I'm not going to debate your climate arguments. They sound pretty solid.
But you state in your video that LESS economic growth is bad? I guess you're another person who doesn't understand exponential growth. A few more hurricanes (more human death and suffering), but more economic wealth (mostly for the people that have plenty of it already?)
You make good arguments when it comes to the climate, but in my opinion you fail to see the negative effects of economic growth.
Oh, ah... yes ice was less extensive in the past but then sea level was also 20m higher in past interglacials... bad.
Oh, and of course ice extent was lower when the earth was red hot 4.5billion years ago.
AGW predicts the ice will get thicker in Antarctica because a warmer earth means more snow and antarctica isn't being melted by the warm ocean... its on rock.
BTW, right now in the middle of winter, ice at the north pole is melting... also unheard of in our time.
Ignorance is bliss. Keep driving those sport utes and polluting at the pace you were. The spin on here is great. The Maldives is disappearing, anyone that has been to the northern part of North America has seen how dramatically things have changed in the last few years. But hey , its all a lie. No one in these places are seeing anything or feeling the effects. Good work people. Maybe if we just close our eyes it will just go away.
Great video though!!! Absolutely! however, there are few things:
1) feebacks may be nonlinear, changing in magnitude with temperature
2) it doesn't speak about methane, which, unlike co2, in ice core data _rises_before_temperature_ (and it may be released from clathrates and siberian bogs)
3) i hoped this video would tell us more about the goodness of the late tertiary climate %(. When glasiation was restricted to antarctic and climate was more pleasant, judging by giant monsters that lived then
I've got to comment on the Jakobshavn glacier you used in your vid. About a third of its retreat in the last 150 years occured in the last decade, (ie at an unprecendented rate). Then again it hardly retreated at all in the last 20th century, so it would be interesting to know what's going on there.
I am going to put an ice cube in a glass of water, mark the side of the glass and see if the level goes up when the ice melts!
Great Post, made me think about who would benefit from a global warming scam...errr let me see Business and Government... just like the Millenium bug back in 1999....just one thought though, what happens when all the ice is at the south pole?
2009 has seen the Arctic ice extent return to normal ... not that alarmists would believe data any more than they believe IPCC data showing 7 years steady cooling and no warming since 1998.
amazing...and here is the kicker...no one cares. science, the science of measurement and fact (as best you can) is being obliterated by money grabbing, headline seeking, rock chic fakes..there is a cold or is it warm place in hell for mann and his hockey stick abomination. bravo sir for an honest piece...unfortunately there is no place for you in the GW debate...isnt that the saddest part??
There are "scientists" who are spreading the propaganda, though. I don't know what kind of scientists they are.. because this man (the creator of the video) is the kind of person who I would say is a scientist. But some crazy woman who works for an Environmental organization e-mailed me about how she's interviewed so many scientists who have told her that global warming is definitely caused by man and recited propaganda to me like the freakin Hitler Youth. I am really worried!!
There are a lot of scientistw who dont study global warming but have heard the theory and think it sounds good and get touted as a scientist who has confirmed global warming.
If its accepted fact by the media then I think it should be a questionable fact to the public.
I wish I could show your movie to my classmates in high school. Man this is the kind of intelligent, credible, and logical argument that incorporates some arguments against AGW that most haven't even considered. Bravo sir.
excellent and measured overview. My BIG question is: why is there no ONGOING website which could LIST a very large number of components of logic in the warming debate, and make a reasoned statement to summarise what we know (justifiably) or can reasonably state, and ask scientists to state whether they agree. Example - "it is reasonable to conclude that recorded temperatures have over estimated world temperature because of urban island effects" that sort of thing...
the other misunderstanding: having higher production value doesn't make people richer. the same ratio will be rich and poor in the world. that needs social evolution and changes in paradigms about wealth, help, democracy, power and so on which is far from the human nature.
nice work i can agree all of the scientific part. although i argue putting cooler @ poorer phrases in balance to warmer @ richer. it is a bit like demagogy.
cutting CO emission doesn't mean the drop of GDP. i know US gains a high percent of energy from fossil-carrier but there r alternative ways at hand it is only policy (money) which
Where does this (money) come from... It comes from taxes. By taking money away from people you lower GDP. The government will invest it in something less productive than the people would. Otherwise the people would invest in alternative ways because they are greedy and would make more money that way. All of the "alternative ways" cost more money and therefore we produce less overall
also don't forget about redistributitive effects. More taxes means biger pie piece for industrialist. It is very few private big corporations who will benefit the most from CO2 tax as they will recieve more money for "public" projects, meaning the poor will be poorer and wealthy even more wealthy.
And what is best on warming sceanirio:
After 40 years of "battling terrorism and AGW" your country will come and say: "It was heavy battle, but we won. Seas won't flood us."
Good work mr Coyote, I watched all six videos. Now I'm on the AGW = true side of the debate, but I must say that your exposé of the critical point of view is so far the best. As Kennelson remarked there's good reason for to take a more humble stance and focus on knowledge, on both sides: there is a denier bandwagon also.
OK, I made it all the way from part 1 to 6, and I just want to say thanks. You gave me as viewer a lot to think about, which I'm going to assume was your purpose in putting this video together. So yeah, thanks.
good sound argument as hypothesis testing. what were the setps in the null hypothesis testing that gave the rise to the alternative hypothesis (co2 up, temp up) i wonder? science is not a democracy. many theories were world wide acepted that were completly false. data has to be concrete and has to be interperated correctly and always questioned. well done.
I have read much on this subject and this is a great summary of the many uncertainties in the data and the science of climate change. I wish the climate change bandwagon was more humble and objective. As you and Hamlet would remind them, "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
This is an incredibly insightful video series! Thank you!!
Coutureisforsure 9 months ago
I'm not going to debate your climate arguments. They sound pretty solid.
But you state in your video that LESS economic growth is bad? I guess you're another person who doesn't understand exponential growth. A few more hurricanes (more human death and suffering), but more economic wealth (mostly for the people that have plenty of it already?)
You make good arguments when it comes to the climate, but in my opinion you fail to see the negative effects of economic growth.
MrMozeskriebel 11 months ago
Oh, ah... yes ice was less extensive in the past but then sea level was also 20m higher in past interglacials... bad.
Oh, and of course ice extent was lower when the earth was red hot 4.5billion years ago.
AGW predicts the ice will get thicker in Antarctica because a warmer earth means more snow and antarctica isn't being melted by the warm ocean... its on rock.
BTW, right now in the middle of winter, ice at the north pole is melting... also unheard of in our time.
This video is such rubbish.
bernzeppi 1 year ago
You are NOT getting enough views for a video series of this quality!
pburto 1 year ago
Ignorance is bliss. Keep driving those sport utes and polluting at the pace you were. The spin on here is great. The Maldives is disappearing, anyone that has been to the northern part of North America has seen how dramatically things have changed in the last few years. But hey , its all a lie. No one in these places are seeing anything or feeling the effects. Good work people. Maybe if we just close our eyes it will just go away.
josava1 1 year ago
Great video though!!! Absolutely! however, there are few things:
1) feebacks may be nonlinear, changing in magnitude with temperature
2) it doesn't speak about methane, which, unlike co2, in ice core data _rises_before_temperature_ (and it may be released from clathrates and siberian bogs)
3) i hoped this video would tell us more about the goodness of the late tertiary climate %(. When glasiation was restricted to antarctic and climate was more pleasant, judging by giant monsters that lived then
coturnix19 1 year ago
I've got to comment on the Jakobshavn glacier you used in your vid. About a third of its retreat in the last 150 years occured in the last decade, (ie at an unprecendented rate). Then again it hardly retreated at all in the last 20th century, so it would be interesting to know what's going on there.
Lochness19 2 years ago
i see an entirely different causal process at work in the climategate.
Piagetian conservation and development stages of this group of immature scientists. its a faulty ideas of reference....
OCD Kids on Keys, who bewilder the computer illiterate oldtimers, with One-Worlder. Mama-Gaia diddlers.
rialcnis 2 years ago
I am going to put an ice cube in a glass of water, mark the side of the glass and see if the level goes up when the ice melts!
Great Post, made me think about who would benefit from a global warming scam...errr let me see Business and Government... just like the Millenium bug back in 1999....just one thought though, what happens when all the ice is at the south pole?
sard37 2 years ago
Now enter Climategate.
johnnowa1953 2 years ago
2009 has seen the Arctic ice extent return to normal ... not that alarmists would believe data any more than they believe IPCC data showing 7 years steady cooling and no warming since 1998.
sydneydoc 3 years ago 2
amazing...and here is the kicker...no one cares. science, the science of measurement and fact (as best you can) is being obliterated by money grabbing, headline seeking, rock chic fakes..there is a cold or is it warm place in hell for mann and his hockey stick abomination. bravo sir for an honest piece...unfortunately there is no place for you in the GW debate...isnt that the saddest part??
allfalldown 3 years ago
AWESOME
mulleygraves 3 years ago 2
Excellent video. Now this is sensible logic people can understand, if they care enough.
Sometimes the only way to make a logical debate noticable is to add 'emotion'.
This is how the mainstream media works. Thank goodness we've got the internet.
Calm, rational though destroys futile hysterics.
How many of you scold a whiny teenager versus a collected adult?
That's what I thought.
kenzboard 3 years ago 4
There are "scientists" who are spreading the propaganda, though. I don't know what kind of scientists they are.. because this man (the creator of the video) is the kind of person who I would say is a scientist. But some crazy woman who works for an Environmental organization e-mailed me about how she's interviewed so many scientists who have told her that global warming is definitely caused by man and recited propaganda to me like the freakin Hitler Youth. I am really worried!!
po3a8 3 years ago
There are a lot of scientistw who dont study global warming but have heard the theory and think it sounds good and get touted as a scientist who has confirmed global warming.
If its accepted fact by the media then I think it should be a questionable fact to the public.
Silentsam7532 2 years ago
when the us wants to commit obomacide , promoted by the democratic marxist party of america this is the ruse they use
SHMUJEW 3 years ago
I wish I could show your movie to my classmates in high school. Man this is the kind of intelligent, credible, and logical argument that incorporates some arguments against AGW that most haven't even considered. Bravo sir.
CoNTuffgong76 3 years ago
excellent and measured overview. My BIG question is: why is there no ONGOING website which could LIST a very large number of components of logic in the warming debate, and make a reasoned statement to summarise what we know (justifiably) or can reasonably state, and ask scientists to state whether they agree. Example - "it is reasonable to conclude that recorded temperatures have over estimated world temperature because of urban island effects" that sort of thing...
nicolasogorman 3 years ago
the other misunderstanding: having higher production value doesn't make people richer. the same ratio will be rich and poor in the world. that needs social evolution and changes in paradigms about wealth, help, democracy, power and so on which is far from the human nature.
and far from climate change as well
3megistos 3 years ago
nice work i can agree all of the scientific part. although i argue putting cooler @ poorer phrases in balance to warmer @ richer. it is a bit like demagogy.
cutting CO emission doesn't mean the drop of GDP. i know US gains a high percent of energy from fossil-carrier but there r alternative ways at hand it is only policy (money) which
close them off.
3megistos 3 years ago
"cutting CO emission doesn't mean the drop of GDP."
Somewhere, Milton Friedman is turning in his grave. Just point me to that soup kitchen where I can pick up my free lunch, megistos.
161803 3 years ago
Where does this (money) come from... It comes from taxes. By taking money away from people you lower GDP. The government will invest it in something less productive than the people would. Otherwise the people would invest in alternative ways because they are greedy and would make more money that way. All of the "alternative ways" cost more money and therefore we produce less overall
mulleygraves 3 years ago
Agreed,
also don't forget about redistributitive effects. More taxes means biger pie piece for industrialist. It is very few private big corporations who will benefit the most from CO2 tax as they will recieve more money for "public" projects, meaning the poor will be poorer and wealthy even more wealthy.
And what is best on warming sceanirio:
After 40 years of "battling terrorism and AGW" your country will come and say: "It was heavy battle, but we won. Seas won't flood us."
1nnsider 3 years ago
Good work mr Coyote, I watched all six videos. Now I'm on the AGW = true side of the debate, but I must say that your exposé of the critical point of view is so far the best. As Kennelson remarked there's good reason for to take a more humble stance and focus on knowledge, on both sides: there is a denier bandwagon also.
CoronelFricko 3 years ago
OK, I made it all the way from part 1 to 6, and I just want to say thanks. You gave me as viewer a lot to think about, which I'm going to assume was your purpose in putting this video together. So yeah, thanks.
xempla 3 years ago
Another excellent summary.
minilemur 4 years ago 4
Excellent.
The author may also wish to contact Dr Peter Flood whose research shows that sea levels have been falling for the past couple of thousand years.
sydneydoc 4 years ago 2
good sound argument as hypothesis testing. what were the setps in the null hypothesis testing that gave the rise to the alternative hypothesis (co2 up, temp up) i wonder? science is not a democracy. many theories were world wide acepted that were completly false. data has to be concrete and has to be interperated correctly and always questioned. well done.
robur01 4 years ago 3
I have read much on this subject and this is a great summary of the many uncertainties in the data and the science of climate change. I wish the climate change bandwagon was more humble and objective. As you and Hamlet would remind them, "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
Kensnelson 4 years ago 3