level of understanding of the nature of how scientific theories are modified, adopted, rejected, and gain & lose confidence. This guy is no scientist - I'd bet big $ on it.
Nice vid. When I've tried to explain this didn't-initiate-doesn't-mean-didn't-contribute reality about the lag, most of the time it isn't understood. Your vid explains it clearly. I think for this, I might direct people to your vid in the future.
Yes spread it as much as you like But it's not really my video, but potholer54's (see my link in the discription) with his permission, which I edited from a longer video! To make a specific point on the subject!
There is no evidence this guy WOULD accept that CO2 is causing global climate change. He says what he won't accept but there is no mention of what he would accept.
He did COST and ECONOMIC modelling of carbon credits (ie spreadsheets and economics) NOT climate modelling. His "logic" on the science and cause of climate change is layman's opinion. He also raises the old "CO2 lags does not lead climate change" rubbish. In the same way as interest follows debt, and more debt means more interest, CO2 and climate are interrelated in a feedback loop and can affect each other. He boldly states stuff about atmospheric warming- WAY out of his area of expertise.
He did COST and ECONOMIC modelling of carbon credits (ie spreadsheets and economics) NOT climate modelling. His "logic" on the science and cause of climate change is layman's opinion.
How many peer reviewed articles on climate change has this guy published? Answer....none. The reason is because all of this is rubbish. Observational evidence is the reason we know its CO2 not models. The Co2 following the warming in the past shows how powerful CO2 is. NASA's Hansen was the guy who predicted CO2 would follow.
This guys presentation isn't science, it's politics. I think his salary depends on it.
@rugbyguy59 It's always the case, isn't it? Some one with a mild case of delusional paranoia gets to articulate a conspiracy "theory" based on his grandmother's advice and a billionaire's talking points and presto, a full blown political manifesto. Why does this get passed on as science? We're semi-evolved pattern seeking primates w/o a real understanding of how science gets adjudicated. WTF???
Right or Wrong about Man made global warming, this guy is right about how the models and evidence should be shared so scientist can repeat the results.
There is a political bias involved, nobody can deny that, and that is reason enough to cast doubt on the whole movement.
Carbon dioxide (CO2) is an essential component of photosynthesis (also called carbon assimilation). Photosynthesis is a chemical process that uses light energy to convert CO2 and water into sugars in green plants. These sugars are then used for growth within the plant, through respiration.
amazing lecture :) we need more people like this who encourage rigorous scientific debate! saying things like: the science is settled, theres nothing more to prove is not scientific, its politics :(
@mwhearn1 The funding is irrelevant..it's the data, the message, and the conclusions drawn from it that are important. The CO2 fundamentalists ignore the evidence that disproves their theories and simply invent their own data.
@Nightversionn actually, it's pretty cool that you have a stalker! think about it, he cares enough about you to deeply hate you, deep down he must know you are right ...
And also, this guys life sucks so much that he must resort to impersonating someone he hates, instead of someone he admires! Pretty sad when u think about it.
@Niightversionn Hey Spitfiremacx You're a lame 69 year old GLOBAL WARMING DENIER impersonating me all over youtube aka N ii ghtversionn Nightvers l ionn Nigh tt versionn Knigh tt vision Nigtversionn Nightver ss ion, Nigh ttt versionn Nightversio m Nightverslon, Nightversio nnn, etc.. Stalker, impersonator, global warming denier. What an imbecile
while we humans do have an impact on our environment, it's not so much so that we're going to die any time soon as a result. The science isn't cut and dry one way or the other which definitely indicates we need a better understanding of exactly what is happening. In the end I think it's only a matter of time before humans either move from this planet, or populate beyond earth's capacity to support life.
He says don't trust the models they prove nothing, then takes a model of the tropical temperature profile (a place where the models have difficulty because there are other factors in the tropics that drive the system) and say "Look is does not fit so it is all wrong".
You cannot have it both ways, if the accurate predictions of models can be dismissed so then can the inaccuate ones.
He does a nice job of showing that the cosmic ray theory of GW is junk. The graph (~8:17) shows no trend!
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
A big tit, paid be oil and or arms industry. world resouces?- use them up, fight over whats left, go back to the fucking stoneage, then cry about what stupid species we are. We somehow survived the cold war by luck. we learn nothing. stupid fucking humans.
9 of the last 10 years were the HOTTEST ever recorded. Only 1998 was hotter than 2000 or any year since.
Search:
Data @ NASA GISS: GISS Surface Temperature Analysis: Graphs
Sun spots and the Net TSI, Total Solar Irradiance, have not increased since 1975. We have satellite data to prove it. Last year TSI was at a 35 year low.
Please check the data. Search:
NASA GISS Do Variations in the Solar Cycle Affect Our Climate System?
9 of last 10 years were the HOTTEST on record. 2009 = 2nd HOTTEST on record & solar irradiance is at 35 year low Search: Data @ NASA GISS: GISS Surface Temperature Analysis: Graphs See: Ranking (Top 10 Warmest Years) The latest on YouTube: It's so Cold, there can't be Global Warming /watch?v=sAvqabAPIr4&feature=sub 50% of arctic sea ice & mountain glaciers have disappeared in just 30 years. Plants, animals & insects are all migrating north Search: Climate Change: NASA's Eyes on the Earth
ref Svensmark'... our solar system's position in our galaxy's 'spiral arms' throughout earth's history, explains it's cosmic radiation effect on earth's atmosphere (the Ice Ages). It is regulated by our Sun's fluctuating magnetosphere. How relevant is the more recent ERBE data in correlation? No wonder the IPCC blocked Svensmark's scientific team's 'paper'. It is revolutionary. It is Threatening to the UN's world control...educational, watch all 6 parts (52 min)...on YT.
it comes down to this...is a greenhouse gas a blanket or a filter?
Blanket...is a convection limiting device. If you add more it traps heat by limiting convection...atmosphere is NOT a blanket.
Filter is a device that removes something, such as spectrum. Once there is no more, adding MORE filters does nothing.
Height to extinction (HTE) is 10 meter (33 ft). The convection layer is 500 ft. The heat in the filter is only in the 10 meter, so a change in co2 does nothing.
Why don't you kindly show me the equations you seem to be referring to. I have taken heat transfer, Gas Dynamics, compressible fluid, Viscous fluids (boundary layer), Thermo I and II, flight dynamics, done wind tunnel tests, control theory, and enough for a Phd....and know how to get 90% of fuel out of the system. I think I know about the physics....
Please, oh wise one, tell me the equations...I can't wait...
@seaplaneguy1 "I have taken heat transfer, Gas Dynamics, compressible fluid, Viscous fluids (boundary layer), Thermo I and II"
Looks like you missed an important one: Radiant Heat Transfer. No worries, even the PhD candidates usually just audit that class. The pertinent equation (simplified):
q = es (T1^4 - T2^4)
Call it a filter, call it a blanket, or call it a heat shield, I don't care. Greenhouse gases increase T2 and thus reduce heat loss.
David unfortunately our Govs and Worldwide Bureacracy has got the scent of cash heaps of it. The figures they are really avoiding are the the figures on how a CARBON TAX would solve the problem(even it did exist,which of course it doesn't).
Some of these Gov opportunists would be better to read the fable about a Goose that layed golden eggs.....keep trying
What is going to happen 10 years from now when the temp is cooler or the same as today? Will the environmental whacks going to except the blame for spending hugh amounts of money for nothing or will they be heros for saving us. If the carbon level is higher but the temp is the same or lower than we should be able to hold them accountable. I have a feeling that they will scatter like roaches when that happens.
the solar cycles on the sun are higher than average causing the earth to heat. they will be at a peak in 2012. gore makes outrageous claims and produces many false models on climate change. he doesn't even have any computer programming skills and does not know how to use statistics accurately. according to him many coastal regions are supposed to be under water. he is making outrageous claims.
Right now, the solar cycle is in a valley--the deepest of the past century. In 2008 and 2009, the sun set Space Age records for low sunspot counts, weak solar wind, and low solar irradiance. The sun has gone more than two years without a significant solar flare.
"In our professional careers, we've never seen anything quite like it," says Pesnell. "Solar minimum has lasted far beyond the date we predicted in 2007."
There were NO weapons of mass destruction in Iraq - just as Dr. Hans Blix said; But, the Republican media machine didn't want us to hear that.
And, there is NO dangerous climate change caused by human carbon dioxide - just as the "independent scientists" are now trying to tell us! But, the Democrat media machine doesn't want us to hear that.
We are made to run from one boogieman to the next, as each political party achieves its own agendas for themselves & their money mates.
potholer54, who's a semi-retired science journalist from Australia has produced 5 excellent YouTubes on the whole science of Global Warming, as well as many other great science vids.
Yesterday, he uploaded his latest, which I highly recommend -- already 4,884 views!
5. Climate Change -- isn't it natural?
/watch?v=w5hs4KVeiAU&feature=sub
It debunks denier's lies about periods of earth's history which had high levels of CO2, particularly the Ordovician which l.bush loves to quote.
"It debunks denier's lies about periods of earth's history which had high levels of CO2, particularly the Ordovician which l.bush loves to quote."
So, you have researched the evidence provided by ice core samples of much higher CO2 levels in the atmosphere.....
Great, SHOW US YOUR EVIDENCE...Ahem.
31,000 scientists / vs 2500?
No.. 31,000 scientists including many quoted from the IPCC as signers verses 62, with 60% of the 2500 quoted signers as being in disagreement with the official story.
The same can be said of the IPCC list, as 60% of the supposedly 'agreeing' scientists disagreed with the accepted report.
Of the 'agreeing' scientists, many are bureaucrats (politicians) whom hold no scientific credentials whatsoever, such as your statement about 'ginger spice'.
Only 62 scientists out of the total were allowed to review, which is against proper and scientific method.
nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes. The challenge, rather, appears to be how to effectively communicate this fact to
policy makers and to a public that continues to mistakenly perceive debate
Do you have a clue about the carbon cycle, ocean acidification, reinforcing mechanisms, fresh water runoff depletion, the risks of methane both from humans and natural sources, deforestation, the water cycle, etc.
What, clueless? There are many books available. If you appreciate chemistry try The Carbon Age. It will provide you with an understanding of carbon and its place in our world.
Learn about the carbon cycle and how it is out of balance. We humans are pumping about 1,000,000 years of stored carbon into the atmosphere EVERY YEAR. There are consequences. The oceans' composition as well as the atmosphere's are changing. Our habitat is degrading.
Google...
Scientist studies the impact of ocean acidification on the Gulf of Maine
Google...
Arctic seas turn to acid, putting vital food chain at risk
Since you can't come up with ONE credible scientific institution that supports your opinion how about a study? I
n your discussions with "many" scientists have any of them completed a peer reviewed study that concludes humans are NOT contributing to global warming? It's highly unlikely. Since you rely on "expert" opinions, read the following survey.
Google... Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change
Its pointless looking on the internet for anything that would resemble a good paper. You have to talk to these guys and ask them the tough questions.
A few guys have had their papers published, but that neither here nor there. There papers that have got through the peer revue such as Manns Hockey Stick paper have proven to be wrong. If you cannot appreciate how political this has become, then there is no helping you.
It disproves the theory that CO2 is the primary GHG, thats what. In any normal situation this crap would have been thrown out of the room. Every model assumes that CO2 is the driver and every model predicted warming. Cooling goes against every hypothesis AGW proponants have come up with.
ARE YOU COMPLETELY INSANE?
The people that have been right are the scientists on the other side of the argument, yet they are all still ignored.
If facts don't fit the theory, the theory is wrong. Basic scientific reasoning.
I am aware of all these political organisations you have jerked off over. You name me one reputable scientist instead. Then again, it depends on what you think is reputable.
I know a bit, having campaigned on both sides of the theory.
I have come across your kind many a time. You are a political animal and nothing more.
You have a check talking about HONEST research - what a joke.
You mean the HONEST research done by HONEST scientists that is completely ignored by the IPCC and ALL MEDIA.Or are you referring to the HONEST research done by Mann and his stupid hockey stick - or hansens stupid and ridiculous claims coupled with his misrepresentations of fact and data. And lets not forget your savior AL Gore - well enough said.
The Internet, as vast as it is, should not be the primary source of information. If I based any scientific reporting with crap I found on the internet, my stuff would be thrown out in an instant.
Data changes all the time. AGW fitted the data of the time (80s and 90s). It does not fit any of the recent data, hence the AGW theory must be rejected.
You are quite obviously blinded by your belief and are incapable of change. The science is beyond you, so leave it to the scientists.
Data changes? No kidding. So what you are saying is that YOUR interpretation of recent data tells YOU that AGW isn't occurring.
Who cares? Why would anyone find your opinion in the least bit reliable?
You clearly didn't use the link I provided and I'm sure you didn't research what those institutions have concluded. Why not? Afraid of what you'll find? Think maybe you know better than they do?
"Who cares? Why would anyone find your opinion in the least bit reliable?"
Not as DickChambers69. You are quite right, ReduceGHGs.
Wiki is my first choice when referencing.
I believed in AGW for a number of years, almost as aggressively as you. Then, in time, the data that was being collected didn't fit with what I thought to be right. I had to re-evaluate my position. It was pretty hard for me to accept that I might be wrong.
Members of the Denialist Cult don't want to see the evidence. They don't want to acknowledge that all of our respected scientific institutions concur on the core issue; HUMANS are warming the planet mostly by burning fossil fuels and clearing the land. There's no credible debate in the scientific community.
For those NOT of the Denialist Cult here's an interesting article about global warming affects on Africa.
Google...
New Study Suggests Climate Change Could Devastate African Economies
The study found that the expected impact of the climate shifts will disproportionately hit the rural poor, many of whom are subsistence farmers. 80 percent of Tanzania's workforce is in the agricultural sector, and almost half of the nation's GDP is directly tied to farming.
Stop referencing webpages and google. These are not references. Give names of Scientists and the papers they have written. Give us a little meat with the bone you're throwing.
Yea, that was me, the same one debunking all your BS. Here's more.
Google...
Scientists emerge from ivory tower to confront politicians
Google...
Pro-Global Warming Study Receives Worldwide Headlines; Discovery
Do some reading. Or, tell me a little about the last book you read about this issue. What? Haven't read a book about it? No kidding. How do you like making decisions in the dark? So far, the results are as expected.
believe it or not, the so called "hockystick" was more accurate graph then the first graph the IPCC made in 1990. their first graph which showed the midevil warm period being very warm wasn't accurate.
they got samples mainly from europe. but later, they did more reseached, did samples from more areas around the globe, took up tree ringed samples, corel samples more ice core samples, and in 1998 came up with the so called "hockystick" later 2007, they came up with a 3d graph.
That is a blatant lie. the results are not whats been expected. Why do they keep altering their own predictions. They haven't predicted the last 9 years correctly.
We haven't even gone beyond what is considered normal variance. Even Hadley admitted they did not expect this cooling period. Models assume CO2 and temperature are solely linked to one another.
"Do some reading. Or, tell me a little about the last book you read about this issue. What? Haven't read a book about it? No kidding. How do you like making decisions in the dark? So far, the results are as expected."
Try not to take my comments out of context. It may make you sound like you are dumber than a box of rocks. Rise above it.
Haven't read a book about this issue? No kidding.
Don't have credible support for your position? No kidding.
It's nothing short of scandelous that the wider public don't hear this kind of damning evidence from an actual scientist and an expert in the area. The media and left side of politics is to blame. There is so much at stake that the GW hysteria continues for those who push the message.
Only one side of the scientific story is being told when it is. There are at LEAST 32,000 scientists who dispute AGW yet we keeping hearing "there is consensus" amongst scientists!...we are ALL being played!
People supply. People demand. Only one problem. What do we do when it all runs out? Capitialism - great idea. Consume. Get richer by demanding that other people consume. Consume all the trees. All the fish. Get stinking rich from it. And then it all runs out. Annual growth is a no brainer. Sustainability is impossible. Only people who believe in the pyramid are the pharoahs. God save the Israelites and logic.
Stop scaremongering with your false choice. We can change the way we use energy and how we exist in the biosphere for the sake of future generations.
Freedoms? Do you want everyone to be free to continue to dump waste unabated into the atmosphere? What about the rights of those negatively affected by climate changes? What of their "freedoms". Free do suffer and die? Your position is baseless.
So the next time you label NASA, NOAA, EPA, and AAAS something foolish like "ding-dongs", 'eco-freaks", or "eligious cult", how about a little support for those conclusions. No, being a silly delusional kid is NOT a reasonable excuse. Try something else.
Why is Pluto no longer considered a planet, when it's been considered one by astronomers for over 70 years? Was Nasa wrong?
Because "International Astronomical Union" decided to change its classification, it's now officially known as a "dwarf planet", but some dissenting scientists from Nasa and others say it should've kept it's original classification.
Too bad for them, the bigger institute made it's decision.
The facts more recently learned about Pluto put it into a different category.
Google... Scientists: Pluto not a planet - Space
And is there a point you were trying to make? Are you trying to make an illogical leap to say that because NASA was wrong about Pluto therefore they are wrong about AGW? Now that indeed would be a leap of illogic that no reasonable person would make.
Global warming isn't just a NASA conclusion. Try NAS, NOAA, AAAS, AGU, and many others. Read their conclusions.
Putting your faith in institutions instead of relying on reason will lead you to conclusions based on what other people believe, and not what you believe, and that allows for unconvincing theories to predominate.
It seems that because an institution believes something, that's convincing enough for you. That is one of the most famous of logical fallacies.
I think you make consensus out to be much more than it is. I believe there were more wrong consensuses than correct ones in history.
The rational make decisions based on the best evidence available, every day, every action.
Perhaps you know of a more reliable source of information about climate change? I don't. Especially when they ALL basically agree on the core issue.
On the other hand you can put your faith in corporate think tanks. After all, they are the ones pushing the naysaying position. Ya think they might be a bit biased?
If you see a curve in the road will you turn the wheel or distrust your eyes?
Do you think climatologists don't have a financial interest in saying there's a crisis? Funding for climate science has increased 10-fold since this global warming hysteria began.
I won't claim they're entirely selfish, but if you're going to say all global warming skeptics are corporate schills, then you make the opposite argument equally valid.
I've watched scientists debate the issue and have read scientific publications, and I'm not convinced that humans cause climate change.
I should also mention by the way that your dig at corporations just adds credence to Patrick Moore's, the co-founder of Greenpeace, opinion that marxists now use environmentalism as a vehicle for anti-capitalism. It makes sense, since they can now make people afraid of capitalism in a way that they hadn't thought of before by moving from the position that capitalism creates social inequality, to capitalism destroys the world.
What? Commie paranoia? Get off it. That crap is a sorry and baseless excuse.
So to believe you climatologists from many countries around the world all conspire to lie about their data and conclusions and have been doing so undetected for decades. Wow! Ya really gota hand it to the skill and ability to falsify and cover up their tracks.
And there are no HONEST institutions except for CEI and CATO? LOL!
Does NASA, NOAA, EPA funding depends on results? No. Sorry. You're "out of gas".
There's no doubt that among environmentalists there is a romanticizing of agrarian life, and a contempt for capitalism.
Do you disagree?
"And there are no HONEST institutions except for CEI and CATO? LOL!"
I don't remember mentioning these institutes, or making that argument. Unless I'm getting CO2 poisoning from our atmosphere and losing my memory, you've just erected a strawman.
i can't find any peer review papers written on this subject by david evans. anyone have any links?
mwhearn1 2 weeks ago
The debate has changed from whether the planet's climate is warming to whether humans are responsible, rather what can we do to slow to the warming. Corporations have won public relations debate.
hank1961 2 weeks ago
Using similar simplistic maths logic as m1aws.
- You only use 10% of your brain capacity at any one time.
- You are on YouTube less than 1% of the time.
- The average I Q =100.
- Therefore recent dumbo comments about CO2 reflect 10%x1%x100 = an I Q level of 0.1
tiny url. com / co2 -3- p c t-f a ll a c y
This shows why the exchange of carbon between the atmosphere and other carbon reservoirs (ocean, living things), and explains the "3% fallacy" loved by m1aws.
indulis1 2 months ago
@indulis1 My iq is 143 and I spend 80% of my time on youtube, baited by fools like yourself. Funny that. I just boiled the kettle to make a cup of tea, the bl**dy water turned milky when warmed! Out gassing billions of bubbles of aromatics. I wonder what non existence caused this huh!
You should be hanging on to that theory to PROVE your lies but hey, even school kids know CO2 precedes warming.
m1aws 2 months ago
berkeleyearth . org study results show that with the "bad stations" in or out, the temperature rise is happening, and matches the rise seen by other methods (satellite data etc). So endeth any credibility for your anti-science view and belief in the "worldwide government communist climate change scientist conspiracy".
""Our biggest surprise was that the new results agreed so closely with the warming values published previously by other teams in the US and the UK," said Prof Muller.
indulis1 2 months ago
Comment removed
indulis1 2 months ago
@m1aws You are completely incorrect. The latest analysis was funded in part by oil magnates the Koch brothers. "UC Berkeley physicists and statisticians that set out to challenge the scientific consensus on global warming is finding that ... [it]is producing results nearly identical to those underlying the prevailing view. The Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project was launched by physics prof. Richard Muller" ber kel e y earth.org
indulis1 2 months ago
Global warming is just 1 of thousands of lies told to us by the leaders of this world.
just4playin1 3 months ago
Comment removed
Salubriousme 4 months ago
Very true ... Co2 is not rising sharply robzed you moron ... the greenhouse gases protect the planet ... global warming and cooling is cyclical .... the sun controls our weather.
Salubriousme 4 months ago
@Salubriousme The sun is just ONE of the factors that controls the climate. There are people who study the different factors, and correct for them. For example, in the past when volcanoes were very active, there was more CO2, and the planet was hotter. Simple minds think that if the sun controlled the climate in the past, then *only* the sun can control it now. The truth is more complicated. And as far as CO2 not rising, where the bleep did you dream that up from? It is completely untrue!
indulis1 2 months ago
This guy is just some failed IT data-entry monkey, he's obviously had "HR" issues with the rest of the team- his sneering and his demeanour speaks volumes.
Ice age temperature rises were not caused by Co2 increase and no-one is claiming that it was. The precession of the earth on its axis causes the earth to go in and out of ice ages. The CO2 profile is merely responding to that rather than causing it.
The physics of CO2 heat absorption is well known, and CO2 is definitely rising sharply.
robzed2 4 months ago
The temperature on the moon varies from -387 Fahrenheit (-233 Celsius), at night, to 253 Fahrenheit (123 Celsius) during the day. This is evidence of the power of the sun across its static surface, for CD Global Warmists to say our Carbon Dioxide excess (390-450 ppm) has any relevance is absurd under such cosmic power! The TAX is purely to allow the UN to raid (steal) 3rd world economies, redesign their fuel resources and claim benefits from capping fossil fuels to regulate higher prices.
evilstoo 5 months ago 2
@Mezzaaaaa What is so interesting about your question is that you can use 400 million year old proxy data and represent it as fact, but thermometers are outright fallacious. Please remember that probably the greatest marine extinctions took place then and it lasted only about 500 thousand years. This is further evidence of CO2 as a strong amplifier of climate change. There, how did I do?
dwolfcoach 5 months ago
@Mezzaaaaa Wow, I love these questions. I know it is a loaded question, but I'll try not to be presumptuous. So what source tells you 4400 ppm? Do you reject the last 130 years measured w/ a thermometer? Young 2009, and Young 2010, both use proxy data to explain why it wasn't 4400, more like 3000 and was probably the reason this glacial period was so short lived. And no one is saying that CO2 is the primary driver of climate. The sun's output was also lower. So much was different than today.
dwolfcoach 5 months ago
Regarding most sunspot CO2 global warming science the dancing Wu-Shu Masters of Washington & Whitehall discovered that not only can you curve space & bend time but you can also warp the laws of solar physics merely by getting tenured scientists to repeat unscientific drivel about magnetic anomalies causing sunspots rather than the other way around & as for the reality of the star beginning to burn it’s iron all you’ve got to do is believe what you’re told & then dance & SHAKE YOUR BOOTY on cue.
spacelizardlaw 5 months ago
He also keeps trotting out the "US temp stations are poorly sited on purpose- its a conspiracy!" rubbish. Just recently the Koch brothers who are oil barons co-funded Mueller (a nuclear physicist) to reanalyze all of the weather station data in the USA excluding the "suspect stations". And the result- "a global warming trend that is very similar to that previously reported by the other groups". So no conspiracy. Dr Evans keeps talking about this so-called (nonexistent) conspiracy. Even today.
indulis1 5 months ago
@indulis1 The US temperature stations are nearly alln built up areas now. So your point of view is a fallacy. Here's the proof in four parts. I think yours is on part 4:
watch?v=VDX2ExKYyqw
m1aws 3 months ago
@m1aws You just don't get it do you- the new analysis was done by a CO2 climate change SKEPTIC & proved that there is no effect on the temperature rise if you leave the "suspect" urban stations in or out. You get pretty much the same rising temperature trend whether the "consipracy placed" stations are included or excluded from the analysis. Do you get it now? So David Evans is categorically wrong yet again-just like his claim that Argo data was hidden, took me 2 mins in google to find it
indulis1 2 months ago
@indulis1 You just don't get it do you- If you remove all the stations that were included which showed a false positive then you end up with a true negative.
Your 2 mins on Google ended up on other sites which make its money out of this scam.
Lets do this by maths:
CO2 absorption by light bandwidth =7%
Amount of CO2 man made = 3%
Total quantity of abortion in those bands = 50%
So: 0.5x0.03x0.07 = The grand total of 1.28625e-06. That is mans influence on the atmosphere.
U call me. Conspiracy?
m1aws 2 months ago
@m1aws Your "maths" shows how little you understand the complexities of feedback in the climate system. Multiplying a few number together is invalid. Also, your"facts" that 3% of CO2 is man-made is also wrong. 1960 to 2010 CO2 rose from about 300ppm to about 380ppm. A lot more than 3%. CO2 cycles through various sinks and sources (like plants, our bodies, coral reef) so it is cycling in and out. So over time some fossil fuel CO2 gets absorbed there, and non-fossil fuel CO2 gets released.
indulis1 2 months ago
@indulis1 As goes maths, I love maths, a lifelong aerospace stress engineer of the old school.
The maths behind a wheel can get stupid complicated but its still a bl**dy wheel! The maths are simple.
I'm happy CO2 is being returned into the atmosphere. This will help feed the hungry. Apart from water, the other main ingredient by far in your food is CO2. We can return the last half of the Earths CO2 until the cows keel over and the difference in temp will never reach mid Holocene levels.
m1aws 2 months ago
@indulis1 You have proved you have no idea on the feedback on the system. There isn't much of one at all!
Reality is not invalid, your words (is all they are) is.
Coral reefs huh? They get so big and deep islands are formed! The Alps are mainly limestone. Trillions of tons of chalk make up England alone. When the big "A" hit the Earth 75M yr ago, it hit limestone releasing so much CO2 it would of literally turned the Earth into another Venus by your reckoning. Plants flourished after this.
m1aws 2 months ago
@indulis1 The papers that were released on redoing the readings against modern urban heat island effect was done by Wang and another by Jones. Professor Bob Carter checked their work and loudly calls them liars, so the temperature data is effectively defrauded. They can try to sue him but he has the facts on his side.
So endeth your conspiracy theory of the denialists. I reckon you'll just not get it will you.
m1aws 2 months ago
He obviously doesn't know what he's talking about, as he gets it wrong in regards to what part of the atmosphere should be warming (it's the troposphere -- the lower atmosphere -- both in theory and by measurements, while the stratosphere is cooling since less heat is escaping.)
You are willing to believe this guy when thousands of real climate scientists are saying otherwise? Do your homework.
drpjosephmd 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Why dont the following web adverts surprise me?
Find out how to profit from a forward contract in the carbon credit markets
Investment entry level from only 2000 Euros!The price of carbon is expected to double by 2013 and double again by 2020 according to research carried out by Sceptre, just complete the form on the right hand side to receive your FREE investment report and find out more
unreal22000 6 months ago
OUTSTANDING..... all this from 2007! where has the TRUTH been - swept under the carpet like CLIMATEGATE by the media and political propaganda - all Carbon Faithists WAKE UP! you are led by dogma and diatribe = not FACTS... but never let facts get in the way of a good story....
evilstoo 6 months ago
@Mezzaaaaa You state this as fact, am I right? Where does the evidence for this conclusion come from? If you want to cite Paleoclimate data, I suggest you use all of the data and not just what you want to see. If you'd like links to the last 800,000 years and the source for this, let me know, I'll give it to you. I apologize if I sound terse, but usually these questions do not want a scientific answer, they want to turn their view extolled as fact.
dwolfcoach 7 months ago
Having 6 irrelevant Phd's makes you a wanker not an expert.
If you want to listen to this side of the argument - good on you, every complicated argument has 2 sides and that's healthy, just know that by fighting on this dickheads side (his side consists of about as many retarded pricks that would vote for the mad monk right now), if you are wrong where does that leave you?
headorbinski 7 months ago
havent the govt operates in the global warming scam ever heard of geo engineering and weather machines like haarp? Perhaps they should study biowarfare instead of blaming carbon dioxide for all the weather manipulations they are creating with HAARP! I'm impressed that this guy has seen the light, only took him ten years..!
SovereignBeing 8 months ago
‘This week, a study has shown that the devastating floods which damaged nearly 10,000 properties in England and Wales in 2000, and cost £1.3 billion in insurance losses, were made significantly more likely by climate change caused by humans…The bottom line of all this? Allen and his team found that human greenhouse gas emissions "significantly increased" the likelihood of the 2000 floods.’
w w w .newscientist. c o m/article/dn20141-blame-human-emissions-for-british-floods.html
blackadderthe4 11 months ago
@blackadderthe4 Sounds like a biased site; no thanks sheep.
Sugardaddy501 10 months ago
@Sugardaddy501
Of course it biased! To SCIENCE but not to myths.
blackadderthe4 10 months ago
David Evans did a 180 deg. turn just like Kepler! ... "When [Kepler] found that his long cherished beliefs did not agree with the most precise observations, he accepted the uncomfortable facts. He preferred the hard truth to his dearest illusions. That is the heart of science." (Carl Sagan) ... good job!
StonesDunedin 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
To paraphrase. The trees in Northern Russia near the arctic circle are being attacked by beetles as they survive the winter, that used to be killed of by the colder weather.
And from weather station in northern Norway, they have detected increase levels of methane, from the melting permafrost...temperature rise at the same rate the arctic ocean will be free of ice in a few decades.
w w w.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00ylx9f/Arctic_with_Bruce_Parry_Northern_Europe/
remove hyphen after Parry
blackadderthe4 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
To paraphrase. The trees in Northern Russia near the arctic circle are being attacked by beetles as they survive the winter, that used to be killed of by the colder weather.
And from weather station in northern Norway, they have detected increase levels of methane, from the melting permafrost...temperature rise at the same rate the arctic ocean will be free of ice in a few decades.
w w w.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00ylx9f/Arctic_with_Bruce_Parry_Northern_Europe/
remove hyphen after Parry
blackadderthe4 11 months ago
‘Arctic’ Bruce Parry
‘Bruce travels to the far north of Canada to live with the Caribou people and witness their annual spring hunt. The Gwitchin tribe has hunted migrating caribou in the Arctic wilderness for thousands of years, but this tradition is now under threat from oil exploration’
‘Unusually warm winter…The caribou are very sensitive….to the warming climate’
w w w .bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00ydbl9/Arctic_with_Bruce_Parry_Canada/
blackadderthe4 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
‘Arctic’ Bruce Parry
‘Bruce travels to the far north of Canada to live with the Caribou people and witness their annual spring hunt. The Gwitchin tribe has hunted migrating caribou in the Arctic wilderness for thousands of years, but this tradition is now under threat from oil exploration’
‘Unusually warm winter…The caribou are very sensitive….to the warming climate’
w w w .bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00ydbl9/Arctic_with_Bruce_Parry_Canada/
blackadderthe4 1 year ago
At 5.10 he says global warming should warm the upper atmosphere faster than the lower atmosphere. But actually the opposite is true. If carbon dioxide was responsible the troposphere should warm while the stratosphere cools which is exactly what's happening. This is even shown at 5.19. Credibility for this video, none
Richard482 1 year ago
@Richard482 Carbon dioxide could warm the atmosphere only if it received sunlight (UV light is transformed into infra red). More sunlight reaches the upper atmosphere than the lower atmosphere, and so if CO2 is resonsible, the troposphere (Where there isn't much UV) should be cooler than the air above.
It's not.
Twick78 11 months ago
@Twick78 You're wrong on that one Teresa. For a good explanation of the greenhouse effect watch the video link below. If you like this one the rest of his series are just as good.
watch?v=52KLGqDSAjo
Richard482 11 months ago
@Twick78 CO2 is essentially transparent to most wavelengths of sunlight, so CO2 absorbs very little of the solar radiation. Much of the solar radiation reaches the earth surface, then the surface radiates at 15C (infrared) into the atmosphere, where some of the radiation is absorbed by CO2, CH4, and H2O. Infrared absorption is one thing that heats the troposphere, which is one reason why the troposphere is warmer than the stratosphere.
terrymorse 11 months ago
@terrymorse Perfect! Even though the conspiracy theorists will still deny physics, at least you're trying to right the ship. Bravo, real science!
dwolfcoach 7 months ago
@Twick78
You could find this link useful!
watch?v=_RdAKIN6Y6k
blackadderthe4 11 months ago
Before you claim to know what is going on with the climate you should spend a few hours reading through the "skepticalscience" website.
katakanadian 1 year ago
‘ARCTIC’ TV programme with Bruce Parry on the BBC iplayer. In this episode he is in Greenland and examines how CC is changing the lives of people there!
/w w w .bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00xjyfx/Arctic_with_Bruce_Parry_Greenland/
blackadderthe4 1 year ago
About the lag issue, he says: "causality did not run the way we thought it did".
Hmmmm.... climatologists never asserted that CO2 changes are what initiated prior major climate changes, so this statement is odd indeed. "We thought"? Evans is part of the club of climatologists? He's speaking for them?
With so silly a statement, I find it hard to believe this guy is a climatologist at all. Perhaps he's a "modeller", in the sense of being a computer programmer - I don't know.
VeryEvilPettingZoo 1 year ago
(cont)
Furthermore, his comment about the hotspot issue "falsifying" AGW shows that he has, at best, an undergraduate level of understanding of the nature of how scientific theories are modified, adopted, rejected, and gain & lose confidence. This guy is no scientist - I'd bet big $ on it.
VeryEvilPettingZoo 1 year ago
@VeryEvilPettingZoo
Here is a good expanation of the 800 year co2 lag,
watch?v=S8r46j2WrNk
blackadderthe4 1 year ago
@blackadderthe4
Nice vid. When I've tried to explain this didn't-initiate-doesn't-mean-didn't-contribute reality about the lag, most of the time it isn't understood. Your vid explains it clearly. I think for this, I might direct people to your vid in the future.
VeryEvilPettingZoo 1 year ago
@VeryEvilPettingZoo
Yes spread it as much as you like But it's not really my video, but potholer54's (see my link in the discription) with his permission, which I edited from a longer video! To make a specific point on the subject!
blackadderthe4 1 year ago
There is no evidence this guy WOULD accept that CO2 is causing global climate change. He says what he won't accept but there is no mention of what he would accept.
indulis1 1 year ago
He did COST and ECONOMIC modelling of carbon credits (ie spreadsheets and economics) NOT climate modelling. His "logic" on the science and cause of climate change is layman's opinion. He also raises the old "CO2 lags does not lead climate change" rubbish. In the same way as interest follows debt, and more debt means more interest, CO2 and climate are interrelated in a feedback loop and can affect each other. He boldly states stuff about atmospheric warming- WAY out of his area of expertise.
indulis1 1 year ago
He did COST and ECONOMIC modelling of carbon credits (ie spreadsheets and economics) NOT climate modelling. His "logic" on the science and cause of climate change is layman's opinion.
indulis1 1 year ago
EnvironMENTALism
feelzthelove 1 year ago
How many peer reviewed articles on climate change has this guy published? Answer....none. The reason is because all of this is rubbish. Observational evidence is the reason we know its CO2 not models. The Co2 following the warming in the past shows how powerful CO2 is. NASA's Hansen was the guy who predicted CO2 would follow.
This guys presentation isn't science, it's politics. I think his salary depends on it.
rugbyguy59 1 year ago 2
@rugbyguy59 It's always the case, isn't it? Some one with a mild case of delusional paranoia gets to articulate a conspiracy "theory" based on his grandmother's advice and a billionaire's talking points and presto, a full blown political manifesto. Why does this get passed on as science? We're semi-evolved pattern seeking primates w/o a real understanding of how science gets adjudicated. WTF???
dwolfcoach 1 year ago
Right or Wrong about Man made global warming, this guy is right about how the models and evidence should be shared so scientist can repeat the results.
There is a political bias involved, nobody can deny that, and that is reason enough to cast doubt on the whole movement.
Khyrid 1 year ago
But what about Man-Bear-Pig?
TheJcp1234 1 year ago
Carbon dioxide (CO2) is an essential component of photosynthesis (also called carbon assimilation). Photosynthesis is a chemical process that uses light energy to convert CO2 and water into sugars in green plants. These sugars are then used for growth within the plant, through respiration.
shazizz 1 year ago
This is bullshit..
cypress1337 1 year ago
@cypress1337 how about extrapolating on "bullshit"
bbj56pf 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@cypress1337 how about extrapolating on "bullshit"
bbj56pf 1 year ago
@cypress1337 WHY???
bbj56pf 1 year ago
amazing lecture :) we need more people like this who encourage rigorous scientific debate! saying things like: the science is settled, theres nothing more to prove is not scientific, its politics :(
alexhamster1134 1 year ago 3
@alexhamster1134
he is funded by Australian Climate Science Coalition which is funded by exxon. so is this science or politics?
mwhearn1 2 weeks ago
@mwhearn1 The funding is irrelevant..it's the data, the message, and the conclusions drawn from it that are important. The CO2 fundamentalists ignore the evidence that disproves their theories and simply invent their own data.
leartiste2001 1 week ago
core samples taken from ice at the poles show that heat levels change before carbon levels change, not after
WONDOCTORJ 1 year ago 4
"Show us your evidence and show us your models."
It will never happen!
What evidence?
Twick78 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
The global warming denier familiar mantra...
·that ozone depletion is nothing to worry about
·that smoking doesn't cause cancer
·that second-hand smoke is nothing to worry about anyway
·and now that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is nothing to worry about.
-add that habitat loss and species extinction is nothing to care about
-add impersonating people on youtube is considered normal to deniers
There is no end to global warming denier lameness
Nightversionn 1 year ago
@Nightversionn actually, it's pretty cool that you have a stalker! think about it, he cares enough about you to deeply hate you, deep down he must know you are right ...
And also, this guys life sucks so much that he must resort to impersonating someone he hates, instead of someone he admires! Pretty sad when u think about it.
kneegroaw 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@Niightversionn
EXCUSE ME
YOUR accout is a week old
MINE is three years old
what a lame global warming DENIER
Nightversionn 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@Niightversionn
Is that why you go around impersonating people who talk about the problem of global warming, all over youtube?
Nightversionn 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Nightversionn 1 year ago
while we humans do have an impact on our environment, it's not so much so that we're going to die any time soon as a result. The science isn't cut and dry one way or the other which definitely indicates we need a better understanding of exactly what is happening. In the end I think it's only a matter of time before humans either move from this planet, or populate beyond earth's capacity to support life.
canisdormit 1 year ago
He says don't trust the models they prove nothing, then takes a model of the tropical temperature profile (a place where the models have difficulty because there are other factors in the tropics that drive the system) and say "Look is does not fit so it is all wrong".
You cannot have it both ways, if the accurate predictions of models can be dismissed so then can the inaccuate ones.
He does a nice job of showing that the cosmic ray theory of GW is junk. The graph (~8:17) shows no trend!
drkstrong 1 year ago
look its simple man made global warming = fail
sluterry 2 years ago 3
This comment has received too many negative votes show
A big tit, paid be oil and or arms industry. world resouces?- use them up, fight over whats left, go back to the fucking stoneage, then cry about what stupid species we are. We somehow survived the cold war by luck. we learn nothing. stupid fucking humans.
mcwolfus 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
2009 = 2nd HOTTEST on record.
Temps. spiked over 0.5C since 1975
9 of the last 10 years were the HOTTEST ever recorded. Only 1998 was hotter than 2000 or any year since.
Search:
Data @ NASA GISS: GISS Surface Temperature Analysis: Graphs
Sun spots and the Net TSI, Total Solar Irradiance, have not increased since 1975. We have satellite data to prove it. Last year TSI was at a 35 year low.
Please check the data. Search:
NASA GISS Do Variations in the Solar Cycle Affect Our Climate System?
goog2k 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@goog2k
@goog2k
@Nightversionn
global warmists
like paidTROLLgoog2kOILNightversionn
accuse others of conspiring to make money
all the while hiding their ties to BIG OIL
WHOA
Spitfiremacx 1 year ago
Look up the term "insulator".
Tacair1 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
goog2k 2 years ago
Comment removed
goog2k 2 years ago
Comment removed
goog2k 2 years ago
dont believe al-gore
cenarulesedgesucks 2 years ago 18
This has been flagged as spam show
@cenarulesedgesucks yes we must stand up to him
andytubeism 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Fed up of being labelled and treated like shite?
Watch the video, subscribe if you want, make our numbers felt.
watch?v=6_munPU0tfU
Tacair1 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ref Svensmark'... our solar system's position in our galaxy's 'spiral arms' throughout earth's history, explains it's cosmic radiation effect on earth's atmosphere (the Ice Ages). It is regulated by our Sun's fluctuating magnetosphere. How relevant is the more recent ERBE data in correlation? No wonder the IPCC blocked Svensmark's scientific team's 'paper'. It is revolutionary. It is Threatening to the UN's world control...educational, watch all 6 parts (52 min)...on YT.
Blogengezer 2 years ago
it comes down to this...is a greenhouse gas a blanket or a filter?
Blanket...is a convection limiting device. If you add more it traps heat by limiting convection...atmosphere is NOT a blanket.
Filter is a device that removes something, such as spectrum. Once there is no more, adding MORE filters does nothing.
Height to extinction (HTE) is 10 meter (33 ft). The convection layer is 500 ft. The heat in the filter is only in the 10 meter, so a change in co2 does nothing.
Game over.
seaplaneguy1 2 years ago
Fail!
A blanket keeps you warm by radiating back toward your skin some of the IR that your skin radiated outward toward the blanket.
This is basic thermodynamics you dummy! Hahaha.
AtomSmash3r 2 years ago
AtomSmash3t,
Ah, nOOOOO, that is NOT how a blanket works. It is a convection limited device, and a conduction limiting device within the actual blanket. Sorry.
FAIL, FAIL, FAIL
seaplaneguy1 2 years ago
Hahahahaha poor seaplaneguy. He doesn't even understand basic grade school science. Go away and learn some basic science, fool.
AtomSmash3r 2 years ago
AtomSmash,
Why don't you kindly show me the equations you seem to be referring to. I have taken heat transfer, Gas Dynamics, compressible fluid, Viscous fluids (boundary layer), Thermo I and II, flight dynamics, done wind tunnel tests, control theory, and enough for a Phd....and know how to get 90% of fuel out of the system. I think I know about the physics....
Please, oh wise one, tell me the equations...I can't wait...
seaplaneguy1 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@seaplaneguy1 "I have taken heat transfer, Gas Dynamics, compressible fluid, Viscous fluids (boundary layer), Thermo I and II"
Looks like you missed an important one: Radiant Heat Transfer. No worries, even the PhD candidates usually just audit that class. The pertinent equation (simplified):
q = es (T1^4 - T2^4)
Call it a filter, call it a blanket, or call it a heat shield, I don't care. Greenhouse gases increase T2 and thus reduce heat loss.
terrymorse 11 months ago
@AtomSmash3r "This is basic thermodynamics you dummy! Hahaha."
Wrong you obviously haven't done basic thermodynamics
OvoidCranium 1 year ago
David unfortunately our Govs and Worldwide Bureacracy has got the scent of cash heaps of it. The figures they are really avoiding are the the figures on how a CARBON TAX would solve the problem(even it did exist,which of course it doesn't).
Some of these Gov opportunists would be better to read the fable about a Goose that layed golden eggs.....keep trying
blokeatone 2 years ago
Don't forget Al Gore's family made a fortune from Occidental Petroleum, who will no doubt be in the carbon trading game. He is as dirty as they come.
newnoggin2 2 years ago 2
What is going to happen 10 years from now when the temp is cooler or the same as today? Will the environmental whacks going to except the blame for spending hugh amounts of money for nothing or will they be heros for saving us. If the carbon level is higher but the temp is the same or lower than we should be able to hold them accountable. I have a feeling that they will scatter like roaches when that happens.
kingmike40 2 years ago
the solar cycles on the sun are higher than average causing the earth to heat. they will be at a peak in 2012. gore makes outrageous claims and produces many false models on climate change. he doesn't even have any computer programming skills and does not know how to use statistics accurately. according to him many coastal regions are supposed to be under water. he is making outrageous claims.
x11115 2 years ago
Right now, the solar cycle is in a valley--the deepest of the past century. In 2008 and 2009, the sun set Space Age records for low sunspot counts, weak solar wind, and low solar irradiance. The sun has gone more than two years without a significant solar flare.
"In our professional careers, we've never seen anything quite like it," says Pesnell. "Solar minimum has lasted far beyond the date we predicted in 2007."
source: NOAA
bernzeppi 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NEW truth - just out!
Global Warming -
SEE "Lord Christopher Monckton: From Global Warming to Global Governance"
A MUST see . . .
SEE "Lord Christopher Monckton: From Global Warming to Global Governance"
This has become a lot worse than we ever thought it could, and "Lord Christopher Monckton: From Global Warming to Global Governance" shows us why.
NEW truth - just out!
Global Warming - SEE "Lord Christopher Monckton: From Global Warming to Global Governance"
A MUST see . . .
weallknowitstrue 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NEW truth - just out!
Global Warming - SEE Professor Bob Carter
A MUST see . . .
SEE Professor Bob Carter
SEE Professor Bob Carter
This has become a lot worse than we ever thought it could, and Professor Bob Carter shows us why.
NEW truth - just out!
Global Warming - SEE Professor Bob Carter
A MUST see . . .
.
weallknowitstrue 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
There were NO weapons of mass destruction in Iraq - just as Dr. Hans Blix said; But, the Republican media machine didn't want us to hear that.
And, there is NO dangerous climate change caused by human carbon dioxide - just as the "independent scientists" are now trying to tell us! But, the Democrat media machine doesn't want us to hear that.
We are made to run from one boogieman to the next, as each political party achieves its own agendas for themselves & their money mates.
Bob Carter
weallknowitstrue 2 years ago
Good news!
potholer54, who's a semi-retired science journalist from Australia has produced 5 excellent YouTubes on the whole science of Global Warming, as well as many other great science vids.
Yesterday, he uploaded his latest, which I highly recommend -- already 4,884 views!
5. Climate Change -- isn't it natural?
/watch?v=w5hs4KVeiAU&feature=sub
It debunks denier's lies about periods of earth's history which had high levels of CO2, particularly the Ordovician which l.bush loves to quote.
goog2k 2 years ago
"It debunks denier's lies about periods of earth's history which had high levels of CO2, particularly the Ordovician which l.bush loves to quote."
So, you have researched the evidence provided by ice core samples of much higher CO2 levels in the atmosphere.....
Great, SHOW US YOUR EVIDENCE...Ahem.
31,000 scientists / vs 2500?
No.. 31,000 scientists including many quoted from the IPCC as signers verses 62, with 60% of the 2500 quoted signers as being in disagreement with the official story.
pauldude000 2 years ago
Those 31,000 'scientists' include Dr Geri Halliwell AKA: Ginger Spice
Includes veterinarians and plumbers (they call themselves engineers these days)
Also includes many scientists who want their name removed from that list
Put simply it is a crock
bernzeppi 2 years ago
Nice try.. read below.
pauldude000 2 years ago
he is right!
AGW is for stupid believers and reality deniers!
vogelstraussenior 2 years ago
The same can be said of the IPCC list, as 60% of the supposedly 'agreeing' scientists disagreed with the accepted report.
Of the 'agreeing' scientists, many are bureaucrats (politicians) whom hold no scientific credentials whatsoever, such as your statement about 'ginger spice'.
Only 62 scientists out of the total were allowed to review, which is against proper and scientific method.
Nice try though.
pauldude000 2 years ago 3
Comment removed
pauldude000 2 years ago
AGW is now a religion/belief, according to British courts.
DickChambers69 2 years ago 3
Ceck out the "Consensus" link on my prior post.
"It seems that the debate on the
authenticity of global warming and the
role played by human activity is largely
nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes. The challenge, rather, appears to be how to effectively communicate this fact to
policy makers and to a public that continues to mistakenly perceive debate
among scientists."
There is NO CREDIBLE DEBATE.
ReduceGHGs 2 years ago
There is or was no debate. That was the whole problem.
DickChambers69 2 years ago
ReduceGHGs,
You seem to be the one in denial.
DickChambers69 2 years ago
Have you ever read a book about this?
Do you have a clue about the carbon cycle, ocean acidification, reinforcing mechanisms, fresh water runoff depletion, the risks of methane both from humans and natural sources, deforestation, the water cycle, etc.
What, clueless? There are many books available. If you appreciate chemistry try The Carbon Age. It will provide you with an understanding of carbon and its place in our world.
ReduceGHGs 2 years ago
Yes Carbon in a natural element.
Carbon Dioxide is a natural gas needed for the process of photosynthesis in plants.
We are Carbon based life forms. Carbon is essential for life on Earth.
The PH level of the ocean is above 8, which suggests that the oceans are alkaline. if anything the ocean is becoming more neutral.
Where's the link between CO2 and temperature in all that. Nowhere!!
DickChambers69 2 years ago
Learn about the carbon cycle and how it is out of balance. We humans are pumping about 1,000,000 years of stored carbon into the atmosphere EVERY YEAR. There are consequences. The oceans' composition as well as the atmosphere's are changing. Our habitat is degrading.
Google...
Scientist studies the impact of ocean acidification on the Gulf of Maine
Google...
Arctic seas turn to acid, putting vital food chain at risk
Google...
Oceans' ability to absorb carbon on the decline
ReduceGHGs 2 years ago
I have read many journals and reports, as I have stated before. I have talked with many scientists about the issues at hand.
My views are based on face to face meetings.
DickChambers69 2 years ago
Since you can't come up with ONE credible scientific institution that supports your opinion how about a study? I
n your discussions with "many" scientists have any of them completed a peer reviewed study that concludes humans are NOT contributing to global warming? It's highly unlikely. Since you rely on "expert" opinions, read the following survey.
Google... Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change
ReduceGHGs 2 years ago
Google... Global Cooling. So there.
Its pointless looking on the internet for anything that would resemble a good paper. You have to talk to these guys and ask them the tough questions.
A few guys have had their papers published, but that neither here nor there. There papers that have got through the peer revue such as Manns Hockey Stick paper have proven to be wrong. If you cannot appreciate how political this has become, then there is no helping you.
DickChambers69 2 years ago
AAAS even admits there could be cooling.
DickChambers69 2 years ago
Again, NO SHIT there has been recent cooling!
So what?
You now use AAAS as a source. Great! Well here's what do they conclude about the core issue?
"The scientific evidence is clear, Global climate change caused by human activities...is a growing threat to society."
No guessing as to why you STILL can't come up with anything meaningful to support your position.
For those NOT in the Denialist Cult, FMI try UCSUSA(dot)org
ReduceGHGs 2 years ago
So what?!?
It disproves the theory that CO2 is the primary GHG, thats what. In any normal situation this crap would have been thrown out of the room. Every model assumes that CO2 is the driver and every model predicted warming. Cooling goes against every hypothesis AGW proponants have come up with.
ARE YOU COMPLETELY INSANE?
The people that have been right are the scientists on the other side of the argument, yet they are all still ignored.
DickChambers69 2 years ago
The fact that there has been recent cooling disproves AGW? Did you graduate high school? Ever read a book about this?
Now why is it that you don't have ONE credible scientific institution to support your opinion?
Maybe you think that you know it all. So what will be the first planet to rise in the night sky in 2015? Don't know? Why not?
Will you rely on your doc or tell him that YOU know best?
So many questions. Best we leave them to the experts, unless you are in the Denialis Cult.
ReduceGHGs 2 years ago
I graduated a little high than that, dipshit.
If facts don't fit the theory, the theory is wrong. Basic scientific reasoning.
I am aware of all these political organisations you have jerked off over. You name me one reputable scientist instead. Then again, it depends on what you think is reputable.
I know a bit, having campaigned on both sides of the theory.
I have come across your kind many a time. You are a political animal and nothing more.
DickChambers69 2 years ago
graduated? just barely?
I noticed you STILL have no support for your position. NEVER form an opinion without credible, rational, and verifiable reasoning.
In this case your support is wholly lacking.
"My kind"? Im a rational supporter of sustainable cultures.
Try reading some books and learning about many of the issues I mentioned.
Ignorance is a terrible thing to be caught with. Isn't it?
Read this for starters.
Google... NAS Global Warming
Or, prefer ignorance?
ReduceGHGs 2 years ago
Is there any point, ReduceGHGs, for me to put any names and references down.
You are utterly convinced by the facts you choose to believe. All I hear every day are charges of big oil of big coal or some other crap.
You are completely right in your own mind and nothing will challange that. Sustainability will never be attained with what we have.
i have little time to debate this right now. VICTORY TO YOU.
DickChambers69 2 years ago
You don't provide credible support because you don't have any. Why not?
Do you think that vested interests are not distributing propaganda? They are and its nothing new. Big tobacco/cigs did the same thing.
All reliable institutions concur that HUMANS are warming the planet. They are easily found on the net for those that do HONEST research.
Google...
Cheap Energy Comes at High Hidden Cost
Google...
22 22 Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change
Next!
qsteveens 2 years ago
qsteveens,
"for those that do HONEST research."
LOL...
You have a check talking about HONEST research - what a joke.
You mean the HONEST research done by HONEST scientists that is completely ignored by the IPCC and ALL MEDIA.Or are you referring to the HONEST research done by Mann and his stupid hockey stick - or hansens stupid and ridiculous claims coupled with his misrepresentations of fact and data. And lets not forget your savior AL Gore - well enough said.
Honest research my ASS!
c02Pirate 2 years ago
FORGET IT, c02Pirate. According to these bloggers, the debate is over (before it began).
DickChambers69 2 years ago
The Internet, as vast as it is, should not be the primary source of information. If I based any scientific reporting with crap I found on the internet, my stuff would be thrown out in an instant.
DickChambers69 2 years ago 2
Links between tobacco/cigs and poor health were gained from OBSERVATIONAL data, not modelling data. I do wish the it was that easy.
DickChambers69 2 years ago 2
I know what these organisations (whether you can call them scientific anymore is questionable) say.
Even the IPCC admits to a chance of global cooling.
Your definition of credible scientist is anyone who agrees with your mantra.
AGW theory is not set in stone. Why do you defend it so? Are you afraid there is a chance you might be wrong? Are you afraid of being wrong?
DickChambers69 2 years ago
ReduceGHG,
Data changes all the time. AGW fitted the data of the time (80s and 90s). It does not fit any of the recent data, hence the AGW theory must be rejected.
You are quite obviously blinded by your belief and are incapable of change. The science is beyond you, so leave it to the scientists.
DickChambers69 2 years ago
Data changes? No kidding. So what you are saying is that YOUR interpretation of recent data tells YOU that AGW isn't occurring.
Who cares? Why would anyone find your opinion in the least bit reliable?
You clearly didn't use the link I provided and I'm sure you didn't research what those institutions have concluded. Why not? Afraid of what you'll find? Think maybe you know better than they do?
Yes, "leave it to the scientists".
Google...
Scientific Opinion on Climate Change Wiki
ReduceGHGs 2 years ago
"Who cares? Why would anyone find your opinion in the least bit reliable?"
Not as DickChambers69. You are quite right, ReduceGHGs.
Wiki is my first choice when referencing.
I believed in AGW for a number of years, almost as aggressively as you. Then, in time, the data that was being collected didn't fit with what I thought to be right. I had to re-evaluate my position. It was pretty hard for me to accept that I might be wrong.
Truth is there is a problem with AGW theory.
DickChambers69 2 years ago
"Wiki is my first choice when referencing."
I was being sarcastic before anyone else says anything.
DickChambers69 2 years ago
Members of the Denialist Cult don't want to see the evidence. They don't want to acknowledge that all of our respected scientific institutions concur on the core issue; HUMANS are warming the planet mostly by burning fossil fuels and clearing the land. There's no credible debate in the scientific community.
Learn more about it.
Google... NAS Global Warming
ReduceGHGs 2 years ago
The planet has not been warming for years. Get with the recent data.
DickChambers69 2 years ago
"Not Evil Just Wrong" is the film Al Gore and Hollywood don't want you to see. It reveals the true human cost of Global Warming hysteria.
Will be Released -
OCTOBER 18th 2009 8 pm EST
h t t p : / / w w w . noteviljustwrong . com
c02Pirate 2 years ago
For those NOT of the Denialist Cult here's an interesting article about global warming affects on Africa.
Google...
New Study Suggests Climate Change Could Devastate African Economies
The study found that the expected impact of the climate shifts will disproportionately hit the rural poor, many of whom are subsistence farmers. 80 percent of Tanzania's workforce is in the agricultural sector, and almost half of the nation's GDP is directly tied to farming.
REAL effects on REAL people.
ReduceGHGs 2 years ago
Stop referencing webpages and google. These are not references. Give names of Scientists and the papers they have written. Give us a little meat with the bone you're throwing.
DickChambers69 2 years ago
Yea, that was me, the same one debunking all your BS. Here's more.
Google...
Scientists emerge from ivory tower to confront politicians
Google...
Pro-Global Warming Study Receives Worldwide Headlines; Discovery
Do some reading. Or, tell me a little about the last book you read about this issue. What? Haven't read a book about it? No kidding. How do you like making decisions in the dark? So far, the results are as expected.
ReduceGHGs 2 years ago
As I have said before, I have read all the books, papers etc... I used to be a believer, until I started asking questions.
I believed in Mann's Hockey Stick paper, until it was revealed he hand picked his data set and totally currupted his findings.
You would think this kind of dishonesty would make people question what they believed before.
I thought the science was settled. I was wrong.
Yes. some scientist believe in AGW, but then again some scientists believed in Alchemy (Newton)
DickChambers69 2 years ago 15
believe it or not, the so called "hockystick" was more accurate graph then the first graph the IPCC made in 1990. their first graph which showed the midevil warm period being very warm wasn't accurate.
they got samples mainly from europe. but later, they did more reseached, did samples from more areas around the globe, took up tree ringed samples, corel samples more ice core samples, and in 1998 came up with the so called "hockystick" later 2007, they came up with a 3d graph.
curingaging00 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Does nothing to disprove Human-Caused GW, unless you put it
(this one observation you make) into the computer
and dump in all the other factors and variables and observations
that the experts have and sum them all up.
NASA, the Pentagon, and tens of universities across the planet
have done that. You haven't (I assume -
unless you have a supercomputer in your house
and are a phenomenal programmer who can do the work
of hundreds of programmers).
ecordy75 2 years ago
"So far, the results are as expected. "
That is a blatant lie. the results are not whats been expected. Why do they keep altering their own predictions. They haven't predicted the last 9 years correctly.
We haven't even gone beyond what is considered normal variance. Even Hadley admitted they did not expect this cooling period. Models assume CO2 and temperature are solely linked to one another.
DickChambers69 2 years ago 3
"Do some reading. Or, tell me a little about the last book you read about this issue. What? Haven't read a book about it? No kidding. How do you like making decisions in the dark? So far, the results are as expected."
Try not to take my comments out of context. It may make you sound like you are dumber than a box of rocks. Rise above it.
Haven't read a book about this issue? No kidding.
Don't have credible support for your position? No kidding.
Will you listen to reason? No. No kid
ReduceGHGs 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Does nothing to disprove Human-Caused GW, unless you put it
(this one observation you make) into the computer
and dump in all the other factors and variables and observations
that the experts have and sum them all up.
NASA, the Pentagon, and tens of universities across the planet
have done that. You haven't (I assume -
unless you have a supercomputer in your house
and are a phenomenal programmer who can do the work
of hundreds of programmers).
ecordy75 2 years ago
It's nothing short of scandelous that the wider public don't hear this kind of damning evidence from an actual scientist and an expert in the area. The media and left side of politics is to blame. There is so much at stake that the GW hysteria continues for those who push the message.
Only one side of the scientific story is being told when it is. There are at LEAST 32,000 scientists who dispute AGW yet we keeping hearing "there is consensus" amongst scientists!...we are ALL being played!
JBMaximize 2 years ago
In response to below.
People consume. People want more.
People supply. People demand. Only one problem. What do we do when it all runs out? Capitialism - great idea. Consume. Get richer by demanding that other people consume. Consume all the trees. All the fish. Get stinking rich from it. And then it all runs out. Annual growth is a no brainer. Sustainability is impossible. Only people who believe in the pyramid are the pharoahs. God save the Israelites and logic.
ProphetOfSpoon 2 years ago
he he, tell that to the marines!
founderjimrey 2 years ago
This man induced climate change scaremongering is catalyst to attack peoples freedom!
MRMILO57 2 years ago
freedom, my freedom?
habitability, oh habitability!
Stop scaremongering with your false choice. We can change the way we use energy and how we exist in the biosphere for the sake of future generations.
Freedoms? Do you want everyone to be free to continue to dump waste unabated into the atmosphere? What about the rights of those negatively affected by climate changes? What of their "freedoms". Free do suffer and die? Your position is baseless.
Read, learn, grow, and contribute.
ReduceGHGs 2 years ago
So the next time you label NASA, NOAA, EPA, and AAAS something foolish like "ding-dongs", 'eco-freaks", or "eligious cult", how about a little support for those conclusions. No, being a silly delusional kid is NOT a reasonable excuse. Try something else.
ReduceGHGs 2 years ago
ReduceGHGs ...how about you grow up and just accept that other people don't agree with you.
MRMILO57 2 years ago
That's the best you can do kid?
Can't you find ONE historically reliable scientific institution to back up your opinion? No? Why not?
Try the following site, learn what you can, then come back and discuss the carbon and water cycles with me.
UCSUSA(dot)org
ReduceGHGs 2 years ago
ReduceGHGs ....just letting you know I'm having a fantastic day, I have just bought another 60 inch tv and I feel no shame at all.
P.S. I can see you comment on a bigger screen now.
MRMILO57 2 years ago
Hey, great! We picked one up a couple days ago.
I also got may Piper back with a fresh annual! Didn't like the bill too much that comes with the territory.
Enjoy.
ReduceGHGs 2 years ago
Why is Pluto no longer considered a planet, when it's been considered one by astronomers for over 70 years? Was Nasa wrong?
Because "International Astronomical Union" decided to change its classification, it's now officially known as a "dwarf planet", but some dissenting scientists from Nasa and others say it should've kept it's original classification.
Too bad for them, the bigger institute made it's decision.
Re5Publica 2 years ago
The facts more recently learned about Pluto put it into a different category.
Google... Scientists: Pluto not a planet - Space
And is there a point you were trying to make? Are you trying to make an illogical leap to say that because NASA was wrong about Pluto therefore they are wrong about AGW? Now that indeed would be a leap of illogic that no reasonable person would make.
Global warming isn't just a NASA conclusion. Try NAS, NOAA, AAAS, AGU, and many others. Read their conclusions.
ReduceGHGs 2 years ago
Putting your faith in institutions instead of relying on reason will lead you to conclusions based on what other people believe, and not what you believe, and that allows for unconvincing theories to predominate.
It seems that because an institution believes something, that's convincing enough for you. That is one of the most famous of logical fallacies.
I think you make consensus out to be much more than it is. I believe there were more wrong consensuses than correct ones in history.
Re5Publica 2 years ago
The rational make decisions based on the best evidence available, every day, every action.
Perhaps you know of a more reliable source of information about climate change? I don't. Especially when they ALL basically agree on the core issue.
On the other hand you can put your faith in corporate think tanks. After all, they are the ones pushing the naysaying position. Ya think they might be a bit biased?
If you see a curve in the road will you turn the wheel or distrust your eyes?
ReduceGHGs 2 years ago
Do you think climatologists don't have a financial interest in saying there's a crisis? Funding for climate science has increased 10-fold since this global warming hysteria began.
I won't claim they're entirely selfish, but if you're going to say all global warming skeptics are corporate schills, then you make the opposite argument equally valid.
I've watched scientists debate the issue and have read scientific publications, and I'm not convinced that humans cause climate change.
Re5Publica 2 years ago 2
I should also mention by the way that your dig at corporations just adds credence to Patrick Moore's, the co-founder of Greenpeace, opinion that marxists now use environmentalism as a vehicle for anti-capitalism. It makes sense, since they can now make people afraid of capitalism in a way that they hadn't thought of before by moving from the position that capitalism creates social inequality, to capitalism destroys the world.
Re5Publica 2 years ago
What? Commie paranoia? Get off it. That crap is a sorry and baseless excuse.
So to believe you climatologists from many countries around the world all conspire to lie about their data and conclusions and have been doing so undetected for decades. Wow! Ya really gota hand it to the skill and ability to falsify and cover up their tracks.
And there are no HONEST institutions except for CEI and CATO? LOL!
Does NASA, NOAA, EPA funding depends on results? No. Sorry. You're "out of gas".
ReduceGHGs 2 years ago
A baseless excuse for what?
There's no doubt that among environmentalists there is a romanticizing of agrarian life, and a contempt for capitalism.
Do you disagree?
"And there are no HONEST institutions except for CEI and CATO? LOL!"
I don't remember mentioning these institutes, or making that argument. Unless I'm getting CO2 poisoning from our atmosphere and losing my memory, you've just erected a strawman.
Re5Publica 2 years ago