In case you haven't figured out already – Michaels has acknowledged that 40% of his funding comes from fossil fuel sources. He has received $115,000 over the past four years from coal and oil interests. Research has been financed by Western Fuel Association among others.
It's hard to say which AGW deniers are the most dangerous; the ignorant masses who get "ejukatud" by Rush Limbaugh, or shills like Michaels who probably understand the science is true, but choose to lie about the seriousness of the problem.
@Hofsteder "Sure, I could give plenty of citations but that wouldn't change the elementary fact that you haven't given any argument against AGW."
you made the challenge, therefore the impetus is on you to prove your position, not me.
As for what I asked for, it's fairly straighforward: name all the drivers of 'climate change' for the last 4.5 billion years excluding AGW. think you can wrap your head around that request?
then again, you can't even grasp basic ratio math.
Bring on the heat I love it!!! Less ice more land for growing crops with more co2 better bigger crops it all sounds good to me I Love Global Warming I love carbon Dioxide and It will feed the poor and starving.The science is settled all greenies are really Red!
Algore said in 2006 in his propoganda film " inconvinent truth" that in 10 YEARS the world would be near its end if we didnt do something about global warming. well, 2011 is here and the Earth is still here. LOL The UN in 2005 said there would be 50 million refugees because of global warming. LOL anyone who believes this bullshit needs to go to the hospital and have their head examined!!!!
I always felt that Al Gore was "dumbing down" the science to get the message to the masses. And yes, it's almost certainly exaggerated in parts. Michaels isnt exactly a beacon of honesty either though - he freely admits to being funded to a large degree by the petroleum companies, and has repeatedly been shown to "exaggerate" too (Im trying to be polite)...
@Grrraig CO2 is "plant food" WOW! Did you learn that in 5th grade science?
Maybe you should go teach at MIT?
MIT News 5/19/09
MIT Research published in the American Meteorological Society's JOURNAL OF CLIMATE, predicts a median probability that worldwide surface temperatures will RISE 5.2 degrees Celsius (9.3F) by the year 2100.
See the WeatherChannel YouTube:
Global Warming - Cool Summer WHY??
/watch?v=sX6jEsnGcrA
New Study: Melting Arctic Ice almost gone in 10 years.
All Gore's life came to a halt after the 2000 election. He has had to start up something to keep his name of any significance. He is a sad little man without much of a future. I hope not too many people listen to Al.
For the year-to-date, the global combined land and ocean surface temperature of 14.5°C (58.1°F) was the warmest January-July period on record. This value is 0.68°C (1.22°F) above the 20th century average.
"Exxonmobil corp., the world's largest crude oil refiner, supports taxing carbon dioxide as the most efficient way of curbing greenhouse gas emissions, its chief executive said.
"As a businessman, it's hard to speak favourably about any new tax, but a carbon tax strikes me as a more direct, more transparent and more effective approach," Rex Tillerson, CEO of the Irving, Texas based company, said Thursday at the Woodrow Wilson international center for scholars in Washington."
@RamsesReturns Yes, Anthropogenic Global Warming is a big fraud. We have had many changes in climate throughout history that could not in any way be associated with human activity. So why now is this very slight warming; (if it's even warming) that was going on even before the internal combustion engine caused by man? I'll tell you why some say it is: They have a very big financial stake in the carbon credit markets. They stand to make a fortune. Al Gore is a fraud and in my opinion a crook.
@juscurious So true, Gore is an Establishment Crony doing his part to end National sovereignty, and help us on a path of Banker Controlled global tyranny, or a NWO. It nice to see that more and more people are on to these facts. Still not enough.
Please see the Climate Scientists' Register that the International Climate Science Coalition have created & has been endorsed by 137 climate experts since June 2010:
tinyurl[dot]com/2es3rqx
The Register states:
“We, the undersigned, having assessed the relevant scientific evidence, do not find convincing support for the hypothesis that human emissions of carbon dioxide are causing, or will in the foreseeable future cause, dangerous global warming."
@goog2k Ha! Ha! Ha! EPA say's carbon is a pollutant! This means you are a Pollutant! You Carbon Based Organism! You will be paying taxes on yourself! You crack me up! Save the planet!!!!!!! Say something else funny I am LMFAO!
I live in the California desert, where it routinely gets above 110 during the summer. We've had the fewest number of 110 + days this summer than any summer I can remember, and the temp has not gone above 120 yet this summer, which is unusual.
Houston (TX) has had no days over 100 this summer, which is extremely rare.
@WingChunGeologist -- Learn about United Nations Agenda 21 before you vote. You'll see the candidates in an entirely new light and you'll be able to cast a vote to save America as we know it. Most Democrats and some Republicans have bought into the idea of one world government and global redistribution of wealth. Learn how to recognize them!
A barrel floating in the ocean will grow a seaweed farm. It would be easy to create rainforest sized algae farms mid ocean. The seaweed farms would photosynthesis, as well as the lifeforms themselves would be made of carbon.
Cheap. Proactive. Harmless.
Also mid ocean seaweed (algae) farms could be towed to counties in need for emergency food fuel.
No downside.
Build seaweed farms from shore and tow them out to sea and anchor them. Polluting companies could sponsor the low costs.
I don't think it's so much Al Gore as it is every fucking shallow liberal yuppy who- EXACTLY like the neo-cons- can't understand that not everything is one of two extremes, can't be bothered to research anything and get their shit straight, and want to pat themselves on the back for doing "the right thing".
I'm anti-pollution, I say the deniers are triple A assholes, but I really have to wonder how the other side's any different.
According to Deborah Cory Barnes, author of The Money and Connections Behind Al Gores Carbon Crusade, Al Gore started Generation Investment Management (GIM) with co founder Hank Paulson. Remember him? Yes, he was the Treasury Secretary. Guess what? Yes, he is also the former CEO of Goldman Sachs. (Didnt Goldman Sachs just get billions in Federal Reserve pledges, bailouts, and or Tarp?)
Another scam to fleece working & middleclass people out of more of their money
The environmentalists should have spent the last 25 years concentrating on zero population growth. Had they done so, and the country's population not risen to more than 300,000,000 the average American, and the average American animal, would be better off.
But the environmentalists dropped the ball on the #1 environmental issue (population growth) and concentrated on an unproven piece of scientific garbage.
After all, it's a lot cooler to be anti SUV than anti people.
United States rate of population growth has been on a general decline for over three decades. I checked on google. Besides, as indicators of economic prosperity increase, birth rates tend to decline. I guess this means there is an environmental incentive to maximize economic prosperity. That's weird. The free-marketeers would love that argument. It'd make a great research paper for sure.
But since you bring it up, what would you propose the US do to curb population growth?
@nigelelsass Ha! Ha! Ha! EPA say's carbon is a pollutant! This means you are a Pollutant! You Carbon Based Organism! You will be paying taxes on yourself! You crack me up! Save the planet!!!!!!! Say something else funny I am LMFAO!
@WingChunGeologist un-suprisingly the co2 nazis are concerned about that very thing, except they want to live along with their friends and family. its your friends and family and all those colored people that dont live in america / europe they have a problem with exhaling, eating, having clean water, a bed, a house, and just possibly work hard enough all month to watch a movie that you can get for free.
@WingChunGeologist, you're a geology teacher, eh? For what grade and what school? Any serious teacher of the sciences wouldn't make such a mindless statement.
As a "geology teacher" do you understand the importance of CONTEXT when discussing levels of minerals in rocks (to identify them), or levels of gases in the atmosphere relative to the baseline where they don't affect equilibrium?
Is Gore Misrepresenting Global Warming? YES. He is a huge douche bag going around making a living off peddling this trash. The same thing jesse jackson and al sharpton do with race. Those bastards. Global warming is a fraud.
@bw01a Boy you really weren't listening. Global warming is a fact. AGW is the consensus opinion among climate researchers. Is Al Gore a windbag? Of course. But that has nothing to do with the weight of scientific opinion. Feel free to bash Gore all you want, but just remember that the man is not a scientist and he really doesn't deserve to be listened to, just like most people who comment on YouTube.
@jumpoutatree - Global oceans are rising at a whopping 2.2 mm per year. That means in ten years, they might rise six inches. I fail to see the emergency. I see a lot of turmoil in global weather, but everybody wants to induce panic about it and nobody gives us hard facts. Besides, nobody is REALLY trying to get off petroleum.
@Grrraig The lack of hard information is the fault of the media, who like to control the debate by pigeonholing everyone as either skeptics or alarmists. Real climate change science doesn't make for good TV news or news magazine articles. Alarmism and skepticism sell to different parts of the mass audience. However, there is no denying that AGW is widely supported by climate researchers. This fact should cause most rational onlookers to stop arguing.
@bw01a, you're basically calling physics and thermodynamics a "fraud" by attacking a particular messenger and ignoring the evidence. You probably never took any serious college science classes that would at least make you not such a mouth-breather on this topic.
But that's nothing new. Scientific illiteracy has plagued America for some time, yet we are counting on science and technology to forge our future. If Perry gets elected in 2012, progress will be set back even further.
Sorry but I'm not in favor of spending trillions of dollars to reorganize the world's economy because the fraudster Al Gore (a politician, not a scientist) says we need to. Tens of thousands of scientists disagree with Al Gore's nonsense but for some reason the libtards always tell me there is a "scientific consensus" on this mater.
Gore has nothing to do with the science. He's been telling us what the experts have been saying for years. EVERY respected scientific institution that considered the issue found that yes, HUMANS are warming the planet. So what do you deniers have to rely on? Some trumped up Oregon Petition that was debunked years ago? What? There's no credible debate no matter how much you fools say there is.
Well your angry ranting is the only proof we need, let the great reorganization of the global economy begin!! Now...where to get a few trillion dollars.......
The petition you refer to is the Oregon Petition also known as the Petition Project. It was debunked as corporate propaganda years ago. The author, Art Robinson, ran for Oregon Senate. I asked him if he had a study to back up his denials. He didn't.
.
Google: What if the Oregon Petition names were real?
.
Bjorn Lomborg: "Yes, it's a problem and it's man-made because of the burning of fossil fuels. We need to fix it but we need to fix it smartly."
Yeah except 31,487 American scientists signed a petition saying they are not on the global warming band wagon, same goes for the head of the meteorology department at MIT, plus the top scientist in New Zealand, plus Bjorn Lomborg, and the list goes on and on but none of it means anything to you because you are plugged into PMSNBC 24/7.
Rather than focus on richard lindzen from MIT that has no study to back up his opinion read what MIT has been saying. "...we emphasize that slowing or stopping the progress of anthropogenic global warming is necessary."
Google: Mission 2011 : Saving the oceans
You have no credible evidence to support denials of human-caused climate change. I recommend doing some research. Read what our respected scientific institutions have been saying. NAS, NASA, AAAS, AGU, SOCC, NCAR, and others.
Wow I wonder if the relatively mild 2009 hurricane season could have been caused by global cooling as opposed to when Katrina occured when that was caused by global warming?!?!?!?!?!?
Why all these scare tactics? Could it be that some people will get rich off their investments in it? It has been proven that it is all propaganda. Let it go. Let's get on with real problems. Wheeesh.
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 next, as each political party achieves its own agendas for them & their money mates.
The greater negative forcing in winter 08/09 due to solar minimum was greater than the assessed historical value for solar minimum of -.2 deg. The lower the value, the greater the evidence of green house gas influence. When solar radiance drops off there is a greater heat reduction if GHG concentration is greater because part of the green house effect also drops off. It just fills in more variable equations from the last 30 plus years of high accuracy calculations.
JonThm, it's good for people to point out facts along these lines—it helps to keep the hysteria under control! People need to realize that the Earth's temperature exhibits wild fluctuations each year—variances much greater than the degree of change people are worried about. (Though I'd be careful insulting Gore's intelligence. He's really smart.)
But the thing a lot of people don't realize—and for anybody reading this comment, I'd be happy to discuss it with you if you message me—is that what matters isn't how hot the Earth gets every now and again, but how long it takes for its mean temperature to rise. Sure, the Earth has been way hotter than it is now. But it took millions of years to get there, and then to cool back down. For that to happen in mere decades is the actual problem. The media are really bad about explaining this.
Be careful! This of course doesn't mean that SUPPOSITION canot be made about the future! SUPPOSITIONS are always 'wilde horses' in the mind!.. But what CANOT be done in scientific respect, is to ILLUSORILY PRETEND that SUPPOSITIONS are SCIENTIFIC PREDICTIONS! THEY ARE NOT! Suppositions are in the hand of 'beliefs', 'opinions', 'confidence' and often.. 'fear'! Thus they are NOT IN THE GARDEN OF SCIENCE! One has the right to fear for the future, but not to PRETEND his FEAR IS PROVED BY SCIENCE!
This point is so important in the actual schysophrenic mind storm circling around "Global Warming Propaganda" that we will repeat it several times not to ever forget it ! SCIENTIFIC PREDICTIONS CANOT BE MADE FOR CLIMATE! SCIENTIFIC PREDICTIONS CANOT BE MADE FOR CLIMATE! SCIENTIFIC PREDICTIONS CANOT BE MADE FOR CLIMATE! SCIENTIFIC PREDICTIONS CANOT BE MADE FOR CLIMATE! SCIENTIFIC PREDICTIONS CANOT BE MADE FOR CLIMATE! SCIENTIFIC PREDICTIONS CANOT BE MADE FOR CLIMATE!
I can understand that it's hard to realise the deepness of the blindness of Science... Nevertheless the great Physicist & mathématician H.Poincarré made the proof that in the simplest case of what is called "The 3 body problem" (which tells the 'sad' story of the super-super-TOY model that plays with only 3 simple objects linked by the simplest gravific force...) , well he prooved that this drastically simple MODEL IS TOTALY BLIND!
So! Lets sum now what we have drasticaly clarified about "Global warming" beliefs : dinging out from unconsciousness and ignorance this fondamental STUMBLING STONE OF ALL SERIOUS CLIMATE MODELS, brings to understand that 1- WHATEVER THE DATAS ARE, SCIENTIFIC PREDICTIONS CANOT BE MADE WITHOUT A MODEL
2-CLIMATE MODELS ARE CONSTITUTIONALY BLIND (for fondamental Feed Back reasons). THUS THEY CANOT OFFER PREDICTIONS
3- Thus as a consequence of 1&2, SCIENTIFIC PREDICTIONS CANOT BE MADE FOR CLIMATE!
Be careful! Realising the full impact of this drastic STUMBLING STONE doesn't mean that Science can never predict anything or provide some conviniant description of some insights of Naturer. But it never the less stresses that succesfull modelisation & ambition of predictability can only be achieved in fairly SIMPLE situations and as long as this ambition remains rather HUMBLE. No doubt that such psychological crucial qualities are very rare in human kind & in american people in particular!
Further more, shall there be no left doubt now that this drastic but fondamental STUMBLING STONE of climate theories, inevitably murders for ever the central myth & chieldfull illusion of the matureless "superman" generation that drunk the poison of "super-power american pseudo scientific propaganda"!.. Sory folks, THERE IS NO SUPERMAN, even when given the nicked name of 'SCIENCE' that has the super-power to "undress Nature" nor to predict climate. Sory for that, but it's much better this way!
To put it even clearer : All our consistant reasoning concerning climate must now be based on the drastic but fondamental STUMBLING STONE that remind's us that 'NO SERIOUS CLIMATE MODEL CAN PROVIDE SCIENTIFIC SIGNIFICANT PREDICTABILITY! (Except, at best, in miserably short time range). No doubt that some people might well be extremely suprised to realise how drasticaly Science fails in the central super-power of 'undressing Nature' and predict climate. But this is the way it is, IN SCIENCE!
The CRUCIAL QUESTION is now then : can we consider this drastic statement "BYE BYE... SCIENTIFIC PREDICTABILITY, FOR ALL SERIOUS CLIMATE MODELS!" as an absolutly undoubtfull TRUE FOUNDATION for all our reasonings in climate study? To go further my previous explanations and totaly understand why the answer to this crucial question is actualy YES, one needs to study "Modelisation". Nevertheless, from now on, I will actualy consider this 'deadful' STUMBLING STONE of climate theories as TRUE!
And what means "SERIOUS CLIMATE MODELS ARE ALL DEADLY 'CONTAMINATED', IN THEIR PREDICTIBLE POWER, BY 'BUTTERFLY EFFECTS' "? It means that WHATEVER IS the accuracy of (past) DATAS coming from measurements, as long as remains the slightest uncertainty in those measurements (and far will we always remain from this perfection), the MODEL unescapably become "BLIND" and looses drasticaly his predictable power! To say it CLEAR : "BYE BYE... SCIENTIFIC PREDICTABILITY, FOR ALL SERIOUS CLIMATE MODELS!"
1 (suite)- Why that? Because in Science, to build a bridge from mesurements (that belong to the PAST) to predictions (that belongs to the FUTURE) one needs a SUCCESFUL MODEL. And here start's (before having even started!) the BIG PROBLEM! Because building a succesfull model is most of the time an IMPOSSIBLE GOAL, specialy in Climate models that are constitutionaly 'contaminated', from the very begining, by drasticaly heavy blindening "Butterfly effects" (comming from 'Feed Back' mecanism)!
Lets sum main unfounded beliefs and empty reasonings about "Global Warming" : 1- First of all lets come back a second to the definition of the SUPPOSED THREAT : "Global Warming". Unprecise statements are the flesh of vulgarisation and the spine of dogmas, but systematic ennemies of Science. Even if "Globaly warmer" was i) a scientific statement, and ii) proven true, in no way nevertheless it could help "Global warming" to find a seat in the garden of possible PREDICTIONS! Crucial statement!!
It's very interesting to look carefuly at all the beliefs and way of thinking of DeusExMachina because It's a model of how dogmatism build it self, step by step, in an IN-COMPETANT but enthousiastic mind! Thus, for those who seek Sincerity, it's possible to better understand, by studying this one example, how DOGMATICS of all times (and all fields) become so and how their beliefs become more and more fanatic as they paradoxaly turn their back to their goal in an increasing unconciousness!
I'm sory to be rude Deus but each of your answer shows that your simply don't understand a clue about the points that have been previously stressed out! Be careful. Your answers are very silly and it's obvious that you have no insight in Physics. All your beliefs come from partial interpretations of others beliefs. Worse you seem now fanatic in those beliefs. But nothing NEW about that. It's a general psychological pattern that more in-competant people are in a subject more fanatic they become
Al Gore may have made mistakes as we all do,none of us are perfect, but the majority of scientists in the world do believe that most global warming is man made and not natural fluctuations as has happened historically. I live in the UK and the weather here has been bizarre, especially these last 3-4 years.
Al Gore absolutely ridiculous SHOW can certainly convience but only dum buts! Al this campaign and this propaganda movie... stincks not only in few spots... it stincks heavily from the begining to the end! All the diagrams on which he bases his catastrophic MYTH have been heavily manipulated! By folowing this durty path he's proven nothing except that he is defenitaly a briliant apostle of hypocrisis arrogance! He messes scientific facts to build a new religion : ENVIRONMENT! Lots money behind
I'm religious if I believe in reasonable environmental restraint? How would you feel if I dumped excess battery acid in your local water supply? It doesn't take a leap of faith to believe that's not good for anyone.
This is not the point! I'm a deep lover of Nature and I deeply sympathise with true lovers. I'm pointing out the hypocrisis and arrogance of such deceivers! They use some true facts to distort them in order to make big business out of "ENVIRONMENT" just as evil "St Bernard" distorted faith to make huge business on "FAITH" and bring hundred thousand idiots in the evil path of Crusades! Al Gore doens't give a shit about Nature. He just simulates. DANGER IS NOT WARMING BUT HYPOCRISIS! Get it?
Al Gore's personal beliefs really have no bearing whatsoever on the data, and it really doesn't take faith to believe in global warming. Look at the evidence yourself. I remember I used to be a global warming denier and I'd search for evidence that confirmed my a priori conclusion (confirmation bias). I tried arguing with climate scientists and I was regularly whooped.
I came to realize the evidence is compelling, if not 100% certain, and like many others I decided we should do something.
Of course u want to do something acording to your convictions. Who are your "St Bernard"? But to my analysis, if I wasn't a specialist in Modelisation I may spend time about "Global Warm" or "Global Cold"... in comparison to THE PAST! SOME datas bring more than thin sand in the hand of science. But sory to say, there's no "predictible horizon" in climatology for stochastik fondamental reasons; that brings drasticaly predictions out of the hand of science throwing them... in the hand of FEAR!
Have you got any clear knowledge about how science works? And about the essential concept of a MODEL? To summerise : 1- We have no serious climatology model (except toy ones!). Thus predictions are not in the range of science but in the one of guessing, fearing the worse or hoping for the better! 2- All climatology models are radicaly 'stochastik'; thus even if we had a serious model the predictable horizon would still be at our nose edge! Get it? So please stop 'believing' and start THINKING!
No, there is absolutely no consensus on the climate models. In fact, estimations of climate sensitivity vary by a factor of three. If you'd read the IPCC AR4 you'd see that there is a LOT of uncertainty among scientists about the theory. The only consensus is that CO2 has caused Earth to warm, it will continue to cause Earth to warm, and it would be in our best interests to do something about it.
The only joke around here, my little criminal sympathizer, is the pathetic evasiveness of the people who wrote these emails. First they were "stolen" and not leaked, then it is implied they are not real, then they are dismissed as irrelevant, then it is a KGB conspiracy . . . heads will still roll.
@DeusExMachina7709 Are you talking about the university in England emailgate bullshit saga? I looked into that carefully and read two lengthy articles on it, and reviewed the TWO government enquiries.
All that happened was the guys didn't want other people using their carefully researched data, so were reluctant to give up data when asked. All the emails are now public, and if anyone actually could be bothered to look into it youll see it doesn't say climate change isn't real at all.
If someone has lied in his life, is he from there on, unable to tell the truth?
BTW, what eactly did Al Gore lie about in this vid? He is quoted as saying "49% of America...in...drought" and your man from the 'CATO' institute quotes the same % but tries to denounce its relevance.
There is no opposing evidence, just an opposing view and u share in this for god knows what reason. Are u afraid u might actually have to do something for ur planet? Everyone is moving forward, Ur the minority now.
OMG! Lets nitpick everything Al Gore says and if we find him even slightly incorrect, he must be wrong about Man-made Climate Change. Go Fuck Yourself Patrick Michaels. Do the math and look beyond ur petty disputes, u r green only with envy.
al gore is really my hero so is the man who acts the polluter in shame. thank you all for clarifing the both sides of issue of gobel warming. now that you all agree it is time to act. i love the love between the sides of gobel warming. if you disagree then maybe you should study the tao te ching for the answer. can we now be happy and hug al gore for to the great man in telling us the salvation of mankind. i hope now the answer is clear to both of you. thank you for agreeing with me
Can you imagine the size of the carbon footprints coming from AL Gore's HUGE FAT ASS FARTS! Most of this global warming is coming from his ass and China
Gore and the scientists he relies on have not proven THEIR THESIS. He who asserts must prove in science! They claim (i) global warming is dangerous (ii) it is due to man's activity. They fail on both counts. It's as simple as A - B = C. A is the current slight warming, B is what would occur in sun cycles without man, as it has for centuries, and C is the man-made part. They guess that B is zero! You can't get to C without knowing B. The don't know B, so they give us BS.
That -.25 volcanic counter forcing was a one shot deal.
1998 was at the top end of the ocean forcing, generally on five to seven year cycles. 2005 was a half strength upwards forcing with similar temperatures. Ocean forcing depends on temperatures of converging currents that cycle at different rates from each other.
Al Gore never indicated that drought was the main primary implication of Global Warming. Is it possible for heat to produce drought? Yes, It can push a given jet stream off its normal path. That would not show up as a linear relationship on Patrick's graph. The heat may have been created in the ocean in a different hemisphere in a different year. Pollution causes retarded evaporation and warming, increased evap. It's all deviation that may not be balanced.
Awesome Video. Youtube can be a great asset for you. If you need any help getting your video exposed check out this site called sl8t.(com) It has really done wonders for me, I have built 3 channels up with videos at top in position, this is my forth channel I'm going to working on now.
Sorry for the parenthesis around the com, some reason Youtube will not let you give an actual address in a comment. Real weird. Have a Blessed day!
"In a July 27, 2006 ABC News report, it was revealed that a Colorado energy cooperative, the Intermountain Rural Electric Association, had given Patrick Michaels $100,000."
This guys a phony and in the extreme minority of scientists who do not whole heartedly agree with Climate Change. Patrick Michaels has been involved in a handful of controversies and his "facts" aren't... well... factual. He stretches the truth to fit his agenda or his own opinion.
he clearly states where he gets his facts in this video....if they aren't actually facts perhaps you can point out to us exactly where he lied instead of vaguely commenting he is a liar...if you can't do it then why are you bothering to type
It's not even a secret that James Hansen, perhaps the alarmist-in-chief, received lump sums of $700,000 and $400,000 from George Soros and Teresa Heinz Kerry respectively(in clear viloation of federal law, I might add). So why don't you discount everything coming from Hansen and GISS since he runs the climate dept, there?
I don't. and I appreciate intellectual honesty over histrionics every time. these guys weren't saying there is no global warming, just that its advocates often lie. Most of the time they do so for their own benefits and purposes not the public's.
Al Gore is a liar and a hypocrit who plans to profit from the crisis. the only environmentalists I pay close attention to are David Suzuki et al. People of reason and character, not extremists.
Call off the dogs man, you don't need to save the world from Al Gore. If you really want to make a difference against extremist profiteering why don't you start with Goldman-Sachs.
I beg to differ, Al Gore is as much a part of the forces vying for world power as Goldman-Sachs. the difference is we all know not to trust Goldman-Sachs, whiwel some people actually trust a liar and profiteer like Al Gore. who is more dangerous the liar you know or the one you don't know is a liar ?
Again..I was adressing the retard hillbillies in this debate! Of course I wasn't referring to Al Gore when I talked about ignorant hillbillies! He knows that global warming is a fact, just like every serious scientist on the planet knows! Fucking christ, are you retarded? You are a bit retarded, no?
but if thats the case then why are there so many scientists speaking against it? the arguements i've heard against are consistent across sources and i haven't heard them dealt with by the pro parties. in fact, all the pro parties seem to do when they do when they come into contact with this data is call people "retards" and "fascists". no bating, no bs, honestly - if you have or know of a rational scientific counter arguement to the points raised here and elsewhere i am genuinely interested.
That doesn't answer my question. And the majority doesn't necessarily equal the truth, even amongst scientists. Those who say that global warming is not man-made have proposed very plausible arguments that actively discredit popular opinion on the phenomenon. I havent heard a counter attack that tackles the issues it raises. Instead, they just rehash the same discredited ideas, but with lashings of political tub thumping and moral accusations. so once again, if some has info send me a link. thx
Climate change is both natural and caused by human activities. No researcher I know denies this generality. The legitimate scientific questions are how much effect comes from each, how does change alter already stressed support systems? The status quo alone is enough to frighten scientists and planners...declining aquifers, forests, coastal development. Add even a slight human induced climate effect and the unprecedented becomes particularly nasty. There is no gain from a false dichotomy.
Thank you for a genuine and serious reply. I can't tell you how hard its been to get one. I'm particularly interested in issue of carbon foot printing and greenhouse gases as being unsupported in causing rising global temperatures. I understand that the issues is extremely serious without this factor, but from what i know i've been lied too. Can you recommend any literature that addreses the core issues of humanity's impact, and if possible something that readdress the greenhouses gases issue?
Google Tom Segalstad. He's a Norwegian scientist who studies the carbon cycle. He studied and averaged many 'carbon isotopic mass balance' studies done over decades by different teams and his average of anthropogenic attribution of nascent CO2 is a paltry 4%. Even the last IPCC report only attributed 21%, and that without any hard data. e averaged the 'half-life' of CO2 in the atmosphere at only 5.6 years, not the "hundreds of years" asserted by the IPCC, again without ANY hard data in support.
In case you haven't figured out already – Michaels has acknowledged that 40% of his funding comes from fossil fuel sources. He has received $115,000 over the past four years from coal and oil interests. Research has been financed by Western Fuel Association among others.
DrHowbeit 1 month ago
It's hard to say which AGW deniers are the most dangerous; the ignorant masses who get "ejukatud" by Rush Limbaugh, or shills like Michaels who probably understand the science is true, but choose to lie about the seriousness of the problem.
Antithropocentric 4 months ago
@Hofsteder You talk a lot, and produce nothing.
Except hot air and vaporous arguments.
I'm done with you, troll.
blorgensteen 6 months ago
@Hofsteder No, you go first. Shit before the shovel.
blorgensteen 6 months ago
@Hofsteder "Sure, I could give plenty of citations but that wouldn't change the elementary fact that you haven't given any argument against AGW."
you made the challenge, therefore the impetus is on you to prove your position, not me.
As for what I asked for, it's fairly straighforward: name all the drivers of 'climate change' for the last 4.5 billion years excluding AGW. think you can wrap your head around that request?
then again, you can't even grasp basic ratio math.
blorgensteen 6 months ago
@Hofsteder Also, far as 'recommendations" go, try Title, edition, date, and page citations. Think you can manage that?
blorgensteen 6 months ago
@Hofsteder It's your evidence, either post for all to see, or fuck off.
I'm not going to do your work for you.
blorgensteen 6 months ago
@Hofsteder No, I meant "they" as in self righteous pricks like yourself.
You still haven't mentioned what drove climate change prior to man's evolution.
Either answer the implied question, or fuck off.
I'm not overly fussy as to which you prefer.
blorgensteen 6 months ago
One thing that continually amazes me is the quasi-religious zeal that the chicken-little crowd has for their cause..
Too bad they also never tell you that in terms of geological time, the climate has always been changing.
10 - 20 C warmer that present at times, and 10-20 C colder at others.
All this before man even knew what gasoline was.
Wonder what drove it for the 4.5 BILLION years prior to the ascent of man?
Suck on that, Hofstedar.
blorgensteen 6 months ago
@Hofsteder One last thing, asshole: mathematics, unlike yourself, doesn't lie.
blorgensteen 6 months ago
@Hofsteder I accept, shithead. Do your worst.
blorgensteen 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Hofsteder so what?
the total mass of earth's atmosphere is on average 5 QUADRILLION tonnes. 5 X 10^15 tonnes
26 gigatonnes is a.mere 2.6 X 10^10 tonnes
the math comes to 1 tonne of man created CO2 for every 192,307 tonnes of atmosphere.
nice try, too bad you don't know shit about earth science.
blorgensteen 6 months ago
Comment removed
blorgensteen 6 months ago
Comment removed
blorgensteen 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Al Gore=FRAUD
Global Warming=BULLSHIT
peter455sd 7 months ago
Bring on the heat I love it!!! Less ice more land for growing crops with more co2 better bigger crops it all sounds good to me I Love Global Warming I love carbon Dioxide and It will feed the poor and starving.The science is settled all greenies are really Red!
2wheels88 8 months ago
The science is settled on carbon polution,Please watch this - Lord Christopher Monckton Speaking in St. Paul just copy and paste it in search box.
2wheels88 9 months ago
@2wheels88 Or you could just go to the video.
watch?v=stij8sUybx0
KenMacMillan 8 months ago
Algore said in 2006 in his propoganda film " inconvinent truth" that in 10 YEARS the world would be near its end if we didnt do something about global warming. well, 2011 is here and the Earth is still here. LOL The UN in 2005 said there would be 50 million refugees because of global warming. LOL anyone who believes this bullshit needs to go to the hospital and have their head examined!!!!
uzimodem 9 months ago
Is Pat Michaels Misrepresenting Global Warming?
BeondaPale 10 months ago
Try Asian women **busizz4me.info**
Abbigaylelatisha 1 year ago
I always felt that Al Gore was "dumbing down" the science to get the message to the masses. And yes, it's almost certainly exaggerated in parts. Michaels isnt exactly a beacon of honesty either though - he freely admits to being funded to a large degree by the petroleum companies, and has repeatedly been shown to "exaggerate" too (Im trying to be polite)...
ferrett78 1 year ago
@Grrraig CO2 is "plant food" WOW! Did you learn that in 5th grade science?
Maybe you should go teach at MIT?
MIT News 5/19/09
MIT Research published in the American Meteorological Society's JOURNAL OF CLIMATE, predicts a median probability that worldwide surface temperatures will RISE 5.2 degrees Celsius (9.3F) by the year 2100.
See the WeatherChannel YouTube:
Global Warming - Cool Summer WHY??
/watch?v=sX6jEsnGcrA
New Study: Melting Arctic Ice almost gone in 10 years.
/watch?v=MbyoD9CLn1k
goog2k 1 year ago
All Gore's life came to a halt after the 2000 election. He has had to start up something to keep his name of any significance. He is a sad little man without much of a future. I hope not too many people listen to Al.
nongratis1 1 year ago
WHAT COOLING?
August 16, 2010
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
National Climatic Data Center
For the year-to-date, the global combined land and ocean surface temperature of 14.5°C (58.1°F) was the warmest January-July period on record. This value is 0.68°C (1.22°F) above the 20th century average.
goog2k 1 year ago
We make 90 million tons CO2 each DAY. That's 3.4% added to natural production.
Atmospheric CO2 is rising 2ppm per year (+0.5%), TWICE that of 50 years ago.
CO2 levels are 39% above the highest levels for 650,000 years.
35% of CO2 is dissolved in oceans.
In 25 years CO2 will reach 450ppm which most oceanographers warn will interfere with growth of calcium carbonate forming planktons and corals.
They make-up the base of the ocean's food chain.
Oops!!!
Search:
NOAA, Trends in Carbon Dioxide
goog2k 1 year ago
@goog2k - since CO2 is plant-food, is there evidence that oxygen or plant biomass is increasing?
Grrraig 1 year ago
@shazizz Blah, blah, blah.
JEEZ, you guys are WACKOs & scientific "illiterates."
Thank you for proving it again so clearly.
LOL!!!
goog2k 1 year ago
Well oiled
"Exxonmobil corp., the world's largest crude oil refiner, supports taxing carbon dioxide as the most efficient way of curbing greenhouse gas emissions, its chief executive said.
"As a businessman, it's hard to speak favourably about any new tax, but a carbon tax strikes me as a more direct, more transparent and more effective approach," Rex Tillerson, CEO of the Irving, Texas based company, said Thursday at the Woodrow Wilson international center for scholars in Washington."
Dayversion 1 year ago
Climate Change = HAARP
Global Warming = The Sun
Global Cooling = The Sun. It's Pretty simple.
RamsesReturns 1 year ago
@RamsesReturns Yes, Anthropogenic Global Warming is a big fraud. We have had many changes in climate throughout history that could not in any way be associated with human activity. So why now is this very slight warming; (if it's even warming) that was going on even before the internal combustion engine caused by man? I'll tell you why some say it is: They have a very big financial stake in the carbon credit markets. They stand to make a fortune. Al Gore is a fraud and in my opinion a crook.
juscurious 1 year ago
@juscurious So true, Gore is an Establishment Crony doing his part to end National sovereignty, and help us on a path of Banker Controlled global tyranny, or a NWO. It nice to see that more and more people are on to these facts. Still not enough.
RamsesReturns 1 year ago 2
@RamsesReturns
Couldn't agree more. HAARP, the thing Gore forgot to mention.
cancanbiker 1 year ago
We are being ripped off !!!
TheJambrow 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Please see the Climate Scientists' Register that the International Climate Science Coalition have created & has been endorsed by 137 climate experts since June 2010:
tinyurl[dot]com/2es3rqx
The Register states:
“We, the undersigned, having assessed the relevant scientific evidence, do not find convincing support for the hypothesis that human emissions of carbon dioxide are causing, or will in the foreseeable future cause, dangerous global warming."
Tom Harris
ICSC
TomHarrisICSC 1 year ago
@WingChunGeologist I'm sorry you still don't understand the difference between "Weather" & "Climate."
NASA, NOAA & UAH global temperatures all basically agree. UAH says temps are rising 0.14C per decade.
The UAH figures are irrefutable GLOBAL SATELLITE DATA from a well-known denier, Dr. John Christy.
If you'd like to learn, please watch the WeatherChannel YouTube:
Global Warming - Cool Summer WHY??
/watch?v=sX6jEsnGcrA
goog2k 1 year ago
@goog2k Ha! Ha! Ha! EPA say's carbon is a pollutant! This means you are a Pollutant! You Carbon Based Organism! You will be paying taxes on yourself! You crack me up! Save the planet!!!!!!! Say something else funny I am LMFAO!
shazizz 1 year ago
@therhythmicmenace LOL!!!
Well, if you check, you'll find out 9 of the last 10 years were the HOTTEST on record in the last 120 years.
Oops!!!
goog2k 1 year ago
@goog2k
I live in the California desert, where it routinely gets above 110 during the summer. We've had the fewest number of 110 + days this summer than any summer I can remember, and the temp has not gone above 120 yet this summer, which is unusual.
Houston (TX) has had no days over 100 this summer, which is extremely rare.
WingChunGeologist 1 year ago
@WingChunGeologist : cherry pick
nigelelsass 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@WingChunGeologist -- Learn about United Nations Agenda 21 before you vote. You'll see the candidates in an entirely new light and you'll be able to cast a vote to save America as we know it. Most Democrats and some Republicans have bought into the idea of one world government and global redistribution of wealth. Learn how to recognize them!
vechorik 2 months ago
FAKE
TheAntifaker 1 year ago
yes
BankFace 1 year ago
Half Man, Half Bear, Half Pig... Manbearpig!
Moreproduktive 1 year ago 2
WHAT COOLING? LOL!!!
March was the HOTTEST March in the UAH 32 year satellite record.
UAH (Univ. of Alabama, Huntsville) is run by Dr. Christy, the well known AGW denier.
Global temperatures for February = 2nd WARMEST February in 32 years.
Global Temperatures for JANUARY = the HOTTEST January for UAH in 32 years.
HOT OFF THE PRESS - 4/10/10
See the latest delightful YouTube from greenman3610
Debunking LORD MONCKTON Part 1
/watch?v=JfA1LpiYk2o
goog2k 1 year ago
@goog2k
All that proves is that it was hot THIS year, whats the records for March Febuary January of last year or the year before or the year before that.
You never heard of the cosmic ballet, its not perfect you know.
Laugh Out Loud!!!
therhythmicmenace 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
A barrel floating in the ocean will grow a seaweed farm. It would be easy to create rainforest sized algae farms mid ocean. The seaweed farms would photosynthesis, as well as the lifeforms themselves would be made of carbon.
Cheap. Proactive. Harmless.
Also mid ocean seaweed (algae) farms could be towed to counties in need for emergency food fuel.
No downside.
Build seaweed farms from shore and tow them out to sea and anchor them. Polluting companies could sponsor the low costs.
Win Win Win
RichLOAguy 1 year ago
By using global warming as an excuse to raise prices, or to sell something, this idiot does nothing to dispell claims that gobal warming is a scam.
TurboDally 1 year ago
I don't think it's so much Al Gore as it is every fucking shallow liberal yuppy who- EXACTLY like the neo-cons- can't understand that not everything is one of two extremes, can't be bothered to research anything and get their shit straight, and want to pat themselves on the back for doing "the right thing".
I'm anti-pollution, I say the deniers are triple A assholes, but I really have to wonder how the other side's any different.
-Tabris
tabrismacbeth 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Dr Pachauri and Gore are liars and a frauds, the IPCC was created for political reasons and is corrupt. Nobel Peace Prize is a fucking joke.
WinstonSmith46 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Al Gore Carbon Credit Lord
According to Deborah Cory Barnes, author of The Money and Connections Behind Al Gores Carbon Crusade, Al Gore started Generation Investment Management (GIM) with co founder Hank Paulson. Remember him? Yes, he was the Treasury Secretary. Guess what? Yes, he is also the former CEO of Goldman Sachs. (Didnt Goldman Sachs just get billions in Federal Reserve pledges, bailouts, and or Tarp?)
Another scam to fleece working & middleclass people out of more of their money
Thisawareness 2 years ago
Did he say 'as measured by treerings'?
remcovanek2 2 years ago
As a geology teacher all I can say is:
ANYONE WHO THINKS CO2 IS A POLLUTANT SHOULD STOP EXHALING IT.
WingChunGeologist 2 years ago 32
@WingChunGeologist Ha Ha Exactly
1madaboutguitar 1 year ago
@WingChunGeologist this shows people need educating. CO2 is not a pollutant that is obvious... but it does raise the temperature of the planet.
People confuse the concepts.
markgg1 1 year ago
@WingChunGeologist
A teacher? Excellent. So I have to ask, is there a point where CO² in the atmosphere becomes something bad?
satyricon451 1 year ago
@satyricon451
Actually there are plenty of REAL environmental problems that I'm worried about.
#3 California's largest lake, Salton Sea, is being starved of fresh water, raising its salinity. This lake will soon die.
#2 Thousands of acres of our most productive farm land has been taken out of food production and turned into golf courses and tacky houses.
#1 The population of California has grown way beyond the state's carrying capacity, given the state's available water resources.
WingChunGeologist 1 year ago
@satyricon451
The environmentalists should have spent the last 25 years concentrating on zero population growth. Had they done so, and the country's population not risen to more than 300,000,000 the average American, and the average American animal, would be better off.
But the environmentalists dropped the ball on the #1 environmental issue (population growth) and concentrated on an unproven piece of scientific garbage.
After all, it's a lot cooler to be anti SUV than anti people.
WingChunGeologist 1 year ago
@WingChunGeologist
United States rate of population growth has been on a general decline for over three decades. I checked on google. Besides, as indicators of economic prosperity increase, birth rates tend to decline. I guess this means there is an environmental incentive to maximize economic prosperity. That's weird. The free-marketeers would love that argument. It'd make a great research paper for sure.
But since you bring it up, what would you propose the US do to curb population growth?
satyricon451 1 year ago
@WingChunGeologist Moron
StunnedByStupidity 1 year ago
@WingChunGeologist : This is why it is a "greenhouse gas", not a pollutant.
nigelelsass 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@nigelelsass Ha! Ha! Ha! EPA say's carbon is a pollutant! This means you are a Pollutant! You Carbon Based Organism! You will be paying taxes on yourself! You crack me up! Save the planet!!!!!!! Say something else funny I am LMFAO!
shazizz 1 year ago
@WingChunGeolist - If CO2 is really up, shouldn't plants compensate by putting out more oxygen?
Grrraig 1 year ago
@WingChunGeologist un-suprisingly the co2 nazis are concerned about that very thing, except they want to live along with their friends and family. its your friends and family and all those colored people that dont live in america / europe they have a problem with exhaling, eating, having clean water, a bed, a house, and just possibly work hard enough all month to watch a movie that you can get for free.
maj1kninja07 1 year ago
@WingChunGeologist Oh really? I pity your students.
Samuraionthewall 11 months ago
@WingChunGeologist, you're a geology teacher, eh? For what grade and what school? Any serious teacher of the sciences wouldn't make such a mindless statement.
As a "geology teacher" do you understand the importance of CONTEXT when discussing levels of minerals in rocks (to identify them), or levels of gases in the atmosphere relative to the baseline where they don't affect equilibrium?
Antithropocentric 4 months ago
Yes he is.
WingChunGeologist 2 years ago
trust u to say that, USA is the top contributer in the form of CO2!
callofcity 2 years ago
"EU Carbon Trade Run by Organized Crime, Says Europol"
EUX TV
CRAPCANNONS 2 years ago 2
Is Gore Misrepresenting Global Warming? YES. He is a huge douche bag going around making a living off peddling this trash. The same thing jesse jackson and al sharpton do with race. Those bastards. Global warming is a fraud.
bw01a 2 years ago 20
@bw01a Boy you really weren't listening. Global warming is a fact. AGW is the consensus opinion among climate researchers. Is Al Gore a windbag? Of course. But that has nothing to do with the weight of scientific opinion. Feel free to bash Gore all you want, but just remember that the man is not a scientist and he really doesn't deserve to be listened to, just like most people who comment on YouTube.
jumpoutatree 1 year ago
@jumpoutatree - Global oceans are rising at a whopping 2.2 mm per year. That means in ten years, they might rise six inches. I fail to see the emergency. I see a lot of turmoil in global weather, but everybody wants to induce panic about it and nobody gives us hard facts. Besides, nobody is REALLY trying to get off petroleum.
Grrraig 1 year ago
@Grrraig The lack of hard information is the fault of the media, who like to control the debate by pigeonholing everyone as either skeptics or alarmists. Real climate change science doesn't make for good TV news or news magazine articles. Alarmism and skepticism sell to different parts of the mass audience. However, there is no denying that AGW is widely supported by climate researchers. This fact should cause most rational onlookers to stop arguing.
jumpoutatree 1 year ago
@jumpoutatree The key word there was "rational".
ferrett78 1 year ago
@Grrraig you figured it wrong 6" would take 70 years of sea level raise
busguy100 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Grrraig you figured it wrong 6" would take 70 years of sea level raise
busguy100 1 year ago
@bw01a, you're basically calling physics and thermodynamics a "fraud" by attacking a particular messenger and ignoring the evidence. You probably never took any serious college science classes that would at least make you not such a mouth-breather on this topic.
But that's nothing new. Scientific illiteracy has plagued America for some time, yet we are counting on science and technology to forge our future. If Perry gets elected in 2012, progress will be set back even further.
Antithropocentric 4 months ago
@Antithropocentric
Sorry but I'm not in favor of spending trillions of dollars to reorganize the world's economy because the fraudster Al Gore (a politician, not a scientist) says we need to. Tens of thousands of scientists disagree with Al Gore's nonsense but for some reason the libtards always tell me there is a "scientific consensus" on this mater.
bw01a 4 months ago
@bw01a I hope you're not as stupid as that post.
Ten of thousands disagree with Gore??? What that?
.
Gore has nothing to do with the science. He's been telling us what the experts have been saying for years. EVERY respected scientific institution that considered the issue found that yes, HUMANS are warming the planet. So what do you deniers have to rely on? Some trumped up Oregon Petition that was debunked years ago? What? There's no credible debate no matter how much you fools say there is.
ReduceGHGs 2 months ago
@ReduceGHGs
Well your angry ranting is the only proof we need, let the great reorganization of the global economy begin!! Now...where to get a few trillion dollars.......
bw01a 2 months ago
@bw01a No, you'll never see me angry.
The petition you refer to is the Oregon Petition also known as the Petition Project. It was debunked as corporate propaganda years ago. The author, Art Robinson, ran for Oregon Senate. I asked him if he had a study to back up his denials. He didn't.
.
Google: What if the Oregon Petition names were real?
.
Bjorn Lomborg: "Yes, it's a problem and it's man-made because of the burning of fossil fuels. We need to fix it but we need to fix it smartly."
ReduceGHGs 2 months ago
@ReduceGHGs
Yeah except 31,487 American scientists signed a petition saying they are not on the global warming band wagon, same goes for the head of the meteorology department at MIT, plus the top scientist in New Zealand, plus Bjorn Lomborg, and the list goes on and on but none of it means anything to you because you are plugged into PMSNBC 24/7.
bw01a 2 months ago
@bw01a .
Rather than focus on richard lindzen from MIT that has no study to back up his opinion read what MIT has been saying. "...we emphasize that slowing or stopping the progress of anthropogenic global warming is necessary."
Google: Mission 2011 : Saving the oceans
You have no credible evidence to support denials of human-caused climate change. I recommend doing some research. Read what our respected scientific institutions have been saying. NAS, NASA, AAAS, AGU, SOCC, NCAR, and others.
ReduceGHGs 2 months ago
Occidental Petroleum
Drumvain 2 years ago
Wow I wonder if the relatively mild 2009 hurricane season could have been caused by global cooling as opposed to when Katrina occured when that was caused by global warming?!?!?!?!?!?
BSS14285 2 years ago 4
I like the word absurd, when Human created Climate Change is mentioned.
NameTaken1000 2 years ago 4
No truth in it at all
gtgale1 2 years ago
It's all hot air. No truth in it at all. Let's get onto real issues.
gtgale1 2 years ago
Why all these scare tactics? Could it be that some people will get rich off their investments in it? It has been proven that it is all propaganda. Let it go. Let's get on with real problems. Wheeesh.
gtgale1 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 next, as each political party achieves its own agendas for them & their money mates.
SEE Professor Bob Carter
weallknowitstrue 2 years ago
The Lucifer Channelings tell us we may sacrifice our Illuminati masters to avert disaster.
It can be merely a symbolic sacrifice - strip them of wealth, property and power before they do it to us.
Others suggest crucifying Al Gore to see if he rises from the dead, thus confirming his messiah status and that his new religion is worth following.
HenryRage 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Also check out youtube eco-video The Book of New Creation!
ClimateAware 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
The Climate Change threat is much worse than you think! Check out the YouTube video by the same name.
TheForwardGaze 2 years ago
The greater negative forcing in winter 08/09 due to solar minimum was greater than the assessed historical value for solar minimum of -.2 deg. The lower the value, the greater the evidence of green house gas influence. When solar radiance drops off there is a greater heat reduction if GHG concentration is greater because part of the green house effect also drops off. It just fills in more variable equations from the last 30 plus years of high accuracy calculations.
bflatkitty 2 years ago
The world cooled from 2005. Get an education Al!
JonThm 2 years ago 2
JonThm, it's good for people to point out facts along these lines—it helps to keep the hysteria under control! People need to realize that the Earth's temperature exhibits wild fluctuations each year—variances much greater than the degree of change people are worried about. (Though I'd be careful insulting Gore's intelligence. He's really smart.)
TheRealmsOfGold 2 years ago
But the thing a lot of people don't realize—and for anybody reading this comment, I'd be happy to discuss it with you if you message me—is that what matters isn't how hot the Earth gets every now and again, but how long it takes for its mean temperature to rise. Sure, the Earth has been way hotter than it is now. But it took millions of years to get there, and then to cool back down. For that to happen in mere decades is the actual problem. The media are really bad about explaining this.
TheRealmsOfGold 2 years ago
Gore may be on target. Perhaps humanity needs a change of heart. Check out youtube eco-video The Book of New Creation...
WilliamTarkovsky 2 years ago
Be careful! This of course doesn't mean that SUPPOSITION canot be made about the future! SUPPOSITIONS are always 'wilde horses' in the mind!.. But what CANOT be done in scientific respect, is to ILLUSORILY PRETEND that SUPPOSITIONS are SCIENTIFIC PREDICTIONS! THEY ARE NOT! Suppositions are in the hand of 'beliefs', 'opinions', 'confidence' and often.. 'fear'! Thus they are NOT IN THE GARDEN OF SCIENCE! One has the right to fear for the future, but not to PRETEND his FEAR IS PROVED BY SCIENCE!
aikidlc 2 years ago
Grab
bflatkitty 2 years ago
This point is so important in the actual schysophrenic mind storm circling around "Global Warming Propaganda" that we will repeat it several times not to ever forget it ! SCIENTIFIC PREDICTIONS CANOT BE MADE FOR CLIMATE! SCIENTIFIC PREDICTIONS CANOT BE MADE FOR CLIMATE! SCIENTIFIC PREDICTIONS CANOT BE MADE FOR CLIMATE! SCIENTIFIC PREDICTIONS CANOT BE MADE FOR CLIMATE! SCIENTIFIC PREDICTIONS CANOT BE MADE FOR CLIMATE! SCIENTIFIC PREDICTIONS CANOT BE MADE FOR CLIMATE!
aikidlc 2 years ago 2
some
bflatkitty 2 years ago
If you answer "some" I must ask 'which'!
I can understand that it's hard to realise the deepness of the blindness of Science... Nevertheless the great Physicist & mathématician H.Poincarré made the proof that in the simplest case of what is called "The 3 body problem" (which tells the 'sad' story of the super-super-TOY model that plays with only 3 simple objects linked by the simplest gravific force...) , well he prooved that this drastically simple MODEL IS TOTALY BLIND!
aikidlc 2 years ago
So! Lets sum now what we have drasticaly clarified about "Global warming" beliefs : dinging out from unconsciousness and ignorance this fondamental STUMBLING STONE OF ALL SERIOUS CLIMATE MODELS, brings to understand that 1- WHATEVER THE DATAS ARE, SCIENTIFIC PREDICTIONS CANOT BE MADE WITHOUT A MODEL
2-CLIMATE MODELS ARE CONSTITUTIONALY BLIND (for fondamental Feed Back reasons). THUS THEY CANOT OFFER PREDICTIONS
3- Thus as a consequence of 1&2, SCIENTIFIC PREDICTIONS CANOT BE MADE FOR CLIMATE!
aikidlc 2 years ago
REASONing
bflatkitty 2 years ago
Be careful! Realising the full impact of this drastic STUMBLING STONE doesn't mean that Science can never predict anything or provide some conviniant description of some insights of Naturer. But it never the less stresses that succesfull modelisation & ambition of predictability can only be achieved in fairly SIMPLE situations and as long as this ambition remains rather HUMBLE. No doubt that such psychological crucial qualities are very rare in human kind & in american people in particular!
aikidlc 2 years ago
Further more, shall there be no left doubt now that this drastic but fondamental STUMBLING STONE of climate theories, inevitably murders for ever the central myth & chieldfull illusion of the matureless "superman" generation that drunk the poison of "super-power american pseudo scientific propaganda"!.. Sory folks, THERE IS NO SUPERMAN, even when given the nicked name of 'SCIENCE' that has the super-power to "undress Nature" nor to predict climate. Sory for that, but it's much better this way!
aikidlc 2 years ago
To put it even clearer : All our consistant reasoning concerning climate must now be based on the drastic but fondamental STUMBLING STONE that remind's us that 'NO SERIOUS CLIMATE MODEL CAN PROVIDE SCIENTIFIC SIGNIFICANT PREDICTABILITY! (Except, at best, in miserably short time range). No doubt that some people might well be extremely suprised to realise how drasticaly Science fails in the central super-power of 'undressing Nature' and predict climate. But this is the way it is, IN SCIENCE!
aikidlc 2 years ago
The CRUCIAL QUESTION is now then : can we consider this drastic statement "BYE BYE... SCIENTIFIC PREDICTABILITY, FOR ALL SERIOUS CLIMATE MODELS!" as an absolutly undoubtfull TRUE FOUNDATION for all our reasonings in climate study? To go further my previous explanations and totaly understand why the answer to this crucial question is actualy YES, one needs to study "Modelisation". Nevertheless, from now on, I will actualy consider this 'deadful' STUMBLING STONE of climate theories as TRUE!
aikidlc 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
And what means "SERIOUS CLIMATE MODELS ARE ALL DEADLY 'CONTAMINATED', IN THEIR PREDICTIBLE POWER, BY 'BUTTERFLY EFFECTS' "? It means that WHATEVER IS the accuracy of (past) DATAS coming from measurements, as long as remains the slightest uncertainty in those measurements (and far will we always remain from this perfection), the MODEL unescapably become "BLIND" and looses drasticaly his predictable power! To say it CLEAR : "BYE BYE... SCIENTIFIC PREDICTABILITY, FOR ALL SERIOUS CLIMATE MODELS!"
aikidlc 2 years ago
Comment removed
aikidlc 2 years ago
1 (suite)- Why that? Because in Science, to build a bridge from mesurements (that belong to the PAST) to predictions (that belongs to the FUTURE) one needs a SUCCESFUL MODEL. And here start's (before having even started!) the BIG PROBLEM! Because building a succesfull model is most of the time an IMPOSSIBLE GOAL, specialy in Climate models that are constitutionaly 'contaminated', from the very begining, by drasticaly heavy blindening "Butterfly effects" (comming from 'Feed Back' mecanism)!
aikidlc 2 years ago
Lets sum main unfounded beliefs and empty reasonings about "Global Warming" : 1- First of all lets come back a second to the definition of the SUPPOSED THREAT : "Global Warming". Unprecise statements are the flesh of vulgarisation and the spine of dogmas, but systematic ennemies of Science. Even if "Globaly warmer" was i) a scientific statement, and ii) proven true, in no way nevertheless it could help "Global warming" to find a seat in the garden of possible PREDICTIONS! Crucial statement!!
aikidlc 2 years ago
It's very interesting to look carefuly at all the beliefs and way of thinking of DeusExMachina because It's a model of how dogmatism build it self, step by step, in an IN-COMPETANT but enthousiastic mind! Thus, for those who seek Sincerity, it's possible to better understand, by studying this one example, how DOGMATICS of all times (and all fields) become so and how their beliefs become more and more fanatic as they paradoxaly turn their back to their goal in an increasing unconciousness!
aikidlc 2 years ago
I'm sory to be rude Deus but each of your answer shows that your simply don't understand a clue about the points that have been previously stressed out! Be careful. Your answers are very silly and it's obvious that you have no insight in Physics. All your beliefs come from partial interpretations of others beliefs. Worse you seem now fanatic in those beliefs. But nothing NEW about that. It's a general psychological pattern that more in-competant people are in a subject more fanatic they become
aikidlc 2 years ago
to atkimanchristmas :
clear mind! Speaking truely is OXYGEN in souls! The best way to stop this "MIND STORM GLOBAL WARMING PROPAGANDA!"...
The solution is OXYGEN in our brain!
Be my gest my friend!
Nice to meet you
Tao
aikidlc 2 years ago
to atkimanchristmas : god to see aware people! Keep this wave
My blessings
aikidlc 2 years ago
Al Gore may have made mistakes as we all do,none of us are perfect, but the majority of scientists in the world do believe that most global warming is man made and not natural fluctuations as has happened historically. I live in the UK and the weather here has been bizarre, especially these last 3-4 years.
lewars1912 2 years ago
Al Gore absolutely ridiculous SHOW can certainly convience but only dum buts! Al this campaign and this propaganda movie... stincks not only in few spots... it stincks heavily from the begining to the end! All the diagrams on which he bases his catastrophic MYTH have been heavily manipulated! By folowing this durty path he's proven nothing except that he is defenitaly a briliant apostle of hypocrisis arrogance! He messes scientific facts to build a new religion : ENVIRONMENT! Lots money behind
aikidlc 2 years ago
Which ones were manipulated?
I'm religious if I believe in reasonable environmental restraint? How would you feel if I dumped excess battery acid in your local water supply? It doesn't take a leap of faith to believe that's not good for anyone.
DeusExMachina7709 2 years ago
This is not the point! I'm a deep lover of Nature and I deeply sympathise with true lovers. I'm pointing out the hypocrisis and arrogance of such deceivers! They use some true facts to distort them in order to make big business out of "ENVIRONMENT" just as evil "St Bernard" distorted faith to make huge business on "FAITH" and bring hundred thousand idiots in the evil path of Crusades! Al Gore doens't give a shit about Nature. He just simulates. DANGER IS NOT WARMING BUT HYPOCRISIS! Get it?
aikidlc 2 years ago
Al Gore's personal beliefs really have no bearing whatsoever on the data, and it really doesn't take faith to believe in global warming. Look at the evidence yourself. I remember I used to be a global warming denier and I'd search for evidence that confirmed my a priori conclusion (confirmation bias). I tried arguing with climate scientists and I was regularly whooped.
I came to realize the evidence is compelling, if not 100% certain, and like many others I decided we should do something.
DeusExMachina7709 2 years ago
Of course u want to do something acording to your convictions. Who are your "St Bernard"? But to my analysis, if I wasn't a specialist in Modelisation I may spend time about "Global Warm" or "Global Cold"... in comparison to THE PAST! SOME datas bring more than thin sand in the hand of science. But sory to say, there's no "predictible horizon" in climatology for stochastik fondamental reasons; that brings drasticaly predictions out of the hand of science throwing them... in the hand of FEAR!
aikidlc 2 years ago
I'm sorry but I have no idea what you're saying.
DeusExMachina7709 2 years ago
Have you got any clear knowledge about how science works? And about the essential concept of a MODEL? To summerise : 1- We have no serious climatology model (except toy ones!). Thus predictions are not in the range of science but in the one of guessing, fearing the worse or hoping for the better! 2- All climatology models are radicaly 'stochastik'; thus even if we had a serious model the predictable horizon would still be at our nose edge! Get it? So please stop 'believing' and start THINKING!
aikidlc 2 years ago
No, there is absolutely no consensus on the climate models. In fact, estimations of climate sensitivity vary by a factor of three. If you'd read the IPCC AR4 you'd see that there is a LOT of uncertainty among scientists about the theory. The only consensus is that CO2 has caused Earth to warm, it will continue to cause Earth to warm, and it would be in our best interests to do something about it.
DeusExMachina7709 2 years ago
I guess now we can answer your question eh?
12stringsforme 2 years ago
lol
Go for it. Answer my question: what data was manipulated. This ought to be fun.
DeusExMachina7709 2 years ago
lol
lolololol
duck and weave buddy
"make it fit'
"hide the decline"
delete all those emails
intimidate editor a, b, c
prevent dissenting papers
All evidence of criminal conspiracy. But then we knew that a long time ago, didn't we?
Having fun yet?
12stringsforme 2 years ago
Joke's on you.
Go back to that hide the decline email. What did he say he was going to "hide the decline" using? What data. Therein lies your answer.
The editor was never "intimidated." They just mutually agreed to boycott the journal.
Prevent dissenting papers? Make it fit?
The only bad thing was Jones attempting to circumvent the FIA.
DeusExMachina7709 2 years ago
The only joke around here, my little criminal sympathizer, is the pathetic evasiveness of the people who wrote these emails. First they were "stolen" and not leaked, then it is implied they are not real, then they are dismissed as irrelevant, then it is a KGB conspiracy . . . heads will still roll.
12stringsforme 2 years ago 2
Evasiveness? LOL. Ironic, considering I just asked you a direct, simple question and you evaded it.
DeusExMachina7709 2 years ago
Your question was answered. Don't bother replying with "no you didn't."
Troll.
12stringsforme 2 years ago
Need I copy and paste everything you said to remind you the question went unanswered?
What data did they use to "hide the decline"? Do you know what decline they were referring to? Fox News sure didn't.
DeusExMachina7709 2 years ago
@DeusExMachina7709 Are you talking about the university in England emailgate bullshit saga? I looked into that carefully and read two lengthy articles on it, and reviewed the TWO government enquiries.
All that happened was the guys didn't want other people using their carefully researched data, so were reluctant to give up data when asked. All the emails are now public, and if anyone actually could be bothered to look into it youll see it doesn't say climate change isn't real at all.
bullshit
markgg1 1 year ago
@markgg1 Correct, it is a natural cycle that has happened for billions of years.
TheKickerboy99 1 year ago
@TheKickerboy99 so you agree CO2 causes a warmer planet?
markgg1 1 year ago
If someone has lied in his life, is he from there on, unable to tell the truth?
BTW, what eactly did Al Gore lie about in this vid? He is quoted as saying "49% of America...in...drought" and your man from the 'CATO' institute quotes the same % but tries to denounce its relevance.
There is no opposing evidence, just an opposing view and u share in this for god knows what reason. Are u afraid u might actually have to do something for ur planet? Everyone is moving forward, Ur the minority now.
Chewy240284 2 years ago
OMG! Lets nitpick everything Al Gore says and if we find him even slightly incorrect, he must be wrong about Man-made Climate Change. Go Fuck Yourself Patrick Michaels. Do the math and look beyond ur petty disputes, u r green only with envy.
Chewy240284 2 years ago
Al Gore is a lyer!
aikidlc 2 years ago
al gore is really my hero so is the man who acts the polluter in shame. thank you all for clarifing the both sides of issue of gobel warming. now that you all agree it is time to act. i love the love between the sides of gobel warming. if you disagree then maybe you should study the tao te ching for the answer. can we now be happy and hug al gore for to the great man in telling us the salvation of mankind. i hope now the answer is clear to both of you. thank you for agreeing with me
carpballet 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Can you imagine the size of the carbon footprints coming from AL Gore's HUGE FAT ASS FARTS! Most of this global warming is coming from his ass and China
Gatoreffer 2 years ago
Gore and the scientists he relies on have not proven THEIR THESIS. He who asserts must prove in science! They claim (i) global warming is dangerous (ii) it is due to man's activity. They fail on both counts. It's as simple as A - B = C. A is the current slight warming, B is what would occur in sun cycles without man, as it has for centuries, and C is the man-made part. They guess that B is zero! You can't get to C without knowing B. The don't know B, so they give us BS.
JoeyFudd 2 years ago
1900-2009 aprox
B= -.1 to +.1 deg forcing on 11 year cycles
C= -.2 to + .6 deg Anthropogenic
Volcanic aerosols = -.25 to 0deg
El Niño ocean current = -.2 to +.2 deg
published graphs in sky and telescope mar 2009
bflatkitty 2 years ago
You can't solve for A with B+C... (Bush/Cheney)
note:
The Sun is only in minimum for 17% of the cycles.
That -.25 volcanic counter forcing was a one shot deal.
1998 was at the top end of the ocean forcing, generally on five to seven year cycles. 2005 was a half strength upwards forcing with similar temperatures. Ocean forcing depends on temperatures of converging currents that cycle at different rates from each other.
bflatkitty 2 years ago
On topic..
Al Gore never indicated that drought was the main primary implication of Global Warming. Is it possible for heat to produce drought? Yes, It can push a given jet stream off its normal path. That would not show up as a linear relationship on Patrick's graph. The heat may have been created in the ocean in a different hemisphere in a different year. Pollution causes retarded evaporation and warming, increased evap. It's all deviation that may not be balanced.
bflatkitty 2 years ago
Or you are a crackpot from the cato institute.
This moron should be executed for delivery misleading the people
JerezJulio 2 years ago
So what does his argument have to do with climate science?
"Not-a-scientist Gore got something wrong on a radio show, THEREFORE manmade global warming doesn't exist!"
greyflcn 2 years ago 3
Is Al Gore Misrepresenting Global Warming?
YES !!!!!!!!
FUCK AL GORE , U PIG
sexlessparents 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Awesome Video. Youtube can be a great asset for you. If you need any help getting your video exposed check out this site called sl8t.(com) It has really done wonders for me, I have built 3 channels up with videos at top in position, this is my forth channel I'm going to working on now.
Sorry for the parenthesis around the com, some reason Youtube will not let you give an actual address in a comment. Real weird. Have a Blessed day!
Have A Blessed Day
Resdwdds 2 years ago
"In a July 27, 2006 ABC News report, it was revealed that a Colorado energy cooperative, the Intermountain Rural Electric Association, had given Patrick Michaels $100,000."
This guys a phony and in the extreme minority of scientists who do not whole heartedly agree with Climate Change. Patrick Michaels has been involved in a handful of controversies and his "facts" aren't... well... factual. He stretches the truth to fit his agenda or his own opinion.
Don't be mislead by these people guys!
Krumbz2003 2 years ago
he clearly states where he gets his facts in this video....if they aren't actually facts perhaps you can point out to us exactly where he lied instead of vaguely commenting he is a liar...if you can't do it then why are you bothering to type
capemall 2 years ago
It's not even a secret that James Hansen, perhaps the alarmist-in-chief, received lump sums of $700,000 and $400,000 from George Soros and Teresa Heinz Kerry respectively(in clear viloation of federal law, I might add). So why don't you discount everything coming from Hansen and GISS since he runs the climate dept, there?
jimbo1490 2 years ago
Look up agnatology.
TheFallibleFiend 2 years ago 2
This video is a perfect example.
Yabbablabba 2 years ago
Doesn't matter if Al Gore is right or wrong, the peer review data points to manmade Climate Change being being true.
Cato Institute megafail.
lynchmobb2000 2 years ago
it also points to it not being catastrophic or life endangering. Thats the point of this video.
LeGioNoFZioN 2 years ago
Maybe it's not being catastrophic or life endangering, but why shit where you sleep?
Yabbablabba 2 years ago
I don't. and I appreciate intellectual honesty over histrionics every time. these guys weren't saying there is no global warming, just that its advocates often lie. Most of the time they do so for their own benefits and purposes not the public's.
Al Gore is a liar and a hypocrit who plans to profit from the crisis. the only environmentalists I pay close attention to are David Suzuki et al. People of reason and character, not extremists.
LeGioNoFZioN 2 years ago
Call off the dogs man, you don't need to save the world from Al Gore. If you really want to make a difference against extremist profiteering why don't you start with Goldman-Sachs.
Yabbablabba 2 years ago
I beg to differ, Al Gore is as much a part of the forces vying for world power as Goldman-Sachs. the difference is we all know not to trust Goldman-Sachs, whiwel some people actually trust a liar and profiteer like Al Gore. who is more dangerous the liar you know or the one you don't know is a liar ?
LeGioNoFZioN 2 years ago
Again..I was adressing the retard hillbillies in this debate! Of course I wasn't referring to Al Gore when I talked about ignorant hillbillies! He knows that global warming is a fact, just like every serious scientist on the planet knows! Fucking christ, are you retarded? You are a bit retarded, no?
winterstellar 2 years ago
but if thats the case then why are there so many scientists speaking against it? the arguements i've heard against are consistent across sources and i haven't heard them dealt with by the pro parties. in fact, all the pro parties seem to do when they do when they come into contact with this data is call people "retards" and "fascists". no bating, no bs, honestly - if you have or know of a rational scientific counter arguement to the points raised here and elsewhere i am genuinely interested.
technosnob303 2 years ago
Haha, "so many"...100-200 out of 100 000 or something..yeah, really "many". Some fucktard retards you'll find anywhere, even among scientists. : )
winterstellar 2 years ago
That doesn't answer my question. And the majority doesn't necessarily equal the truth, even amongst scientists. Those who say that global warming is not man-made have proposed very plausible arguments that actively discredit popular opinion on the phenomenon. I havent heard a counter attack that tackles the issues it raises. Instead, they just rehash the same discredited ideas, but with lashings of political tub thumping and moral accusations. so once again, if some has info send me a link. thx
technosnob303 2 years ago
Climate change is both natural and caused by human activities. No researcher I know denies this generality. The legitimate scientific questions are how much effect comes from each, how does change alter already stressed support systems? The status quo alone is enough to frighten scientists and planners...declining aquifers, forests, coastal development. Add even a slight human induced climate effect and the unprecedented becomes particularly nasty. There is no gain from a false dichotomy.
InReasonWeTrust 2 years ago
Thank you for a genuine and serious reply. I can't tell you how hard its been to get one. I'm particularly interested in issue of carbon foot printing and greenhouse gases as being unsupported in causing rising global temperatures. I understand that the issues is extremely serious without this factor, but from what i know i've been lied too. Can you recommend any literature that addreses the core issues of humanity's impact, and if possible something that readdress the greenhouses gases issue?
technosnob303 2 years ago
Google Tom Segalstad. He's a Norwegian scientist who studies the carbon cycle. He studied and averaged many 'carbon isotopic mass balance' studies done over decades by different teams and his average of anthropogenic attribution of nascent CO2 is a paltry 4%. Even the last IPCC report only attributed 21%, and that without any hard data. e averaged the 'half-life' of CO2 in the atmosphere at only 5.6 years, not the "hundreds of years" asserted by the IPCC, again without ANY hard data in support.
jimbo1490 2 years ago
re: jimbo1490
==Humans average of anthropogenic attribution of nascent CO2 is a paltry 4%==
True, but irrelevant.
greyfalcon. net/ carbon2
==James Hansen, $700,000 from George Soros==
gristmill. grist. org/ article/more-swiftboating-of-james-hansen#c70135
greyflcn 2 years ago
"..as being unsupported in causing rising global temperatures. etc etc..."
"I understand that the issues is extremely serious without this factor, but from what i know i've been lied too".
Great , I think you're on to something.
You can view visualizations on youtube that show green house gas and heat coming from industrial areas via satellite.
large scale testing of co2 effect in the environment can't be far away.
bflatkitty 2 years ago