Climate change, generally, is directly attributable to variations of the earth's orbit in relation to the sun. It's called the Malenkovich cycle. Don't stress your brains out with this corporate "science" channel. Maybe Peer Review served a purpose before the 1970's, but since the Neoliberalization and commoditaization of science, starting with Presidents Richard Nixon, Jimmy Carter, and Ronald Reagan and accelerated with Bush and Clinton, it is now a tool for moneyed Capitalist interests.
Translation: Any objective findings that go against the main goal of corporate monopoly profit. Referees may disagree, but disinterested, rigorous and honest scientists may not disagree.
Typical postivist channel. All form and semantics with no political substance or context. This is commoditized science. The majority of scientists dedicated to the principles of the scientific method find no evidence for AGW. Co2 is NOT pollution,pollution is NOT Co2
Firstly Potholer does not address the Mann hockey stick publication, because it is indefensible fraud at worst, junk science at best. Potholer tries to create the straw man that all anti AGW proponents believe that there is a mass conspirarcy and then goes on to lampoon his own suggestion when that is not what is being asserted at all. Scientists are trying to produce papers which show particularly dramatic results for man made AGW, that was the criticism which was dealt to CRU and Phil Jones.
Conspiracies are a legal construct. If women, labor unions, teachers and minorities can get together to discuss and further their intereests, what makes peoople think the the most wealthy and powerful corporate classes with the support of the media and state, who they finance, would not do the same? AGW is a free market capitalist agenda.The pro AGW "liberals" have it wrong for the right reasons and anti AGW free market" conservatives" have it right for the wrong reasons .
i love potholer's take on all of this, he cuts through all of the polorizing hype to show whats really present in the research. as usual, the truth is neither on the alarmist or denialist side, but somewhere in between. i'm not a scientist, nor able to sift through all the papers in an efficient enough time to find the truth, so i'd like to thank potholer for making the effort for people like me.
Speaking of cherry picking, the recent period of warming that spooked so many people lasted 20 years or less. From 1940 through the late 1970s, overall temperatures cooled, leading many to fear another glacial period. The world warmed until 1995-1998 or so, but since then the earth's temperatures have been stabilizing or even cooling. The earth's climate has gone up and down both before and during large-scale human production of greenhouse gasses.
@Xarkonul have you even considered to view the whole series of Videos from Potholer54? I dont think so, because if you'd watched them, all your Questions would have been adressed by now.
The Huffington Post influences many average voters, and the climate change debate is political as well as scientific. I’ll stick with my "Joe Averageguy" analogy and not defend anyone else. If 1998, 2005, and 2010 all tied for the hottest recent years, then this shows that global temperatures are leveling off, not increasing. Think of a bank account that goes from $100 to $95 to $100 to $95 and then back to $100. Where is the "statistically significant increase”?
You should actually examine the factors at play, like highest el nino in recorded history reenforcing a warming from a high TSI in 1998 for example. Unless you think that such factors have no effects on global temperatures. The "statistically significant increase" is in observing the overall trend and taking into account short term events that can skew warming and cooling. Simply listing years is cherry picking while ignoring the available data.
There is a quick simple solution to global warming and climate change. It is called Muon Catalysed Fusion. As worked on Star Scientific. NO CO2. NO Greenhouse Gases. NO Toxic Waste. The source is dueterium from the World's Oceans - virtually limitless. It is cheap to produce. WE NEED IT NOW. See the website "Star Scientific Limited", Blog "The Big Picture by Andrew Horvath", Youtube video - "In the Footsteps of Fusion"
The main problem isn't in this e-mail although it would be interesting to know what decline they're hiding. Is it in temperatures, in proxies or how proxies reflect temperature? The problem is regarding the pressure on journals what to publish, what not and regarding who will review the submitted articles. Thats bad.
On the other side I liked the vids regarding evolution and the debunking of creationists.
Grants push the direction of scientific thought. Grants come from Money which come from Rich people. And rich people only want to make more money. They are like medical doctors; they are just there for the money, never for their love of the science.
If for no other reason, my story relates to global warming since "warmists" like to claim a consensus, but as I've discovered through my experiences with The Huffington Post, this so called "consensus" can be manufactured for fraudulent purposes. My situation is similar to those of many other skeptics.
@Xarkonul So how does the Huffington Post have any influence on scientific consensus? Do scientists read the HP for their information about other research? I've seen your website and somewhere you claim that a daily mail article supports your "no warming since 1995" along with your JoeAverageguy argument. Please watch the video of potholer about phil jones dealing with this article and check the sources yourself. The video description is also helpful (although maybe confusing for historians).
What’s my point, sparitan? Arianna Huffington’s Huffington Post 1) deleted my posts 2) removed my profile (Xarkonul) since I had criticized the website’s views. To make matters worse, my arguments used The Huffington Post’s own assertions against it, so I never rushed to any “science denier” websites as some of my critics claimed. The Huffington Post censors its opponents for their views even though it claims it doesn’t, and this policy is cowardly, unjust, and possibly a breech of contract.
@Xarkonul Ok and again what is your point? So you got deleted from huffington post, I don't think anyone cares and its not relevant to a discussion on global warming. I doubt you have critics, you are not that important. The world doesn't revolve around you, stop thinking people care what happens to you.
"If all conventional and unconventional fossil fuels were burned, with the CO2 emitted to the atmosphere, it is possible that a runaway greenhouse effect could occur, with incineration of life and creation of a permanent Venus-like hothouse Earth."
I got into a debate in one of The Huffington Post’s forums in which I used my “Joe Averageguy” analogy to show that global temperatures have leveled off at best since 1998, and this conclusion came from using The Huffington Post’s own (inflated?) figures. My reward? The Huffington Post deleted my comments and removed my profile, Xarkonul. You can find more information at my YouTube channel (Xarkonul).
(About peer review): "A paper should not be excluded simply because a referee disagrees with its conclusions."
Doesn't Royal Society openly support the opposite? I believe editors are also allowed to reject any papers without any explanations, and in almost every other jurisdiction.
That is, there's no academic statute that requires any journal to publish every paper submitted to them, right? Doesn't that introduce a heck of a lot of bias?
@obtree - This was a video about climate change censorship related to the leaked CRU e-mails, as was explained very clearly in the video and in the title. The so-called "hockey stick" will be dealt with in a video about the Medieval Warm Period.
What I studied in school has nothing to do with the proposed AGW agenda. There are dissenting high caliber scientists that you can scrutinize asbout their studies. How about starting with them.
I just read your distortion of the word "theory" a few comments below, which also concerns me.
Again it might be my misinterpretation but you kind of sound like one of those creationists trying to disprove evolution by saying it is "just a theory".
A scientific theory has nothing to do with the hypothesis version of "theory". A scientific theory explains a specific phenomenon in nature and consists of a hypothesis proven by facts/observations.
Fact is, that todays temperatures and the magnitude of temperature rise is nothing unusual when you look at geological time periods.
The IPCC and other political panic inducers are always saying "hottest on record" and "above normal average" BUT when you start measuring during a cold period, that is usually what you get, isn't it? There is no such thing as "normal" temperature.
CO2 is neither a pollutant nor will it dangerously warm our planet.
You just have to see this problem in a greater context. It isn't just a environmental problem.
The IPCC is not a scientific organisation, it is a political arm of the UN, which is on its way to establish a world government.
You might want to make yourself familiar with terms like NWO, CFR, Bilderberg Grp. etc. to get a picture of possible motives that would lie behind all the scare-mongering. Kennedys last speech might be a start into the matter..
Which makes sense, since CO2 abosrbs only some of the wavelengths and theoretically at some point 100% absorbtion is achieved.
The crux of the matter is: reducing CO2 emissions doesn't solve anything since the temperature increase is logarythmically decreasing with rising CO2 levels!
That is the point skeptics are trying to convey.
There is no need for destroying our economies and letting third world countries starve even more by carbon taxing everyone.
Pot, the consensus seems to want more than the naked theory as well. The hockey stick graph, for example, has a startling visual impact in support of their theory (and would convince me if I had compete faith in it). It and others like it are dependent on a fairly accurate reconstitution of historical temps for their credibility; thus, my interest in the reliability of proxies. Many skeptics claim that CO2 follows warming, not visa versa, and that accounts for the bulk of the CO2 buildup.
Pot, re researcher's bias, you don't find it suspect how very often when a researcher conducts a study testing his theory (or her patron's) that the study bears out the theory? Methodology can be reviewed by peers, but who audits the data and subjects (with human studies) for selective data gathering and leading questions (with human subjects)? How often will a researcher come back with: “The theory is a crock”? As I said, we need better ways to both fund science and conduct studies.
Pot, yes, unfortunately the only way to prove or disprove A/CC is to do nothing and let events play out. That is *quite* a predicament. If I, for one, had more confidence in the reliability of past temperature reconstructions, then in my mind the risk/reward ratio would tilt to your point-of-view. I must study further the issue of temp proxies, and I have an open mind. I appreciated your presentation. It is neither too heady for most people or too “dumbed down” to be meaningless.
@litwriter100 -- "the only way to prove or disprove A/CC is to do nothing and let events play out."
Nothing can ever be proved in science. Global warming and the melting of ice caps was predicted back in the 50s, but now that it's happening it doesn't prove CO2 causes global warming. Even if CO2 levels increased 20 times, and all of Greenland and Antarctica melted 1,000 years from now, that still would not prove the link between CO2 and global warming.
Pot, thanks for your time. It's most appreciated! I apologize for the quote misattribution to Dr. Jones, which was careless of me. The point is that a researcher’s bias is a well-known aspect of science, especially science predicated on statistical models. I doubt that, for example, epidemiological studies are often, if ever, audited. Also, I strongly feel that we must come up with a better way to fund science and research. The present system readily lends itself to politics and zealotry.
@litwriter100 -- "The point is that a researcher’s bias is a well-known aspect of science,"
I've met scores of researchers and read hundreds of scientific papers, so I don't share your view that bias is "well known." If you have evidence of bias, I'd love to see it, and I'll report on it. But the example you give -- "getting rid of the MWP" -- is simply an allegation of what someone says someone told him.
Pot, you also seem to gloss over the tree ring divergence problem. If the TR proxies are unreliable in recent times, then how can it be certain they have always been in the past? Are other proxies any more reliable? This *is8 important because without an accurate picture of past temps, it cannot be proven that recent temps are anomalous. We are simply left with a theoretical model with no empirical evidence in support. Einstein's STR, for example, has been tested and upheld..
@potholer54 I feel like the important point is missing in your videos. There is a corealation between CO2 and temperatures, yes, but it is not a linear one.
As I recall, the first 250 ppm make up for about a 6°C temperature increase, a doubling of that to 500ppm results only in ~1°C and a further doubling would only result in a x/10°C increase (numbers might be slightly off, but you get the picture).
=We are simply left with a theoretical model with no empirical evidence in support.=
Evolution, plate tectonics, atomic theory, the ozone "hole", universal gravitation, the Big bang.... None of these things can be proven, which is why we call them "theories". But to dismiss them on the basis that they are theoretical models with "no empirical support" undermines nearly everything we have discovered about the way our world works.
@litwriter100 ="We must get rid off the MA Warm period"=
So now you have Phil Jones saying this! On other websites the quote is attributed to Dr. Jonathan Overpeck. Whatever, I don't even try to ascribe motivation to people who openly misreport or fabricate data, let alone what someone is supposed to have written to someone else in an e-mail. Speculation, guesses and opinion is cheap, and you'll find plenty of it by googling this alleged quote on the Internet.
Pot, when Dr. Jones states that "We must get rid off the MA Warm period," isn’t he (privately-he thought) acknowledging the agenda-driven science of GW? Why "must” they? I thought true science worked from evidence to conclusion and not visa versa. The researcher goes where the evidence leads, objectively and without desiring a particular, predetermined outcome. This is why I remain skeptical despite your great effort to remain balanced and objective, for which I commend you.
Which trees are deemed sensitive to temperature? The ones which had an expected growth response over the calibration period. Whether intentionally or not, the researchers probably cherry picked by throwing out non-conforming data.
What happens if the assumed sensitivity to temperature then breaks down? The most reliable conclusions is that trees are not reliable thermometers, now or in the past.
Craig Loehle also has good arguments around optimum growning conditions and non linearity.
'Climate scientists at a top UK research unit have emerged from an inquiry with their reputations for honesty intact but with a lack of openness criticised.
It concludes that 'their rigour and honesty as scientists are not in doubt'. This was one of the main charges that sceptics had levelled against CRU researchers.'
h t t p ://news.bbc. co. uk/1/hi/science_and_environment/10538198.stm
NY Times (7/1/10): “An investigative panel at Pennsylvania State University, weighing the question of whether the scientist, Michael E. MANN, had “seriously deviated from accepted practices within the academic community for proposing, conducting or reporting research or other scholarly activities,” declared that he had not.
“An earlier report had exonerated him of related charges that he suppressed or falsified data, destroyed e-mail and misused confidential information.”
Why does this video stop at 8:03? I was so absorbed and then bam! Damn it!
It would be great if after the investigations (which seem to exonerate these poor guys) someone were to create a follow up video on this and the social and political repercussions of such an extremely timely and suspiciously timely leak of these emails. I haven't seen this in the news anywhere for months now. Was it ever discovered who hacked these emails?
I've been following the videos from the first but am lost by now as to what is the point trying to be made. The natural warming component is not of relevance but the anthropogenic, if any. If such an anthropogenic component is present then virtually no scientific efforts have been invested into scrutinizing the taxation magic wand.
See how Koch Industries spent $50 million supporting "Americans for Prosperity Foundation (AFP)" and 40 other 'echo-chamber' organizations in the 'climate denial machine' as well as millions in Republican campaign contributions.
Jim Hoggan, author of 'Climate Cover-up", and Rachel discuss the oil & coal campaign, using 40 separate 'echo' organizations, to spew false & misleading propaganda about global warming.
British lawmakers say science sound, but want transparency
The House of Commons' Science and Technology Committee said they had seen no evidence to support charges that the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit or its director, Phil Jones, had tampered with data or perverted the peer review process to exaggerate the threat of global warming — two of the most serious criticisms levied against the climatologist and his colleagues.
You make no attempt to attack CRU for their misdeeds. Conspiring to dodge FOIA requests. Destroying/losing raw temp station data. The nature's trick where 20 years of unrelated data is fused onto another data set to hide a temp decline are acts of dishonesty... Yet...you address none of these issues. I compliment you are your first four videos but your last videos were a great disappoiuntment... The credibility you had built w/ me has been destroyed. Goodbye...
=You make no attempt to attack CRU for their misdeeds. Conspiring to dodge FOIA requests.=
On the contrary, I believe these are serious allegations, and I said so in the video. Quite rightly, they are being investigated, and if found to be true they are not only unethical but also illegal. I also addressed the =Nature trick= issue in the last video.
I'll shall rephrase: You make only the slightest reference to CRU's misdeeds of destroying data, avoiding FOIA requests, and plans to alter peer review process to shut certain scientists from publication. Your video was a complete whitewash of CRU's misdeeds. Evidently your tactics are if you can't defend, gloss over the issues quickly, and then change the subject. Is it possibly that you actually think this tactic is persuasive?
2) requests for more transparency despite it being common practice
3) In short, the science behind climate science is solid. Claims that scientists acted fraudulently are misplaced google: 'The disclosure of climate data from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia'
By 2100, at current rates of increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide, average ocean pH will drop 0.3 - 0.4 and be @ 7.8 with an increase in acidic H+ ion concentration of 150-200%.
That will cause a 50% DECREASE of ocean carbonate ions (CO3).
Carbonate ions are needed for growth by plankton & corals at the base of the ocean's food chain.
125,000 years ago a +2C rise in global temps. correlated with a 6-9 meter (25ft) rise in sea levels.
For a clear assessment of the most recent Climate Change science watch:
FORA (dot) tv
Global Warming: How Policy Can Catch Up With Science, Dr. Michael Oppenheimer, 2/23/10 (Environment)
Dr. Michael Oppenheimer is Professor of Geosciences at Princeton University & was the Lead Author on the third and fourth assessment reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2001 & 2007.
1:95 "at first sight sight it seems like a very clumsy attempt at censoring a paper"
No it doesn't potholer is lying it not only looks but is an attempt and I might add a successful attempt to punish the journal editors who published a paper that successfully debunked a paper by Michael Man (watch?v=UnoYTotZRjE) that has been debunked again and again and again.
@gerjanp Ah....no. It was criticized because it was lousy science. Peer reviewed papers don't get published out of some false sense of "balance" where each "side" (no matter how proposterous) gets its day in court, but according to the quality of the science. In this case the quality was below the minimal standard and should never have been published -- just like any paper similarly poor.
In just FIVE YEARS between 2004-2009 thick perennial arctic sea ice DROPPED 42%. This was discovered by NASA satellite measurements. Reported 7/7/09
Search:
New NASA Satellite Survey Reveals Dramatic Arctic Sea Ice Thinning
Global Warming is changing our world NOW. CO2 is 35% above levels for 650,000 years. In just 30 years CO2 will be over 450ppm, enough to acidify oceans to the point of stopping the growth of many planktons and corals. They are at the base of the oceans' food chain.
Methane Releases from Arctic Shelf May Be Much Larger and Faster Than Anticipated
NSF - March 4, 2010.
Research results, published in the March 5 edition of the journal Science, show that the permafrost under the East Siberian Arctic Shelf, long thought to be an impermeable barrier sealing in methane, is perforated and is starting to leak large amounts of methane into the atmosphere. Release of even a fraction of the methane stored in the shelf could trigger abrupt climate warming.
British officials and lawmakers carried out the first hearing against climate scientist Phil Jones yesterday over uncertainties in his research results made public by leaked emails now known as "Climategate." Simon Hoggart of The Guardian described Jones as "taut, nervous, often miserable. Often his hands shook." Investigators say they avoided some of the most piercing, some say most critical, questions intentionally due to Jones' frail mental state.
ScienceDaily (Dec. 7, 2009) — In the long term, the Earth's temperature may be 30-50% more sensitive to atmospheric carbon dioxide than has previously been estimated, reports a new study published in Nature Geoscience.
No. You're talking about U.S. temps, not Global Temps. And you're using a 2007 report. From NASA 2009: "Although 2008 was the coolest year of the decade -- due to strong cooling of the tropical Pacific Ocean -- 2009 saw a return to near-record global temperatures. The past year was only a fraction of a degree cooler than 2005, the warmest year on record, and tied with a cluster of other years -- 1998, 2002, 2003, 2006 and 2007 -- as the second warmest year since recordkeeping began."
renewable energy is still being developed. But they have made alot of technical advances. when they make enough technical advances, they will be able to compete and rival fossil fuels.
if wind energy was profitable (viable) investors would be all over it - an easy investment if the numbers worked - and there would be wind farms everywhere.
But wind does not work as long as other energy sources keep energy costs down for us users.
If Obama and the greens can stop all oil drilling/coal/and nukes - the price of energy will climb to a point where wind would pay for itself - but sadly we would all be out of work by then.
@FreeAgain2 This is clear ignorance of how the energy industry works. There are private investors in wind, but transmission is a far bigger concern. The "other energy sources" you talk about that "keep energy costs down" only do so because of massive government subsidies (far greater than any subsidies for renewable energy) and by externalizing or hiding massive costs - such as destruction of the environment and public health costs.
Most wind energy is already cheaper than most other forms of power generation. Coal and nuke plants are still highly profitable, however, as long as they are allowed to externalize. They are also the established energy industry and that is difficult to change or even advance.
@FreeAgain2 Lol. Baseload plants "fail" all the time - and are the only reason we have ever had blackouts or other power related problems.
Not all energy companies will invest anywhere profits can be made. This statement is inane and completely ignorant.
Wind power can be predicted well in advance, and as systems are scaled up intermittency is diminished. Combination with other renewables, demand side management and energy storage can easily account for any "intermittency."
@FreeAgain2 In terms of "reliability" - distributed systems and renewable power farms are far more reliable. It is highly unlikely that an entire wind farm would break down all at once - only one turbine breaks down at a time - unlike baseload plants like coal and nukes which can shut down suddenly and without warning, taking a significant chunk of energy generation along with them.
@FreeAgain2 Do you have a clue as to how much money is being invested in wind energy? Did you even try to look it up before making a conclusion? A great deal of the issue revolves around infrastructure. In the US the locations that have the best resource of wind power do not have the required infrastructure to deliver that power.
Nuc plants built their infrastructure - It is not like they could build those plants in town! Many of them are in far off places +50 miles from population centers.
And as for investing in wind - don't forget to subtract the energy lost to the grid just in transporting the power to the users.
I've said it before. Even if you don't believe in global warming you should back the movements to supply the earth with alternative energy sources. It will make the air cleaner, it will make the water cleaner. You can't deny the benefits of green energy sources.
The energy companies and the Green movement are in an alliance to control the world via buying off the UN and compulsory carbon credit trading. Ban ki-moon (#1 man in the UN) has desires to set up a world government and he wishes to do this via brainwashing the public with AGW. Also, the politicans gain a lot by brainwashing the public as they then can rais our pockets severely ($US 4000/year). AGW is about BUSINESS, NOT SCIENCE.
In just FIVE YEARS between 2004-2009 thick perennial arctic sea ice DROPPED 42%. This was discovered by NASA satellite measurements. Reported 7/7/09
Search:
New NASA Satellite Survey Reveals Dramatic Arctic Sea Ice Thinning
Global Warming is changing our world NOW. CO2 is 35% above levels for 650,000 years. In just 30 years CO2 will be over 450ppm, enough to acidify oceans to the point of stopping the growth of many planktons and corals. They are at the base of the oceans' food chain.
There are enviromentalist lobby groups who are trying to play you, me, and evreyone else in the public for fools. They do this not because they want us to join them in what we might call a 'glorious revolution', but to use us as fodder. These people are led not by visionary idealists but deceiving, power-hungry men. The purist's mantra 'keep science science' is ideal but impractical. We'll see how embarrsing the AGW promoters are 10 years hence.
Hi Physicalsim, That's what I have been telling any genuine Ecologists/environmentalists (there are not very many). The Environmental movement was subverted
To read about the hijacking of the Sierra Club and its true goals of protecting the environment & wildlife subverted read the article "Strategic Negligence" by Jerry Kammer
@PhysicalsimForever, please provide references to support your claims. We'd like to examine them so that we can understand your point of view. If you can't provide them, then isn't it correct to postulate that you're just a crank with nothing better to do than post nonsense drivel about the most complex scientific problem ever...?
Also note that the papers of the IPCC are 'reviewed' by a select group of scientists, not all the 1500 who 'contribute'. This select group includes (as you might expect) James Hansen and Michael Mann, among other AGW gurus who have strong ties to businessmen like Soros and Gore.
I'm no Republican, born-again Christian or oil company owner. I'm a liberal Marxist and strong atheist. It si a complete misconception that all sceptics are Christians or scientists in thrall to the oil industry. It is also worth noting that this so called 'connection' between religious and political ideology is heavily promoted by the enviromentalists. It is yet another smear campaign lauchned to discredit sceptics. Don't buy into it.
Motivation is very important. Money, of cousre, can motivate, as can fear. Enviromentalist groups at the so-called 'mini-Copenhagen' planned to brainwash and scare the politicans an the public into creating policies to their benefit, not yours or mine. The worst part of the danger was that if the politicans had made a concrete agreement you, me and and millions of others would have our taxes increased by $US4000 per year. So be very careful before throwing your weight behind AGW.
Energy companies, the enviromentalist movement, the UN and businessment like Al Gore and George Soros have everything to gain by promoting AGW. These groups are out to get rich and windfalls of gold go their way if a consensus is reached that AGW is real. Thus they invest heavily in promotion. There is nothing strange about this: ever since AGW theory became more than a scientific theory the question has been not 'Who is right about this?', but the classic 'Who profits?'
I am making a political observation, based on the enviromantalist George Monbiot's arguments for climate change in the Guardian, to which l subscribe. Monbiot is outspoken on global warming. When it is cold, he blames GW. When it is hot, he blames GW. When it is wet, he blames GW. When it is dry, he blames GW. It's just a convinient (and untrue) excuse for unusual weather. Ian Plimer dealt him a beating last December, but Monbiot and his allies will not stop being so aggressively outspoken.
QuasarEE, thank you for saying what needed to be said. It is much easier to believe that everyone else is in on this "climate change conspiracy" than it is to actually do the work and check the facts. Isn't that right, PhysicalsimForever? potholer54 not only provides cogent argument, he provides references, which is the most important part of the peer-review process. You, PhysicalsimForever, have provided none.
It's bizarre to me how the same people who are so willing to embrace this idea of a vast evil conspiracy of "libruls" and scientists and Satanists and whatever else they throw into the imaginary mix are behind global warming, are unable to grasp the idea that they might be buying into a vast conspiracy of right-wing capitalists, oil industry shills, auto makers, and Republicans determined to attempt the use public opinion as a weapon against science. IMO both are ridiculous ideas, of course.
Enviromentalist activits scream for trial and inprisonment of scientists, who on the basis of evidence, deny global warming is happening at all. There are rabid greenies who put AGW deniers on a par with Holocaust deniers, so strong is their zealous blind faith. They also, like other members of a religion, seek to indoctrinate everyone they can. These people, not climate sceptics, are dangerous to society. These people, not climate sceptics, should be locked up in cell.
LOL, the author obviously doesn't understand PR. It doesn't mather what Jones et al thought they were doing. the misbehaviour has NOTHING to do with peer review. Potholer, you are scam. GAME OVER!
No - all l am saying is that there is documented evidence that glaciations have occured when CO2 concentreations are 10 times that which we have now. And humanly emitted CO2 is chemically identical to all other sources of CO2. We cannot accurately predict the future without understanding the past, which you alarmists seem not to.
This is the best climate change series on Youtube. It's a shame that only the first and second videos cover the facts and objections while the last 5 videos are spent busting popular myths, but that's the reality of the "McScientist" world we're in right now.
GW is dead. Suicide. Lies about disappearing glaciers, polar bears, rainforests... Constant cold weather, no temperature rise, lies at the IPCC and East Anglia, etc., etc., no public interest, and Al Gore. RIP
The same untruth taking ever new guises to maintain its teachings, man made global warming does not stand up the evidence that the world is rapidly cooling while CO2 increases, and the fact that there have been major glaciations when CO2 concentrations were 10 times that of today, the most significant being the Late Precambrian and Premian glaciations. The global warming advocates always look to the future, while ignoring the past.
As soon as any scientific hypothesis becomes a political issue objectivity is lost. The politicians are being manipulated by the alarmist enviromentalist movement. This movement, thhas the hallmarks of a religion, has its own high priests like Al Gore and is propagated through fear. The USA is a prime example of how religion influences politics and the consequences are always negitive: global warming is now euphenised to 'climate change' like creationism is euphenised to 'intelligent design'.
Gore's organization, The Alliance for Climate Protection, said the ad blitz was the largest ever for a public policy issue and was aimed at reducing GHG's
When politicians hear the American people calling loud and clear for change, they'll listen.'
The campaign which will include TV, print, radio and online advertising, (& Telemarketing spamming on youtube & other GW websites)aims at engaging 10 million new supporters to drive policy change
Generation Investment Management's founding partners are studded with officials from Goldman Sachs. They include David Blood, former CEO of Goldman Sachs Asset Management (GSAM); Mark Ferguson, former co-head of GSAM pan-European research; and Peter Harris, who headed GSAM international operations
(Plus former Secretary of the Treasury (under George W Bush) & a former CEO of Goldman Sachs Hank Paulson has ties also to Gore & GIM
Al Gore & Corporate friends set to make billions off of the Global Warming Scam
Al Gore is chairman and founder of a private equity firm called Generation Investment Management (GIM). According to Gore, the London-based firm invests money from institutions and wealthy investors in companies that are going green. Generation Investment Management, purchases -- but isnt a provider of -- carbon dioxide offsets
There are calls for trial and inprisonment of scientists who, on the basis of evidence, deny global warming is occuring. Warmingism deniers are put on a par with Holocaust deniers by the rabid enviromentlist groups that are scaring people into beliving something as irrational as beliving in God. There has never been a fair objective debate since the issue became politicised.
Imprisonment of scientists who have differing opinions is obviously a stupid idea, but there will always be stupid people who say stupid things. You cannot conclude from this that the evidence for man made global warming is somehow fabricated. Its there, its undeniable, all responses to the actual findings have been consistently debunked including that rediculous "Global Warming Swindle" film by Durkins. And thats all that matters, either you accept the evidence or you dont.
Scientists are being paid by the goverment and enviromentalists to prove that global warming exists. They are told to come to a conclusion before they start
the research! If we come to a conclusion that is in conflict with that of the funders, we lose our money. Global warming is not an objective subject.
See, I can make things up without any evidence too. I can even make them up based on what I wish were true, like you're doing right now, and then continue to dodge and evade the call to provide EVIDENCE.
In the 90s the global warming club smirked as the temperature rose. In the last decade their smiles faltered as they saw 100 years of warming cancelled out in 3 years: 2008, 2009 and 2010. The solution: tamper with the data until it looks like the world is continuing to warm. WE are not fooled. Global warming is a religion. And like all religions, it is scam designed to seduce the ignorant.
Perhaps you should watch the videos you're commenting on, before making lazy, poorly derived and just unsubstantiated comments about the subject they regard. He lays out all the avenues to investigate if you're' not satisfied.
Fantastic video! A point that many don't understand.....the difference between the ends (conclusions) and means (methods and evidence). Science is all about the means. Politics is all about the ends.
so what will happen when billions of tons of ice melts at the south pole and the crust underneath springs up like a sponge? oh, we dont have to think about that do we, just deny global warming and it will never happen. if i were living on the san andreas fault i'd be thinking of moving.
You can get a lot of facts from the NASA JPL web site.. The 'normal' level of Co2 on earth is 250 ppm and we are currently at 388 ppm. So far the temperature has hardly moved but life is very temperature sensitive and a few degrees rise or fall could end it all.
James Hansen is a dreadful speaker but when he gets into it he is very clear.
Well Since Henson never addressed Geothermal heating, Ocean Conyer,nor evapoation/precipitation in his "Co2 amplification" thoery there is still a lot of holes that still need to be address
Co2 doesn't "Amplify" as the Geologist dalbbling in Chemical Theory suggests...CO2, like any gas can only asorb heat that is availible up to it's maximum threshold
Only way Co2 at any concentration level can"Asorb more heat"it's beforee max threshold
CO2 doesn't absorb heat. It absorbs long wave radiation, emitted by the earth. The earth emits this long wave radiation by absorbing short wave radiation, upon which atoms destabilize and emit long wave radiation.
The CO2 dipoles are just right for absorbing this long wave radiation, the molecule absorbs the excess energy, and begins to vibrate. The vibration is transformed to heat energy, emitted by the molecule.
Exactly where did you learn that Co2 "asorbs Long wave radiation" and "Short wave radiation turnds to long wave radiation"?
Exactly where did you learn that IR radiation off the earth could vibrate a CO2 molocule enough to generate heat in it even though this "longwave radiation" is in the miilihertzs as apposed to the GigaHertz it takes to make a Microwave oven work?
P.S. There is only 1 correct place such things "MIGHT" be wriiten down in the Textbook
It'd be great to see a video or two of James Hansen's "Storms of My Grandchildren". I'd especially value your perspective on both his "Venus Syndrome" chapter - that 'business as usual' risks humanity itself, and his argument about sea level rise this century, which is far more alarmist than the assertion you've presented.
The problem with using tree rings "recently" to determine annual temperatures is (as pointed out in the video): "Fatter rings indicate warm years. Narrow rings: cold years".
The width of the rings reflect growth. If pollution is stunting tree growth, it would result in narrower rings, falsely suggesting cooler weather even in warm years, explaining why the annual gap is widening.
As a general statement, I would request that if anyone does not understand science in it's fullest, please do not make absolute comments regarding scientific concepts.
Do not prescribe any facets to scientists, either.
the context that's missing from the "climate research" story is the active campaign of mann and jones to destroy the reputation over one paper. their entire peer review process was compromised by their perceived ownership of the truth.
Does anyone know how great the actual consensus of Global climate is? Like is it as good as the consensus of evolution? Web links would be good, maybe a poll?
Himmm yea. It's interesting... I think I know what you mean as I've heard of that example before. Like even the theory of gravity is changing.
But to the novice, anyone would say that that's stupid, we can see gravity, we can't see evolution happening. (I know that's a stupid argument as we can see mutations happening on small scales)
But what do you mean by gravity has less proof. What other proofs are there to find in the theory of gravity?
are you a fucking idiot? You can see gravity how fucking stupid are you? Are you really so stupid that you think you can see gravity? that is the stupidest thing i have ever heard anyone say in my life. you can only see the effects of gravity. What dose gravity look like please tell. idiot. No one has ever seen gravity. There is a lot more evidence for evolution than gravity.
What the fuck? Whats with you trying to make a personal attack?? Im trying to have a serious discussion, I didnt say that I believe what i said. Read what i said!!! "But to the novice, anyone would say"
Your video is popular on Samoa
timothymanzella 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Climate change, generally, is directly attributable to variations of the earth's orbit in relation to the sun. It's called the Malenkovich cycle. Don't stress your brains out with this corporate "science" channel. Maybe Peer Review served a purpose before the 1970's, but since the Neoliberalization and commoditaization of science, starting with Presidents Richard Nixon, Jimmy Carter, and Ronald Reagan and accelerated with Bush and Clinton, it is now a tool for moneyed Capitalist interests.
dialectical44 1 month ago
Comment removed
dialectical44 1 month ago
Comment removed
dialectical44 1 month ago
"Bad research", "mistakes" and "flaws"
Translation: Any objective findings that go against the main goal of corporate monopoly profit. Referees may disagree, but disinterested, rigorous and honest scientists may not disagree.
Typical postivist channel. All form and semantics with no political substance or context. This is commoditized science. The majority of scientists dedicated to the principles of the scientific method find no evidence for AGW. Co2 is NOT pollution,pollution is NOT Co2
dialectical44 1 month ago
Comment removed
dialectical44 1 month ago
Comment removed
dialectical44 1 month ago
Firstly Potholer does not address the Mann hockey stick publication, because it is indefensible fraud at worst, junk science at best. Potholer tries to create the straw man that all anti AGW proponents believe that there is a mass conspirarcy and then goes on to lampoon his own suggestion when that is not what is being asserted at all. Scientists are trying to produce papers which show particularly dramatic results for man made AGW, that was the criticism which was dealt to CRU and Phil Jones.
Markymark6281 1 month ago
@Markymark6281
Conspiracies are a legal construct. If women, labor unions, teachers and minorities can get together to discuss and further their intereests, what makes peoople think the the most wealthy and powerful corporate classes with the support of the media and state, who they finance, would not do the same? AGW is a free market capitalist agenda.The pro AGW "liberals" have it wrong for the right reasons and anti AGW free market" conservatives" have it right for the wrong reasons .
dialectical44 1 month ago
i love potholer's take on all of this, he cuts through all of the polorizing hype to show whats really present in the research. as usual, the truth is neither on the alarmist or denialist side, but somewhere in between. i'm not a scientist, nor able to sift through all the papers in an efficient enough time to find the truth, so i'd like to thank potholer for making the effort for people like me.
ndelliott138 2 months ago
Dear garith21,
Speaking of cherry picking, the recent period of warming that spooked so many people lasted 20 years or less. From 1940 through the late 1970s, overall temperatures cooled, leading many to fear another glacial period. The world warmed until 1995-1998 or so, but since then the earth's temperatures have been stabilizing or even cooling. The earth's climate has gone up and down both before and during large-scale human production of greenhouse gasses.
Peace out,
Xarkonul
Xarkonul 4 months ago
@Xarkonul have you even considered to view the whole series of Videos from Potholer54? I dont think so, because if you'd watched them, all your Questions would have been adressed by now.
LutzDerLurch 3 months ago
Dear jiin5993,
The Huffington Post influences many average voters, and the climate change debate is political as well as scientific. I’ll stick with my "Joe Averageguy" analogy and not defend anyone else. If 1998, 2005, and 2010 all tied for the hottest recent years, then this shows that global temperatures are leveling off, not increasing. Think of a bank account that goes from $100 to $95 to $100 to $95 and then back to $100. Where is the "statistically significant increase”?
Xarkonul 4 months ago
@Xarkonul
You should actually examine the factors at play, like highest el nino in recorded history reenforcing a warming from a high TSI in 1998 for example. Unless you think that such factors have no effects on global temperatures. The "statistically significant increase" is in observing the overall trend and taking into account short term events that can skew warming and cooling. Simply listing years is cherry picking while ignoring the available data.
garith21 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
There is a quick simple solution to global warming and climate change. It is called Muon Catalysed Fusion. As worked on Star Scientific. NO CO2. NO Greenhouse Gases. NO Toxic Waste. The source is dueterium from the World's Oceans - virtually limitless. It is cheap to produce. WE NEED IT NOW. See the website "Star Scientific Limited", Blog "The Big Picture by Andrew Horvath", Youtube video - "In the Footsteps of Fusion"
2110kop 6 months ago
The main problem isn't in this e-mail although it would be interesting to know what decline they're hiding. Is it in temperatures, in proxies or how proxies reflect temperature? The problem is regarding the pressure on journals what to publish, what not and regarding who will review the submitted articles. Thats bad.
On the other side I liked the vids regarding evolution and the debunking of creationists.
comnenus42 7 months ago
Grants push the direction of scientific thought. Grants come from Money which come from Rich people. And rich people only want to make more money. They are like medical doctors; they are just there for the money, never for their love of the science.
E1itetube 7 months ago in playlist Climate Change
Dear thesparitan,
If for no other reason, my story relates to global warming since "warmists" like to claim a consensus, but as I've discovered through my experiences with The Huffington Post, this so called "consensus" can be manufactured for fraudulent purposes. My situation is similar to those of many other skeptics.
Peace out,
Xarkonul
Xarkonul 7 months ago
@Xarkonul So how does the Huffington Post have any influence on scientific consensus? Do scientists read the HP for their information about other research? I've seen your website and somewhere you claim that a daily mail article supports your "no warming since 1995" along with your JoeAverageguy argument. Please watch the video of potholer about phil jones dealing with this article and check the sources yourself. The video description is also helpful (although maybe confusing for historians).
jiin5993 5 months ago
You sound like 'alawson'.. Are you him?
Good to hear the other side of the story..
hunkydoryorder 8 months ago
What’s my point, sparitan? Arianna Huffington’s Huffington Post 1) deleted my posts 2) removed my profile (Xarkonul) since I had criticized the website’s views. To make matters worse, my arguments used The Huffington Post’s own assertions against it, so I never rushed to any “science denier” websites as some of my critics claimed. The Huffington Post censors its opponents for their views even though it claims it doesn’t, and this policy is cowardly, unjust, and possibly a breech of contract.
Xarkonul 10 months ago
@Xarkonul Ok and again what is your point? So you got deleted from huffington post, I don't think anyone cares and its not relevant to a discussion on global warming. I doubt you have critics, you are not that important. The world doesn't revolve around you, stop thinking people care what happens to you.
thesparitan 7 months ago
The idea that humans face extinction exists in scientific literature.
"Target Atmospheric CO2: Where Should Humanity Aim?"
pubs.giss.nasa. gov/cgi-bin/abstract. cgi?id=ha00410c
"If all conventional and unconventional fossil fuels were burned, with the CO2 emitted to the atmosphere, it is possible that a runaway greenhouse effect could occur, with incineration of life and creation of a permanent Venus-like hothouse Earth."
jffryh 11 months ago
I got into a debate in one of The Huffington Post’s forums in which I used my “Joe Averageguy” analogy to show that global temperatures have leveled off at best since 1998, and this conclusion came from using The Huffington Post’s own (inflated?) figures. My reward? The Huffington Post deleted my comments and removed my profile, Xarkonul. You can find more information at my YouTube channel (Xarkonul).
Xarkonul 11 months ago
@Xarkonul Whats your point?
thesparitan 10 months ago
Brilliant video! Thanks for taking the time to make these highly informative vids.
MardukHail 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Narrow Naughty girls and ladies here benaughtyman.info
bhgtyujikcas34 1 year ago
(About peer review): "A paper should not be excluded simply because a referee disagrees with its conclusions."
Doesn't Royal Society openly support the opposite? I believe editors are also allowed to reject any papers without any explanations, and in almost every other jurisdiction.
That is, there's no academic statute that requires any journal to publish every paper submitted to them, right? Doesn't that introduce a heck of a lot of bias?
SexyMelon 1 year ago
@SexyMelon Ah.... well said. Aye.
CHIPSTERO7 1 year ago
Use mighty power of nature
In the northwestern Australia, we have huge tides,
huge deserts, huge evaporation and huge dry rivers and lakes.
Huge 12m tidal erosion can revive old dry paleo dormant once mighty rivers, creeks and lakes,
desalinate the country and change deserts to rain forests to provide more rain across Australia
World population is growing rapidly and we need more energy, food, land and water.
see: Mitic CLIMATE ENGINEERING
33noa33 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The big bad Oil corporations r trying their best to stop free energy technology from spreading to common ppl.
We need to put an end to this corruption ,start generating ur own electricity now.
Visit LT-MAGNET-MOTORdotCOM and get the blueprints . Join the Revolution!!
breeannaqktjbl 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Free Energy is real and it's here! The Big Oil companies r doing everything they can to stop this
information. If you want a Free energy magnet motor , get the blueprints at LT-MAGNET-MOTORdotCOM , Join the
energy revolution!
graywackeknifebdr 1 year ago
While you were on the subject of grade F papers, I'm surprised you didn't touch on Mann's hockey stick and McIntyre's and McKitrick's refutation.
obtree 1 year ago
@obtree - This was a video about climate change censorship related to the leaked CRU e-mails, as was explained very clearly in the video and in the title. The so-called "hockey stick" will be dealt with in a video about the Medieval Warm Period.
potholer54 1 year ago
@potholer54 fair enough.
obtree 1 year ago
@181183R20710, I’m going to opt out of long answers to your many questions by directing you to my videos where most of them are already answered:
See “The Scientific Method Made Easy” for an explanation of the word “theory” and why nothing can be proved outside of mathematics.
“todays temperatures and the magnitude of temperature rise is nothing unusual”
See “Climate Change – Isn’t it natural?”
I don’t use the IPCC as a source. All my sources are research papers, clearly listed.
potholer54 1 year ago
@potholer54
that only mathematics can explain the theory is Positivist Idealism
dialectical44 1 month ago
@dialectical44
And what subject did you study exactly, if any?
TheHaeresiarch 2 weeks ago
@TheHaeresiarch
What I studied in school has nothing to do with the proposed AGW agenda. There are dissenting high caliber scientists that you can scrutinize asbout their studies. How about starting with them.
dialectical44 1 week ago
I just read your distortion of the word "theory" a few comments below, which also concerns me.
Again it might be my misinterpretation but you kind of sound like one of those creationists trying to disprove evolution by saying it is "just a theory".
A scientific theory has nothing to do with the hypothesis version of "theory". A scientific theory explains a specific phenomenon in nature and consists of a hypothesis proven by facts/observations.
181183R20710 1 year ago
And I have another objection. You say "nothing can be proven in science". That sounds kind of strange to me. What exactly do you mean by that?
I'm german so I might misinterpret "proven" here but where I come from when a hypothesis is tested and found to be right, it is pretty much proven.
I mean, evolution did happen as has been shown by DNA analysis, fossils, anatomic resemblences and we can even observe it live in bacteria.
Isn't that kind of... proven? :)
181183R20710 1 year ago
Fact is, that todays temperatures and the magnitude of temperature rise is nothing unusual when you look at geological time periods.
The IPCC and other political panic inducers are always saying "hottest on record" and "above normal average" BUT when you start measuring during a cold period, that is usually what you get, isn't it? There is no such thing as "normal" temperature.
CO2 is neither a pollutant nor will it dangerously warm our planet.
181183R20710 1 year ago
You just have to see this problem in a greater context. It isn't just a environmental problem.
The IPCC is not a scientific organisation, it is a political arm of the UN, which is on its way to establish a world government.
You might want to make yourself familiar with terms like NWO, CFR, Bilderberg Grp. etc. to get a picture of possible motives that would lie behind all the scare-mongering. Kennedys last speech might be a start into the matter..
181183R20710 1 year ago
Which makes sense, since CO2 abosrbs only some of the wavelengths and theoretically at some point 100% absorbtion is achieved.
The crux of the matter is: reducing CO2 emissions doesn't solve anything since the temperature increase is logarythmically decreasing with rising CO2 levels!
That is the point skeptics are trying to convey.
There is no need for destroying our economies and letting third world countries starve even more by carbon taxing everyone.
181183R20710 1 year ago
Pot, the consensus seems to want more than the naked theory as well. The hockey stick graph, for example, has a startling visual impact in support of their theory (and would convince me if I had compete faith in it). It and others like it are dependent on a fairly accurate reconstitution of historical temps for their credibility; thus, my interest in the reliability of proxies. Many skeptics claim that CO2 follows warming, not visa versa, and that accounts for the bulk of the CO2 buildup.
litwriter100 1 year ago
@litwriter100 -- There's too much here for me to deal with in 500-word bites. I'll message you something longer.
potholer54 1 year ago
@potholer54 I am very interested in your opinion on this weeks report from CERN on cosmic ray affects on cloud seeding.
toelesshoe 4 months ago in playlist Climate Change
Pot, re researcher's bias, you don't find it suspect how very often when a researcher conducts a study testing his theory (or her patron's) that the study bears out the theory? Methodology can be reviewed by peers, but who audits the data and subjects (with human studies) for selective data gathering and leading questions (with human subjects)? How often will a researcher come back with: “The theory is a crock”? As I said, we need better ways to both fund science and conduct studies.
litwriter100 1 year ago
Pot, yes, unfortunately the only way to prove or disprove A/CC is to do nothing and let events play out. That is *quite* a predicament. If I, for one, had more confidence in the reliability of past temperature reconstructions, then in my mind the risk/reward ratio would tilt to your point-of-view. I must study further the issue of temp proxies, and I have an open mind. I appreciated your presentation. It is neither too heady for most people or too “dumbed down” to be meaningless.
litwriter100 1 year ago
@litwriter100 -- "the only way to prove or disprove A/CC is to do nothing and let events play out."
Nothing can ever be proved in science. Global warming and the melting of ice caps was predicted back in the 50s, but now that it's happening it doesn't prove CO2 causes global warming. Even if CO2 levels increased 20 times, and all of Greenland and Antarctica melted 1,000 years from now, that still would not prove the link between CO2 and global warming.
potholer54 1 year ago
@litwriter100 -- "I must study further the issue of temp proxies,"
Why the fixation with temp proxies? Why do you think they show, or don't show, a link between CO2 and global temperature?
potholer54 1 year ago
Pot, thanks for your time. It's most appreciated! I apologize for the quote misattribution to Dr. Jones, which was careless of me. The point is that a researcher’s bias is a well-known aspect of science, especially science predicated on statistical models. I doubt that, for example, epidemiological studies are often, if ever, audited. Also, I strongly feel that we must come up with a better way to fund science and research. The present system readily lends itself to politics and zealotry.
litwriter100 1 year ago
@litwriter100 -- "The point is that a researcher’s bias is a well-known aspect of science,"
I've met scores of researchers and read hundreds of scientific papers, so I don't share your view that bias is "well known." If you have evidence of bias, I'd love to see it, and I'll report on it. But the example you give -- "getting rid of the MWP" -- is simply an allegation of what someone says someone told him.
potholer54 1 year ago
Pot, you also seem to gloss over the tree ring divergence problem. If the TR proxies are unreliable in recent times, then how can it be certain they have always been in the past? Are other proxies any more reliable? This *is8 important because without an accurate picture of past temps, it cannot be proven that recent temps are anomalous. We are simply left with a theoretical model with no empirical evidence in support. Einstein's STR, for example, has been tested and upheld..
litwriter100 1 year ago
@litwriter100
=you also seem to gloss over the tree ring divergence problem.=
That's the problem with trying to squeeze everything into a 10-minute video.
=If the TR proxies are unreliable in recent times, then how can it be certain they have always been in the past?=
It's not certain. But it is very likely, given that tree ring proxies match other proxies.
=Are other proxies any more reliable?=
As far as I know, yes, tree rings are the only proxies with this problem.
potholer54 1 year ago
@litwriter100 =without an accurate picture of past temps, it cannot be proven that recent temps are anomalous.=
Nothing can be proven in science, but an anomaly can be shown, although the exact extent of it cannot be reliably measured.
potholer54 1 year ago
@potholer54 I feel like the important point is missing in your videos. There is a corealation between CO2 and temperatures, yes, but it is not a linear one.
As I recall, the first 250 ppm make up for about a 6°C temperature increase, a doubling of that to 500ppm results only in ~1°C and a further doubling would only result in a x/10°C increase (numbers might be slightly off, but you get the picture).
181183R20710 1 year ago
@litwriter100
=We are simply left with a theoretical model with no empirical evidence in support.=
Evolution, plate tectonics, atomic theory, the ozone "hole", universal gravitation, the Big bang.... None of these things can be proven, which is why we call them "theories". But to dismiss them on the basis that they are theoretical models with "no empirical support" undermines nearly everything we have discovered about the way our world works.
potholer54 1 year ago
@litwriter100 ="We must get rid off the MA Warm period"=
So now you have Phil Jones saying this! On other websites the quote is attributed to Dr. Jonathan Overpeck. Whatever, I don't even try to ascribe motivation to people who openly misreport or fabricate data, let alone what someone is supposed to have written to someone else in an e-mail. Speculation, guesses and opinion is cheap, and you'll find plenty of it by googling this alleged quote on the Internet.
potholer54 1 year ago
Pot, when Dr. Jones states that "We must get rid off the MA Warm period," isn’t he (privately-he thought) acknowledging the agenda-driven science of GW? Why "must” they? I thought true science worked from evidence to conclusion and not visa versa. The researcher goes where the evidence leads, objectively and without desiring a particular, predetermined outcome. This is why I remain skeptical despite your great effort to remain balanced and objective, for which I commend you.
litwriter100 1 year ago
Which trees are deemed sensitive to temperature? The ones which had an expected growth response over the calibration period. Whether intentionally or not, the researchers probably cherry picked by throwing out non-conforming data.
What happens if the assumed sensitivity to temperature then breaks down? The most reliable conclusions is that trees are not reliable thermometers, now or in the past.
Craig Loehle also has good arguments around optimum growning conditions and non linearity.
gufpott 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
'Climate scientists at a top UK research unit have emerged from an inquiry with their reputations for honesty intact but with a lack of openness criticised.
It concludes that 'their rigour and honesty as scientists are not in doubt'. This was one of the main charges that sceptics had levelled against CRU researchers.'
h t t p ://news.bbc. co. uk/1/hi/science_and_environment/10538198.stm
blackadderthe4 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NY Times (7/1/10): “An investigative panel at Pennsylvania State University, weighing the question of whether the scientist, Michael E. MANN, had “seriously deviated from accepted practices within the academic community for proposing, conducting or reporting research or other scholarly activities,” declared that he had not.
“An earlier report had exonerated him of related charges that he suppressed or falsified data, destroyed e-mail and misused confidential information.”
goog2k 1 year ago
ClimateGate
'
Christy:
'
Some of the story lines used to generate
high temperature changes are simply ridiculous.”
'
anelegantchaos org/cru/emails php?eid=230&filename=990718382 txt
Thisawareness 1 year ago
Why does this video stop at 8:03? I was so absorbed and then bam! Damn it!
It would be great if after the investigations (which seem to exonerate these poor guys) someone were to create a follow up video on this and the social and political repercussions of such an extremely timely and suspiciously timely leak of these emails. I haven't seen this in the news anywhere for months now. Was it ever discovered who hacked these emails?
hamnose 1 year ago
@hamnose No, I don't think so. They noticed a network account from Turkey I think, but the scientists were cleared of any charges;
//environment.change.org/blog/view/climategate_fail_scientist_cleared_of_misconduct_charges
GoSiv1 1 year ago
I've been following the videos from the first but am lost by now as to what is the point trying to be made. The natural warming component is not of relevance but the anthropogenic, if any. If such an anthropogenic component is present then virtually no scientific efforts have been invested into scrutinizing the taxation magic wand.
lvildos 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
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 were 2nd WARMEST February in 32 years.
Global Temperatures for JANUARY were the HOTTEST January for UAH in 32 years.
LOL!!
goog2k 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
See how Koch Industries spent $50 million supporting "Americans for Prosperity Foundation (AFP)" and 40 other 'echo-chamber' organizations in the 'climate denial machine' as well as millions in Republican campaign contributions.
Jim Hoggan, author of 'Climate Cover-up", and Rachel discuss the oil & coal campaign, using 40 separate 'echo' organizations, to spew false & misleading propaganda about global warming.
Rachel Maddow: Oil & coal 'Climate Denial Machine' EXPOSED!
/watch?v=-ZFyH1BM9ec
goog2k 1 year ago
NEWS, 3/30/10
CLIMATE DATA NOT MANIPULATED
British lawmakers say science sound, but want transparency
The House of Commons' Science and Technology Committee said they had seen no evidence to support charges that the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit or its director, Phil Jones, had tampered with data or perverted the peer review process to exaggerate the threat of global warming — two of the most serious criticisms levied against the climatologist and his colleagues.
LOL!!!
goog2k 1 year ago
You make no attempt to attack CRU for their misdeeds. Conspiring to dodge FOIA requests. Destroying/losing raw temp station data. The nature's trick where 20 years of unrelated data is fused onto another data set to hide a temp decline are acts of dishonesty... Yet...you address none of these issues. I compliment you are your first four videos but your last videos were a great disappoiuntment... The credibility you had built w/ me has been destroyed. Goodbye...
nlpjohn 1 year ago
=You make no attempt to attack CRU for their misdeeds. Conspiring to dodge FOIA requests.=
On the contrary, I believe these are serious allegations, and I said so in the video. Quite rightly, they are being investigated, and if found to be true they are not only unethical but also illegal. I also addressed the =Nature trick= issue in the last video.
potholer54 1 year ago
I'll shall rephrase: You make only the slightest reference to CRU's misdeeds of destroying data, avoiding FOIA requests, and plans to alter peer review process to shut certain scientists from publication. Your video was a complete whitewash of CRU's misdeeds. Evidently your tactics are if you can't defend, gloss over the issues quickly, and then change the subject. Is it possibly that you actually think this tactic is persuasive?
nlpjohn 1 year ago
=You make only the slightest reference to CRU's misdeeds of destroying data, avoiding FOIA requests=
Then I'll rephrase too: If this is a misdeed then I condemn it. I don't see how I can say it more plainly than that.
potholer54 1 year ago
@potholer54 Are you going to do a debunk on the new book Climategate?
Lordgaraj 1 year ago
@nlpjohn
The investigation is done
Summary:
1) no proof of fraud
2) requests for more transparency despite it being common practice
3) In short, the science behind climate science is solid. Claims that scientists acted fraudulently are misplaced google: 'The disclosure of climate data from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia'
garith21 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Dissolved CO2 makes acid.
By 2100, at current rates of increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide, average ocean pH will drop 0.3 - 0.4 and be @ 7.8 with an increase in acidic H+ ion concentration of 150-200%.
That will cause a 50% DECREASE of ocean carbonate ions (CO3).
Carbonate ions are needed for growth by plankton & corals at the base of the ocean's food chain.
Oops!!!
For info. on CO2 ocean acidification check:
Dr. Richard Feely, NOAA
Ocean Acidification Part 1 of 3
/watch?v=0KgRpJxWQDw&NR=1
goog2k 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
125,000 years ago a +2C rise in global temps. correlated with a 6-9 meter (25ft) rise in sea levels.
For a clear assessment of the most recent Climate Change science watch:
FORA (dot) tv
Global Warming: How Policy Can Catch Up With Science, Dr. Michael Oppenheimer, 2/23/10 (Environment)
Dr. Michael Oppenheimer is Professor of Geosciences at Princeton University & was the Lead Author on the third and fourth assessment reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2001 & 2007.
goog2k 1 year ago
For a bit balance on you tube
watch?v=KIi6WTkYcTs
gerjanp 1 year ago
1:95 "at first sight sight it seems like a very clumsy attempt at censoring a paper"
No it doesn't potholer is lying it not only looks but is an attempt and I might add a successful attempt to punish the journal editors who published a paper that successfully debunked a paper by Michael Man (watch?v=UnoYTotZRjE) that has been debunked again and again and again.
republicans. energycommerce. house. gov/ 108/ home/ 07142006_Wegman_Report.pdf
gerjanp 1 year ago
@gerjanp Ah....no. It was criticized because it was lousy science. Peer reviewed papers don't get published out of some false sense of "balance" where each "side" (no matter how proposterous) gets its day in court, but according to the quality of the science. In this case the quality was below the minimal standard and should never have been published -- just like any paper similarly poor.
Ranillon 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
In just FIVE YEARS between 2004-2009 thick perennial arctic sea ice DROPPED 42%. This was discovered by NASA satellite measurements. Reported 7/7/09
Search:
New NASA Satellite Survey Reveals Dramatic Arctic Sea Ice Thinning
Global Warming is changing our world NOW. CO2 is 35% above levels for 650,000 years. In just 30 years CO2 will be over 450ppm, enough to acidify oceans to the point of stopping the growth of many planktons and corals. They are at the base of the oceans' food chain.
goog2k 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NEWS:
Methane Releases from Arctic Shelf May Be Much Larger and Faster Than Anticipated
NSF - March 4, 2010.
Research results, published in the March 5 edition of the journal Science, show that the permafrost under the East Siberian Arctic Shelf, long thought to be an impermeable barrier sealing in methane, is perforated and is starting to leak large amounts of methane into the atmosphere. Release of even a fraction of the methane stored in the shelf could trigger abrupt climate warming.
goog2k 1 year ago
British officials and lawmakers carried out the first hearing against climate scientist Phil Jones yesterday over uncertainties in his research results made public by leaked emails now known as "Climategate." Simon Hoggart of The Guardian described Jones as "taut, nervous, often miserable. Often his hands shook." Investigators say they avoided some of the most piercing, some say most critical, questions intentionally due to Jones' frail mental state.
march 2, 2010.
FreeAgain2 1 year ago
ScienceDaily (Dec. 7, 2009) — In the long term, the Earth's temperature may be 30-50% more sensitive to atmospheric carbon dioxide than has previously been estimated, reports a new study published in Nature Geoscience.
JuanVoyce 1 year ago
No. You're talking about U.S. temps, not Global Temps. And you're using a 2007 report. From NASA 2009: "Although 2008 was the coolest year of the decade -- due to strong cooling of the tropical Pacific Ocean -- 2009 saw a return to near-record global temperatures. The past year was only a fraction of a degree cooler than 2005, the warmest year on record, and tied with a cluster of other years -- 1998, 2002, 2003, 2006 and 2007 -- as the second warmest year since recordkeeping began."
sTevefor3 1 year ago
Wind energy is a waster of money because:
1. You need a huge number to generate a large amount of electricity
2. They have to be in windy places, often far away from the city, causing transmission problems
3. They are unattractive, spoiling the countryside, which puts people off
Solar power cells are too inefficient and only work in sunny places.
Fusion power is still in devalopment.
PhysicalsimForever 1 year ago
@PhysicalsimForever: Again I request a reference to support your claim. Been waiting...
sTevefor3 1 year ago
renewable energy is still being developed. But they have made alot of technical advances. when they make enough technical advances, they will be able to compete and rival fossil fuels.
cpretartedmuch 1 year ago
Exactly right!
if wind energy was profitable (viable) investors would be all over it - an easy investment if the numbers worked - and there would be wind farms everywhere.
But wind does not work as long as other energy sources keep energy costs down for us users.
If Obama and the greens can stop all oil drilling/coal/and nukes - the price of energy will climb to a point where wind would pay for itself - but sadly we would all be out of work by then.
FreeAgain2 1 year ago
@FreeAgain2 This is clear ignorance of how the energy industry works. There are private investors in wind, but transmission is a far bigger concern. The "other energy sources" you talk about that "keep energy costs down" only do so because of massive government subsidies (far greater than any subsidies for renewable energy) and by externalizing or hiding massive costs - such as destruction of the environment and public health costs.
Pandonodrim 1 year ago
@FreeAgain2
Most wind energy is already cheaper than most other forms of power generation. Coal and nuke plants are still highly profitable, however, as long as they are allowed to externalize. They are also the established energy industry and that is difficult to change or even advance.
Pandonodrim 1 year ago
Energy companies will invest anywhere profits in energy can be made.
And the problem is not generation itself - the problem is secure energy with no failures (when the wind stops) and getting the POWER to users.
FreeAgain2 1 year ago
@FreeAgain2 Lol. Baseload plants "fail" all the time - and are the only reason we have ever had blackouts or other power related problems.
Not all energy companies will invest anywhere profits can be made. This statement is inane and completely ignorant.
Wind power can be predicted well in advance, and as systems are scaled up intermittency is diminished. Combination with other renewables, demand side management and energy storage can easily account for any "intermittency."
Pandonodrim 1 year ago
@FreeAgain2 In terms of "reliability" - distributed systems and renewable power farms are far more reliable. It is highly unlikely that an entire wind farm would break down all at once - only one turbine breaks down at a time - unlike baseload plants like coal and nukes which can shut down suddenly and without warning, taking a significant chunk of energy generation along with them.
Pandonodrim 1 year ago
@FreeAgain2 Do you have a clue as to how much money is being invested in wind energy? Did you even try to look it up before making a conclusion? A great deal of the issue revolves around infrastructure. In the US the locations that have the best resource of wind power do not have the required infrastructure to deliver that power.
robhoneycutt 1 year ago
So -
Build it.
Nuc plants built their infrastructure - It is not like they could build those plants in town! Many of them are in far off places +50 miles from population centers.
And as for investing in wind - don't forget to subtract the energy lost to the grid just in transporting the power to the users.
spare me the insults and just show me the money.
FreeAgain2 1 year ago
I've said it before. Even if you don't believe in global warming you should back the movements to supply the earth with alternative energy sources. It will make the air cleaner, it will make the water cleaner. You can't deny the benefits of green energy sources.
trekgeek1 1 year ago
I agree!
deusAtheismus 1 year ago
STILL WARMING!
For an excellent new scientific YouTube investigating the COOLING claims on Global Temps. see:
Climate Change -- Has the Earth been cooling?
/watch?v=xvMmPtEt8dc&feature=sub
HOTTEST JANUARY in UAH satellite record
(UAH/Dr. Christy, renown denier)
"This is the warmest January in the 32-year satellite-based data record."
To see the graph of the "UAH Globally Averaged Satellite-Based Temperature of the Lower Atmosphere, 1979-2010"
Search:
Hottest January in UAH satellite record
goog2k 1 year ago
The energy companies and the Green movement are in an alliance to control the world via buying off the UN and compulsory carbon credit trading. Ban ki-moon (#1 man in the UN) has desires to set up a world government and he wishes to do this via brainwashing the public with AGW. Also, the politicans gain a lot by brainwashing the public as they then can rais our pockets severely ($US 4000/year). AGW is about BUSINESS, NOT SCIENCE.
PhysicalsimForever 1 year ago
@PhysicalsimForever: And your reference please? Cite your reference, let the rest of us see it and read it...or don't you have one?
sTevefor3 1 year ago
The most obvious source of corrupt data &/or peer opinion is MONEY, & a lovely large payoff for reporting whatever one was paid to say.
Get the privately owned banks out of solving the problem, & you will eliminate all possible corruption of data.
But no! no! no! The link between global warming & the central banks is inexorable, which will forever link corruption to the idea of global warming.
End the link of banker control & you will end the corruption of global warming.
If it does exist.
TroddinSod 1 year ago
In just FIVE YEARS between 2004-2009 thick perennial arctic sea ice DROPPED 42%. This was discovered by NASA satellite measurements. Reported 7/7/09
Search:
New NASA Satellite Survey Reveals Dramatic Arctic Sea Ice Thinning
Global Warming is changing our world NOW. CO2 is 35% above levels for 650,000 years. In just 30 years CO2 will be over 450ppm, enough to acidify oceans to the point of stopping the growth of many planktons and corals. They are at the base of the oceans' food chain.
goog2k 1 year ago
There are enviromentalist lobby groups who are trying to play you, me, and evreyone else in the public for fools. They do this not because they want us to join them in what we might call a 'glorious revolution', but to use us as fodder. These people are led not by visionary idealists but deceiving, power-hungry men. The purist's mantra 'keep science science' is ideal but impractical. We'll see how embarrsing the AGW promoters are 10 years hence.
PhysicalsimForever 1 year ago
Hi Physicalsim, That's what I have been telling any genuine Ecologists/environmentalists (there are not very many). The Environmental movement was subverted
To read about the hijacking of the Sierra Club and its true goals of protecting the environment & wildlife subverted read the article "Strategic Negligence" by Jerry Kammer
Google "Strategic Negligence"
Thisawareness 1 year ago
@PhysicalsimForever, please provide references to support your claims. We'd like to examine them so that we can understand your point of view. If you can't provide them, then isn't it correct to postulate that you're just a crank with nothing better to do than post nonsense drivel about the most complex scientific problem ever...?
sTevefor3 1 year ago
Also note that the papers of the IPCC are 'reviewed' by a select group of scientists, not all the 1500 who 'contribute'. This select group includes (as you might expect) James Hansen and Michael Mann, among other AGW gurus who have strong ties to businessmen like Soros and Gore.
PhysicalsimForever 1 year ago
I'm no Republican, born-again Christian or oil company owner. I'm a liberal Marxist and strong atheist. It si a complete misconception that all sceptics are Christians or scientists in thrall to the oil industry. It is also worth noting that this so called 'connection' between religious and political ideology is heavily promoted by the enviromentalists. It is yet another smear campaign lauchned to discredit sceptics. Don't buy into it.
PhysicalsimForever 1 year ago
"Liberal marxist"--hahahaha! OK you Repub, fess up!
weavrmom 1 year ago
Motivation is very important. Money, of cousre, can motivate, as can fear. Enviromentalist groups at the so-called 'mini-Copenhagen' planned to brainwash and scare the politicans an the public into creating policies to their benefit, not yours or mine. The worst part of the danger was that if the politicans had made a concrete agreement you, me and and millions of others would have our taxes increased by $US4000 per year. So be very careful before throwing your weight behind AGW.
PhysicalsimForever 1 year ago
Energy companies, the enviromentalist movement, the UN and businessment like Al Gore and George Soros have everything to gain by promoting AGW. These groups are out to get rich and windfalls of gold go their way if a consensus is reached that AGW is real. Thus they invest heavily in promotion. There is nothing strange about this: ever since AGW theory became more than a scientific theory the question has been not 'Who is right about this?', but the classic 'Who profits?'
PhysicalsimForever 1 year ago
I am making a political observation, based on the enviromantalist George Monbiot's arguments for climate change in the Guardian, to which l subscribe. Monbiot is outspoken on global warming. When it is cold, he blames GW. When it is hot, he blames GW. When it is wet, he blames GW. When it is dry, he blames GW. It's just a convinient (and untrue) excuse for unusual weather. Ian Plimer dealt him a beating last December, but Monbiot and his allies will not stop being so aggressively outspoken.
PhysicalsimForever 1 year ago
QuasarEE, thank you for saying what needed to be said. It is much easier to believe that everyone else is in on this "climate change conspiracy" than it is to actually do the work and check the facts. Isn't that right, PhysicalsimForever? potholer54 not only provides cogent argument, he provides references, which is the most important part of the peer-review process. You, PhysicalsimForever, have provided none.
sTevefor3 2 years ago
It's bizarre to me how the same people who are so willing to embrace this idea of a vast evil conspiracy of "libruls" and scientists and Satanists and whatever else they throw into the imaginary mix are behind global warming, are unable to grasp the idea that they might be buying into a vast conspiracy of right-wing capitalists, oil industry shills, auto makers, and Republicans determined to attempt the use public opinion as a weapon against science. IMO both are ridiculous ideas, of course.
QuasarEE 2 years ago
You mean to say people shouldn`t trust Rush, Beck, A Jones and the billionaires that sponsor them? Oh come on...
paolo27th 1 year ago
Enviromentalist activits scream for trial and inprisonment of scientists, who on the basis of evidence, deny global warming is happening at all. There are rabid greenies who put AGW deniers on a par with Holocaust deniers, so strong is their zealous blind faith. They also, like other members of a religion, seek to indoctrinate everyone they can. These people, not climate sceptics, are dangerous to society. These people, not climate sceptics, should be locked up in cell.
PhysicalsimForever 2 years ago
LOL, the author obviously doesn't understand PR. It doesn't mather what Jones et al thought they were doing. the misbehaviour has NOTHING to do with peer review. Potholer, you are scam. GAME OVER!
gertomaniac 2 years ago
No - all l am saying is that there is documented evidence that glaciations have occured when CO2 concentreations are 10 times that which we have now. And humanly emitted CO2 is chemically identical to all other sources of CO2. We cannot accurately predict the future without understanding the past, which you alarmists seem not to.
PhysicalsimForever 2 years ago
This is the best climate change series on Youtube. It's a shame that only the first and second videos cover the facts and objections while the last 5 videos are spent busting popular myths, but that's the reality of the "McScientist" world we're in right now.
darkjedisleikas 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
GW is dead. Suicide. Lies about disappearing glaciers, polar bears, rainforests... Constant cold weather, no temperature rise, lies at the IPCC and East Anglia, etc., etc., no public interest, and Al Gore. RIP
xychr0 2 years ago
Did you even watch the video?
spacecowboy95 2 years ago
@xychr0
current temp in Ammassalik, greenland : 38 degrees F
thats Ammassalik, greenland, which is next to the arctic circle.
vengencefrom1979 2 years ago
The same untruth taking ever new guises to maintain its teachings, man made global warming does not stand up the evidence that the world is rapidly cooling while CO2 increases, and the fact that there have been major glaciations when CO2 concentrations were 10 times that of today, the most significant being the Late Precambrian and Premian glaciations. The global warming advocates always look to the future, while ignoring the past.
PhysicalsimForever 2 years ago
@PhysicalsimForever Are you not ignoring the possibility that past events are not always the same as current events in their cause and explanations?
sharkblubber 2 years ago
As soon as any scientific hypothesis becomes a political issue objectivity is lost. The politicians are being manipulated by the alarmist enviromentalist movement. This movement, thhas the hallmarks of a religion, has its own high priests like Al Gore and is propagated through fear. The USA is a prime example of how religion influences politics and the consequences are always negitive: global warming is now euphenised to 'climate change' like creationism is euphenised to 'intelligent design'.
PhysicalsimForever 2 years ago
Gore launches $300 million dollar GW ad campaign
Gore's organization, The Alliance for Climate Protection, said the ad blitz was the largest ever for a public policy issue and was aimed at reducing GHG's
When politicians hear the American people calling loud and clear for change, they'll listen.'
The campaign which will include TV, print, radio and online advertising, (& Telemarketing spamming on youtube & other GW websites)aims at engaging 10 million new supporters to drive policy change
Thisawareness 2 years ago
Al Gore & Goldman Sachs
Generation Investment Management's founding partners are studded with officials from Goldman Sachs. They include David Blood, former CEO of Goldman Sachs Asset Management (GSAM); Mark Ferguson, former co-head of GSAM pan-European research; and Peter Harris, who headed GSAM international operations
(Plus former Secretary of the Treasury (under George W Bush) & a former CEO of Goldman Sachs Hank Paulson has ties also to Gore & GIM
Thisawareness 2 years ago
Al Gore & Corporate friends set to make billions off of the Global Warming Scam
Al Gore is chairman and founder of a private equity firm called Generation Investment Management (GIM). According to Gore, the London-based firm invests money from institutions and wealthy investors in companies that are going green. Generation Investment Management, purchases -- but isnt a provider of -- carbon dioxide offsets
Thisawareness 2 years ago
And so what? Maybe Al Gore is smart enough to see a business opportunity here. Hey, that`s the name of the game, right?
But watch the videos again, whatever Al Gore does or says is irrelevant to whether GW is real or not, he`s NOT a scientist.
paolo27th 1 year ago
There are calls for trial and inprisonment of scientists who, on the basis of evidence, deny global warming is occuring. Warmingism deniers are put on a par with Holocaust deniers by the rabid enviromentlist groups that are scaring people into beliving something as irrational as beliving in God. There has never been a fair objective debate since the issue became politicised.
PhysicalsimForever 2 years ago
Care to support your hysterical fiction with any, you know, EVIDENCE? Like the so-called science you claim to respect?
TithonusSyndrome 2 years ago
Imprisonment of scientists who have differing opinions is obviously a stupid idea, but there will always be stupid people who say stupid things. You cannot conclude from this that the evidence for man made global warming is somehow fabricated. Its there, its undeniable, all responses to the actual findings have been consistently debunked including that rediculous "Global Warming Swindle" film by Durkins. And thats all that matters, either you accept the evidence or you dont.
spacecowboy95 2 years ago
Scientists are being paid by the goverment and enviromentalists to prove that global warming exists. They are told to come to a conclusion before they start
the research! If we come to a conclusion that is in conflict with that of the funders, we lose our money. Global warming is not an objective subject.
PhysicalsimForever 2 years ago
Turtles are really dogs in funny hats.
See, I can make things up without any evidence too. I can even make them up based on what I wish were true, like you're doing right now, and then continue to dodge and evade the call to provide EVIDENCE.
TithonusSyndrome 2 years ago
In the 90s the global warming club smirked as the temperature rose. In the last decade their smiles faltered as they saw 100 years of warming cancelled out in 3 years: 2008, 2009 and 2010. The solution: tamper with the data until it looks like the world is continuing to warm. WE are not fooled. Global warming is a religion. And like all religions, it is scam designed to seduce the ignorant.
PhysicalsimForever 2 years ago
Perhaps you should watch the videos you're commenting on, before making lazy, poorly derived and just unsubstantiated comments about the subject they regard. He lays out all the avenues to investigate if you're' not satisfied.
cabaretampere 2 years ago
Fantastic video! A point that many don't understand.....the difference between the ends (conclusions) and means (methods and evidence). Science is all about the means. Politics is all about the ends.
ClimateSightful 2 years ago
so what will happen when billions of tons of ice melts at the south pole and the crust underneath springs up like a sponge? oh, we dont have to think about that do we, just deny global warming and it will never happen. if i were living on the san andreas fault i'd be thinking of moving.
vengencefrom1979 2 years ago
@potholer54: the peer review process is not supposed to happen in emails between authors, publisher and reviewer.
you shouldn't downplay that issue just because you're afraid the sceptics could misuse it.
gertomaniac 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
9 Out of the last 10 years were the HOTTEST on record.
2009 = 2nd HOTTEST year on record.
(and Solar Irradiance is at a 34 year low)
Search: Data @ NASA GISS: GISS Surface Temperature Analysis: Graphs
See NASA: Graphs & Ranking (Top 10 Warmest Years)
See also the latest on YouTube:
It's Cold, so there is no Global Warming
/watch?v=sAvqabAPIr4&feature=sub
goog2k 2 years ago
You can get a lot of facts from the NASA JPL web site.. The 'normal' level of Co2 on earth is 250 ppm and we are currently at 388 ppm. So far the temperature has hardly moved but life is very temperature sensitive and a few degrees rise or fall could end it all.
James Hansen is a dreadful speaker but when he gets into it he is very clear.
TheSailer99 2 years ago
Well Since Henson never addressed Geothermal heating, Ocean Conyer,nor evapoation/precipitation in his "Co2 amplification" thoery there is still a lot of holes that still need to be address
Co2 doesn't "Amplify" as the Geologist dalbbling in Chemical Theory suggests...CO2, like any gas can only asorb heat that is availible up to it's maximum threshold
Only way Co2 at any concentration level can"Asorb more heat"it's beforee max threshold
is
1)More heat to asorb
2)Heat source is closer
TheRealArchAngel 2 years ago
You might have a crucial misconception.
CO2 doesn't absorb heat. It absorbs long wave radiation, emitted by the earth. The earth emits this long wave radiation by absorbing short wave radiation, upon which atoms destabilize and emit long wave radiation.
The CO2 dipoles are just right for absorbing this long wave radiation, the molecule absorbs the excess energy, and begins to vibrate. The vibration is transformed to heat energy, emitted by the molecule.
CO2 is like a blanket, not a heater.
ThinkAbout1t 2 years ago
I have the misconception?
Exactly where did you learn that Co2 "asorbs Long wave radiation" and "Short wave radiation turnds to long wave radiation"?
Exactly where did you learn that IR radiation off the earth could vibrate a CO2 molocule enough to generate heat in it even though this "longwave radiation" is in the miilihertzs as apposed to the GigaHertz it takes to make a Microwave oven work?
P.S. There is only 1 correct place such things "MIGHT" be wriiten down in the Textbook
TheRealArchAngel 2 years ago
Well, few of the things that Imbuki aand CanX-2 will address with the 55,000ish samples from allover the world is
1) How much Co2 ther e really is
2) Where it really comes from
3) How it really travels
4) Where it really goes
Working with Next gneratio weather/survey sattiles they together will test
1) Does co2 Co2 consentration really effect local tempatures?
2) Does Co2 concetrations really effect Weather?
3) Does Co2 concetrations really effect Ecology and "Climate variability"?
TheRealArchAngel 2 years ago
It'd be great to see a video or two of James Hansen's "Storms of My Grandchildren". I'd especially value your perspective on both his "Venus Syndrome" chapter - that 'business as usual' risks humanity itself, and his argument about sea level rise this century, which is far more alarmist than the assertion you've presented.
MikeHeath1 2 years ago
The problem with using tree rings "recently" to determine annual temperatures is (as pointed out in the video): "Fatter rings indicate warm years. Narrow rings: cold years".
The width of the rings reflect growth. If pollution is stunting tree growth, it would result in narrower rings, falsely suggesting cooler weather even in warm years, explaining why the annual gap is widening.
BI30 2 years ago
Hey modelmark, from your posts, it looks as if you are very involved with politics, and you are not interested in scientists finding a climate model.
VampireSaviorX 2 years ago
I still do not believe in global warming BUT it is good to see that a person has come up with something besides talking points 5/5
IxXShotGunXxl 2 years ago
"Faith: not wanting to know what is true." Friedrich Nietzsche
arizonaviking 2 years ago
"Faith consists in believing when it is beyond the power of reason to believe." Voltaire
arizonaviking 2 years ago
EVOLUTION IS A 100% FAIRY TALE.
Watergun5880 2 years ago
GOD EXISTS.
FUCKING DIE ATHEISTS!!!
Watergun5880 2 years ago
fail troll is fail
packets1 2 years ago
As a general statement, I would request that if anyone does not understand science in it's fullest, please do not make absolute comments regarding scientific concepts.
Do not prescribe any facets to scientists, either.
VampireSaviorX 2 years ago
the context that's missing from the "climate research" story is the active campaign of mann and jones to destroy the reputation over one paper. their entire peer review process was compromised by their perceived ownership of the truth.
RL36D 2 years ago
this must be the response to that lil conspiracy theory shitbag
theeyeisblind 2 years ago
I think you need to do a video on the potential effects of climate change.
We need to understand just how serious this problem is, and how much of a priority it should be.
seltian 2 years ago
Good video. Again.
XPLAlN 2 years ago
Does anyone know how great the actual consensus of Global climate is? Like is it as good as the consensus of evolution? Web links would be good, maybe a poll?
truckcompany 2 years ago
well evolution even gravity law isnt as good as that...
AEVautomatic 2 years ago
what do you mean?
truckcompany 2 years ago
that we have less proof for gravity then we do evolution.
AEVautomatic 2 years ago
Himmm yea. It's interesting... I think I know what you mean as I've heard of that example before. Like even the theory of gravity is changing.
But to the novice, anyone would say that that's stupid, we can see gravity, we can't see evolution happening. (I know that's a stupid argument as we can see mutations happening on small scales)
But what do you mean by gravity has less proof. What other proofs are there to find in the theory of gravity?
truckcompany 2 years ago
are you a fucking idiot? You can see gravity how fucking stupid are you? Are you really so stupid that you think you can see gravity? that is the stupidest thing i have ever heard anyone say in my life. you can only see the effects of gravity. What dose gravity look like please tell. idiot. No one has ever seen gravity. There is a lot more evidence for evolution than gravity.
AEVautomatic 2 years ago
What the fuck? Whats with you trying to make a personal attack?? Im trying to have a serious discussion, I didnt say that I believe what i said. Read what i said!!! "But to the novice, anyone would say"
You just lost my trust in your opinion now...
truckcompany 2 years ago
other proofs? Would be nice to find a graviton. We have found dna.
AEVautomatic 2 years ago