I can't believe he used the "1998 and the next few years" argument to support a "climate is not changing in any way unusual" canard. Google A23A for a somewhat more professional talk on CO2. Then decide which one you think is more reasonable.
@xchopp He is providing an analysis of the data as a TRUE researcher would. 1998 was the start of the last El Nino Cycle, we are now entering the La Nina phase. His time line ends in 2006 becasue that is when the video was made. This guy actually used to lean towards warming but is pissed about the shoddy and corrupt science and now can only conclude that only shoddy and corrupt science suports warming. He is now correct.
@Robbob9933 What do you mean "we are now entering the La Nina phase"? Haven't we been through several El Nino/La Nina cycles since 1998? Perleeze. And what do you mean by "TRUE researcher"? What about the vast majority of scientists who disagree with him? I'm not buying it.
@xchopp (1/2) El Nino and La Nina cycles follow the sun spot cycle. When the IPCC report came out they stated the report was backed by 3,800 scientists. Among those listed were this guy and another was the founder of the Weather channel. Both refute their inclusion. Most of the scientists are social scientists. At present Al Gore is facing a class actino suit by over 30,000 scientists (phyical, natural, stastical, and a couple others) for slander among other claims.
@xchopp (2/2) When real science is practiced a hypothysis is conjectured. Then the hypothysis is examined and tested. ANY instance that contradicts the hypothysis means that hypothysis has been proven to be wrong. In the case of AGW, any evidence that shows that (1) the earth was warmer than it is now with out humans or (2) CO2 follows temperature increases, proves AGW false. It happens that both 1 and 2 are true. This means AGW is completely false. Claims to the contrary are fraud.
@Robbob9933 Go watch Dr. Richard B. Alley's talk at AGU 2009 Fall meeting (google: A23A), note the reception he receives by the several hundreds of scientists in the room and tell us that he is lying or mistaken. Note too that he is a Republican, not in the slightest left-leaning (though not a Libertarian, as you seem to be).
@Robbob9933 "(1) the earth was warmer than it is now with out humans or (2) CO2 follows temperature increases, proves AGW false."
(1) = true but irrelevant
(2) a logical fallacy (please: use your noodle -- THINK for heaven's sake). While CO2 did follow temp. increases over 100,000 year periods but this is no longer the case -- obviously from hard data.
See evidence "Great Global Warming Swindle ABC Debates Part 7/9" youtube com/watch?v=QIzztkyovjc&feature=related
@1:50 & 2:49 Scientist ADMITS ice core data proves TEMPERATURE LEADS CO2 INCREASES & is CAUSED BY THE EARTH's ORBIT AROUND THE SUN. Sun's warmth releases extra planetary CO2 which adds atmospheric warmth. SUN INITIATES WARMING process! Then@8:12 & 8:35 its also admitted HIGHER CO2 levels DURING THE JURRASIC PERIOD 55 million yrs ago!
The climate models are not actually models you know they are spherical crystal devices that when the climatologists hands are laid on them a swirling mist reveals what will be happening in the future
if you look at the charts..through ww2..a tiny blip appears..according to things the way i think, there should be a massive blip there,if the climatologists were right..Think about it...whole world at war..cities burning..millions of.bombs going off..industry at max..lots of co2 and green house gases being released, look again at the time of the oil well fires in kuwait..1000's of wells on fire..no blip at all..we are being missled by those who want to make money..and money is what its all about
@metalworker007 No: those spurts of industrial growth also produced massive volumes of particulate pollution that caused "global dimming", dampening the warming. Once you clean up the pollution, greenhouse climate warming kicks in again (as in the 1970's post-Clean Air Act).
Evidence / impacts of climate change series (for those interested)..
.
Scientists sound alarm over Southern Ocean warming
.
New research shows the Southern Ocean is storing more heat than any other ocean in the world. The study, carried out by Tasmania's Antarctic Climate and Ecosystem centre, has found that carbon dioxide levels in the Southern Ocean will be corrosive to some shellfish by 2030 if current trends continue.
@xchopp Who knows? Better and faster copmmunication does not equal more events. But this is besides the point. Every day Kilauea volcano in Hawaii discharges more CO2, SO2, and gassious H2SO4 than man generates a year. Mount Etna and a over a dozen other active volcanoes do much the same.
Everyone heard of the latest? Climategate 2.0.Yes that's right the second round of climate gate emails just released,simply google:-Climategate 2.0 emails – They’re real and they’re spectacular!
I want a scientist's opinion. I've done my own analysis that shows there is a positive correlation between C02 and global temperature, granted it only went back a few hundred years. However, my college professor did an analysis with the same data and found that although C02 does correlate with temp increase, there is no significant correlation between man make emission and temp increase. Can anyone who's an actual scientist explain this contradiction?
A graph from the last 30 years is too short a time to draw any conclusions from. He needs to look at the previous 100 years or so to spot the very definite trend.
And he doesn't really help his case with funny slides, abusive language and petty insults. He is also cherry picking his data and sources.
The current rate of change AND at our current temperatures (warm by the standards of the last million years, say) do stand out, contrary to what the speaker states. Cherry-picking large swings that only occurred when the earth was very cold doesn't prove his point. Additionally, there were no comfortable humans back millions of years. Current organisms have some adaptations going back that far, but those organisms are not the ones here today largely. And 100-yr predictions are 5 deg, not 1 or 2.
@hozelda sorry, going about 100 years, the current average prediction I think is closer to 3 deg (not 5), maybe some more than 3 but depending on the assumptions of how humans might react (laws passed, population, etc).
Regarding climate research spending, irrespective of how much is spent, science uses expensive equipment, your innuendo implies that there's something improper in this. Do you have any idea how much satellites cost to design & build, launch and support? I suggest you pick the bones out of the U.S. Global Change Research Program, you may learn something.
If you have proof of wrongdoing, provide it to the authorities, or withdraw your dishonest remarks.
@pseudotruth Who is being dishonest??? Bob Carter?? I know that if you go to the current Labour Government they will disregard what ever statement a "None believer" does... even if you have the intellectual capacity of bob Carter...
@pseudotruth The Labour Government and the media have a Non- Hidden Agenda... That Global Warming is such a danger to the environment? A carbon tax?? Would that honestly save the planet as the government proposes...? Or is it just the government handing our financial security to global banks??
You could stop reading what people are claiming the scientists are saying and actually read what the scientists ARE ACTUALLY saying.
BTW, you are wrong about the oceans out gassing, although this may become a problem in the future. The CO2 in the oceans is coming from combustion because of the isotopic composition, it cannot be coming from the ocean. The anthropogenic origin is confirmed by the declining proportion of oxygen in the atmosphere.
But do you listen to both sides of the story? Have you watched this video above? And on the topic of videos.. Have you seen the movie produced by Al Gore? There are several faults within the Science behind it all that i know Year 7 Students have pointed out. Within the FACTS that the Scientists have released their Graphs even show that the Heating has come first...then the CARBON has raised Approx. 1-2 years later... If you have been watching the Video Above it shows how IT DEPENDS
You still don't understand. Try reading some science! You will find that the so-called 'facts' you believe are wrong
BTW, ten years before the CO2 lag was seen in the ice-cores, it had already been predicted. Failure to understand the fact that CO2 is a feedback as well as a forcing is the equivalent of maintaining that chickens do not lay eggs, because they have been seen to emerge from them
This positive feedback is also a sign that sensitivity is higher rather than lower
@pseudotruth - So a government program set up to find evidence of global change has found global change. I'm shocked! Shocked!
Your zealotry is impressive, if misguided. Your blindness or complicity to the implications of that zealotry are frightening. It's the solutions to "global warming" that are far more dangerous than the problems that they seek to solve.
@pseudotruth - Sure, the new regulations have costs for business, this hurts the economy, destroys jobs, infringes on freedom. Anyone with an understanding of economics understands that with everything there are opportunity costs, and every "green"-motivated policy always involves a cost to the economy. Every green job costs at least 2.2 jobs in other industries.
'Every green job costs at least 2.2 jobs in other industries'
Would you have a source for that?
As for 'costs', it's perfectly clear that what many industries are getting for free have real costs to the environment and those who live in that environment. So when the coal-powered electricity spews mercury etc. out of their power-stations, it is the people who are affected, and those costs are very real.
@ToothbrushMan - Let's just say the study is inaccurate. I don't believe that, but let's just say that it is. If "green jobs" are profitable - in the long term, then why doesn't the voluntary economy invest their own money in them?
Might it be that politics, and not economics are the driving force?
Just Google the Wall Street Journal with the title "Green Jobs, Ole: Is the Spanish Clean-Energy Push a Cautionary Tale?" for more details.
The private sector is spending on "green jobs" - especially outside of the US. But consider the silicon revolution - this would never have happened without government spending. Billions of government $ were spent in order to kick-start the high-tech industry, only then did the private sector started to buy in.
The reason the temperature is dropping is because the ice caps are melting. After the ice caps melt, Earth will heat... and heat... and heat... until... we get out of this section of the "FIRE AGE" universal cycle on Earth.
Your "scientific" fact is politically motivated. And not in a good way.
In a massive transfer of wealth way. In a way that WILL lead to the crippling of economies and the suffering of millions and maybe billions of people.
The temperature of the Earth goes up and down. You are either blind or complicit to the fact that global warming is a religion created to take make people less free.
Once again you choose a proven deceiver over the mainstream. You have shown not a shred of evidence to support Carter, nor have you shown that the sources I have offered are wrong. Carter is a cherry-picker and a spreader of false information. Were you to check his claims they will fall apart.
You do not understand what a religion is and I cannot be certain why you make the claims that you do, but you are either an idiot or someone successfully imitating one.
Temperatures have been and are on the rise and scientists know why. We are altering the Earth's climate. The science is robust.
Graphic showing the global land / ocean temperature anomaly from the 5 major datasets GISS / NOAA / HADCRUT3 / RSS / UAH.
Note the similarity of data and the associated trends. Note that surface temperature measurements match closely the satellite data, something that Carter is determined to conceal.
@pseudotruth - Oh well if the science is robust... sorry. But that "science" as you call it seems to come rather regularly from "scientists" with an ax to grind. Scientists who support Global Warming get more funding, so they have a motivation to find it. Universities are increasingly liberal, because that's how they get grant money.
You can quote all the pseudoscientists you like. THEY ARE NOT OBJECTIVE. When "science" loses its objectivity, it is meaningless.
'The US government has spent over $80 BILLION in global warming research since 1989.' - citation please! Surely you could provide a credible source! Just because you believe that crap, doesn't make it true.
All the links I saw were denialist crap, funded by Exxon, Koch etc.
Either William Happer doesn't know what he's talking about or he's lying. He isn't a climate scientist.
Search 'Even Princeton Makes Mistakes'
BTW, how many p/r studies has Happer published on climate? Answer=0
Happer is a FUD merchant. In his Testimony to Senate Energy Committee – made under oath
, he invokes politics, he believes uncertainty is the basis for confidence, it is a sign of dishonesty. He is strong on irrelevant bullshit, rhetoric and climate myths that have been debunked.
He thinks that CO2 is plant food; fails to understand that CO2 is a feedback and a forcing, which is the equivalent of maintaining that chickens do not lay eggs, because they have been seen to emerge from them.
@pseudotruth , Well from my viewpoint, and having a scientific background I consider this the closest opinion to my own. I appreciate you comment, however, I do think we are on the cusp of another ice age. As I type this from Tropical Australia in late May, I am freezing my butt off. I have never been so cold. Global warming is nothing but a cash grab. Shame on all of you.
'As I type this from Tropical Australia in late May, I am freezing my butt off.' - local temperatures are 'local' and do not necessarily reflect global temperatures.
As someone who claims 'a scientific background' you must know that AGW does not mean monotonic warming everywhere. As for: 'we are on the cusp of another ice age', that's completely incompatible with many decades of data and the science.
When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir? - John Maynard Keynes
@aus2045 I have a scientific background too and I quite agree with you. From my observations over the last few weeks temperatures have been dropping at an average of 5 degrees per month. I know this because of the weather forecasts on the telly and because I can no longer wear a t shirt outside like i could a few months ago. If this trend continues Melbourne will be under a sheet of ice by the end of the year. We need to burn all of the coal immediately to stop this from happening.
Hi all, just trying to spread the word about a new community site we're putting together based around our planet - earth-forums (dot) com. Take a look if you'd like!
He uses statistics as if there are no other variables that would affect the relationship between global warming and human behavior. He is saying: "Don't be an alarmist. Look at the data in the past. You are over-reading the 'present'." But the data and information of the "present" are saying: "What happened in the part will be different from what will happen in the future unless we do something." Much more, statistics is never exacting with degrees of error. Carter is more into this error.
bob carter has NEVER completed a study about how humans affect climate. I asked him. He studies ANCIENT climates using marine sediment.
.
So, in the face of have NO respected studies or scientific institutions to support then naysaying position maybe you deniers should get a grip on reality, try some critical. Where the credible bases for your opinion?
.
Here's a recent article about some current changes.
.
Google: Island-scale study reveals climate-change effects
@ReduceGHGs I certainly agree... He said that the "cooling of the planet will certainly happen." How sure is he? We are basing our predictions today based on the recent actions of human beings and not on a more predictable pattern of the climate.
Current climate forecasts use a wide variety of info including past, present, and predicted conditions. Carter is not taken seriously in the field of climate science. Read about his industry connections at Wikipedia.
This guy has no study to back up his claims that CO2 is not a problem. I asked him.
@ReduceGHGs... As I suspected.... The industries are truly spending billions of dollars to twist data and information on climate change. They are even hiring some "experts" just to debunk the reality about climate change. They are doing the same in the Philippines.
Yea, that fuss over the emails was a big deal. It's like the deniers are falling off a cliff and grasping for any root or twig to save them. They have nothing of substance to hang onto but there is a willing audience, a gullible sector of the public that needs to hear we have nothing to worry about.
I say a good documentary a couple days ago and there are a few vid here on YouTube about it. Highly recommended.
@siwawervintar Show me the industries paying him with conclusive evidence. Our local weatherman [climatologist] agrees wholeheartedly with these ideas and evidence. He's certainly not in the pay of anyone. This is the typical reaction of those who won't believe the facts. These same true facts were in place and discussed in the 70's when it was so cold. Everyone knew of the cycles back then.
@3nails3days1way Bob Carter doesn't actually disclose who he is funded by, 3nails. A 'weatherman' is not a climatologist, but a meteorologist. A know an 80 year old meteorologist who has both the experience and qualifications to say that weather patterns have definitely changed in the passed 55 years, but this doesn't prove or disprove anthropogenic climate change. What are your 'facts' and who is 'everyone'?
No silly! Wiki is NEVER consider a source. What they have is a site with the respected scientific institutions' position statements. They are accurate. Been there and checked em out. They also provide links to the institutions (the sources) so the reader can do further research.
Dr. Dennis Jenson (MP) has a PhD in materials engineering on ceramics from Monash University. He is not a climate scientist and therefore not qualified to make such a bold statement on AGW.
@toonyloons2006 Well thats good for you toony you have experience, but unless you could provide a personal recommendation and examples of your work I would rather a qualified technician fix my computer. Dr. Dennis Jenson doesnt have experience or qualifications to back up his claims, so how do I know he understands what he is talking about?
@limeshakes I've had people go to qualified techs, then they come to me, who fixes them by experience just like toonyloons. I give them 2nd diagnosis and I repair it completely for cheaper when the shop said it was dead and charged a fortune for a stupid diagnosis. So most who know about me come to me before the experts. I would rather go to a guy like this. The big money goes to the global warming loonies, which is why they ignore the evidence.
@3nails3days1way Paraphrased: Your experience as an unqualified computer tech shows that you are cheaper, more effective and have a better rep than a qualified computer tech. You have now applied this experience to all professionals as unqualified amateurs will have the same skills in their field as you do in yours. So the next time you are sick you'll go to an unqualified friend and not the doctor and hospital, as doctors are bribed by drug companies. Or do you just apply this reasoning to ACC?
@limeshakes I am qualified by experience. This used to be the norm: internships or apprenticeships with a blacksmith, doctor, banker, etc. I have no problem with going to a doctor who did an internship with a good doctor rather than med school. In the state of VA it is not mandatory to go to law school to be a lawyer. An internship can substitute. It is real life training rather than unrealistic & limited computer models.
@3nails3days1way So you agree with me then. We shouldn't listen to any old fool about what they say about climate change. They must have experience and/or qualifications (you have equated these two) and some kind of recommendation. Dr. David Jennings, the guy in the lecture vid above, has no experience, qualifications or recommendation on the subject of climate change. His conclusions are flawed. And for the last part, mate, climate science is not solely based on some abstract computer model.
@limeshakes To clarify: Dr David Jennings is the WA politician who released a minority report for the WA government sub committee on carbon sequestration (6.01). Bob Carter goes on to say that this conclusion is made by 'the only qualified scientist in our entire parliamentary system' (6.41). This statement is misleading as Dr. David Jennings has neither the experience nor the qualification to make this conclusion.
@3nails3days1way As for ignoring 'evidence', what 'evidence' has been ignored? So there has been a research paper published in a reputable scientific magazine that a global community of climate scientists have specifically ignored? Which paper was that? And as for funding, mate, there are some very deep pockets out there who have a great fiscal interest in keeping people like you from listening to what a global community of scientists tell us. Is this the end of the age of reason?
@limeshakes It is the age of reason. I use mine; I never go with the majority just because they are the majority. Right is right, not numbers. It was a small number of Christians that were against slavery against the majority of people in many countries, some of the majority even were so-called Christians, but it was the small number that was right and eventually won out. In the US not only the laws but the supreme court ruled in favor of slavery.
@3nails3days1way You must used your reason to understand that this is a scientific issue, based on hypothesis, testing and publishing your findings for peer review. This is not a social issue like the one you have exampled. It has absolutely nothing to do with Christianity or 'God' or slavery or the US judiciary. There is a wealth of peer reviewed scientific research that shows what we currently know about the earths climate and how it is effected by different drivers.
@limeshakes Slavery was also a scientific issue. They were not considered fully a person, as seen in the supreme court case and general thought of the day. They were considered by scientists to be lower on the evolutionary scale, so more like animals. Check out friends of science.org; ://en.word press.com/tag/global-freeze/; live leak.com/view?i=118_1228824580; ice age now.com/Ocean_Warming.htm for loads of science [there is much more]
@3nails3days1way So we agree now that this is a scientific issue and not a moral issue based on right vs. wrong. Bob Carter is yet to publish any of his research on ACC in a scientific journal. His conclusions are dubious or have already been refuted (proven otherwise). Check out youtube.com/watch?v=w5hs4KVeiAU for a concise explanation. As for science, 3nails, you should start looking at research papers like 'CO2 forced climate thresholds during the Phanerozoic' (D.L.Royer), NOT Al Gore.
i am an American and proud to be one and proud of my country. Anyone reading this, please do not assume we all believe Al Gore just because he is from the US. some 78% of the general US poplulation do not believe that human caused climate change is a problem. It just happens that "internet inventer" happens to be from the US. not one of my proud exports.
@Black70Fastback So does that mean that 78% of Americans don't agree with the latest scientific research or that 78% of Americans are ambivalent about the whole issue of Anthropogenic Climate Change? Either way its very, very sad.
How dare a Professor / scientist use facts , tests and evidence to disprove my brain necroses and Al Gore's video's. Al worked on in all weekend and just because Bob Carter has proof of thousand of years why should I believe him. After all Al did get the Nobel peace prize in 2007 for it.... taken from Irena Sendler....
@wscparks How do you make these great connections between such disassociated groups as Climate Scientists and Far right wing capitalists? Been smoking too much weed lately?
It's an interesting document that may work as part of an AGW argument. Meanwhile, a quick internet search demonstrates the massive body of scientific refutation of and debate upon the notion of AGW. It's a hot debate with EU/US alarmist politics at its core. If there really were an AGW crisis, those maniacs would be the last ones to call for help. Anyway, I'll drop off the comments page soon, so you and the Global Media can carry on with the whitewash campaign.
"the actual science", you say: by Al Gore, perhaps?
"I've been reading what's been coming out of the science journals for a couple of years now"
Have you really? Congrats. Show me the evidence for manmade global warming and I'll show you a glossy marketing front for anyone who can slip a scientist a Prize and some funding.
@robhoneycutt Seen it before. It's pretty heavy on the science, and apart from its connection to the military propagandists of Elsvier, it's not alarming. It may act as a lay-up shot for the manmade GW assertion, such that 'if you accept this, then get this...' but alone it's just interesting.
@sxmadrid You asked for the fingerprint of AGW. That is one. If you can't comprehend it then go find someone who can and try to understand it rather than just rejecting it.
I just flew over Kilimanjaro last month. There was hardly any snow at all, compared to when I grew up in Tanzania. Please see my Kilimanjaro footage on my video, filmed at 6.56 AM on 15th October 2010, at 35000 feet, from BA flight London Heathrow to Dar es Salaam. It's scary!
Bob Carter and Ian Plimer are the best I have found and the best information is still coming----do not give in till the pro fascist are isolated and the poor of the world are allowed cheap power and education
@wscparks Again, neither Carter nor Plimer are specialists in climate science. These guys are expressing their political positions, not presenting science.
I would point out here that Carter has NO published research into climate issues. This video is like listening to your dentist lecture you about how cancer works.
@robhoneycutt Pressumably your dentist supplies you with plenty of detailed data on the history and nature of cancer? Perhaps he's a cancer specialist when he's not treating your slack jaw?
@robhoneycutt Everyone's expressing their political or social position. Everyone. It doesn't invalidate our arguments. You're argument excludes just about all of us from this debate since we're neither scientists nor professionally trained to evaluate and respond to the arguments of others, like, say, trial judges or military information specialists.
@sxmadrid If you spend any time reading the actual science you realize that the scientists involved in this issue are NOT presenting a political position, they are merely presenting their findings. Those findings happen to continually confirm anthropogenic global warming.
People like Carter and Plimer are reacting due to their own political leanings. They are not publishing climate scientists.
in my opinion as a biologist that the prof is not fully appreciating that biodiversity will very likely go down in a fast warming planet that is over run by human influence. While it may be true that a healthy ecosystem can thrive in ever warmer and higher CO2 levels, I would successfully argue that we do not have a healthy, well running ecosystem. I would also argue that its obviously getting worse, regardless of climate change.
Thus, I believe Prof Bob is wrong on that point specifically
@bdhcarbon the biodiversity has been in decline way before anyone thought up global warming. it's far more certain to blame biodiversity on mans encroachment of habitat. the ecosystems unaffected by man directly are also unaffected by temperature change.
@stupidnamenoonecares Check your facts. According a recent statement from the Royal Society we are today experiencing species extinction faster than what has happened ANY time in earth's history.
Their exact words:
“There are very strong indications that the current rate of species extinctions far exceeds anything in the fossil record.”
@robhoneycutt check your comprehension. i said that biodiversity decline started before global warming. not that it isn't happening now. my contention isn't that species extinction was incorrect. it was that the likely culprit is habitat destruction. i'll also add in over harvesting of wild species also for completeness sake.
does the royal society blame global warming for species extinction?
@robhoneycutt and specifically replying to a reply bringing up species extinction in that context. the author of the first post i replied to was pretty much saying what i said even. i wasn't even arguing, merely emphasising that species decline started before the theory of anthropomorphic global climate change.
i should also correct you there, the video specifically says that climate change is real and has been for millennia.
your obviously trying to reply to something i never said. good day.
i'm collecting info on various topics and thought people might like to see the vids on my profile about chem trails a.k.a. geo-engineering where you can find the links to the patents for these aerosols which are supposedly being used to cool the planet since the mid 1990s. There are also other asortments of youtube vids on miscellaneous topics
I see regime-switching towards the middle of the graph shown at 2:40. Has anyone investigated that bifurcation point? Something OBVIOUSLY happened there and the qualitative behavior of the climate changed dramatically.
The oceans have dissolved in them “40 times more carbon than the atmosphere contains, a total of _30 Trillion tons_, or 30 times the world’s coal reserves.
To bad for your "facts", mister. CO2 increases contributes big time to warming, completely backed up by thermodynamics of the atmosphere and theory of radiation balance on first principles of physics. Greenhouse effect of CO2 is verified even in laboratory experiments carried out to refine model parameters for models that well explain the measurements, none of which he shows. Instead of presenting rational arguments, he makes a big show. That may be OK for Al Gore, but: Bob - where's the math?
@rewtnode You are the one who has the math wrong. The global temp historical record illustrates that CO2 increase "lag" warming, --not-- lead actual warming trends. You have the cause-and-effect relationship backwards.
@RMacReady That is because historically CO2 is a feedback mechanism that works in response to orbital forcing. Orbital forcing can only account for about 1C of global temperature change, the remaining change is due to CO2 feedbacks in conjunction with water vapor.
Today is different. We are taking the feedback with the most profound effect and turning it into a forcing by human introduction of CO2 into the atmosphere.
We need a lot of wikileakers in order to understand reasons why Apple IPhone is a real proprietary platform by technology or just by logo registration and language commercialization twists only.
This lecture is already some years old. Has the good professor already learned that his El Nino / 'climate hasn't changed' argumentation was rebutted and panned by several papers in the meantime? And what about your hypocrisy regarding the scientific method, Bob? To cherrypick local data to explain global events is not very scientific, isn't it?
Climate Change THEORY = Propaganda = Money = Carbon Taxes
There is money to be made from this. Al Gore is a smart cunt what ever way you look at it. He's the one rolling in it because many people have falling for this THEORY which has no concrete evidence at all. Fair fucks to the guy, although he is a cunt
@TheFifthApes Yes i agree, i did use the word theory inncorrectly. I accept that people have an influence on the earth's climate but climate change is being abused and exaggerated to profit of people like so many other stories. maybe it should read;
@peeobee This is a red herring. The fact that people exploit it for personal gain says nothing about it's truth value. Carbon taxes are an idea to create a environment of technological advancement, they are not for profit.
Now. How much have your carbon taxes cost you this year? . . .
@TheFifthApes I'm paying carbon taxes right now. Here check out moneyguideireland on carbon taxes. Gives you accurate carbon taxes im paying.
These taxes will have an inevitable effect on food via transport cost increase, heating my home will be dearer this christmas and filling up my car will be dearer too...so whats your point?
Do you think carbon taxes will actually reduce carbon output of the world?Its a simple answer, they won't. Nice little money earner for the government though.
@TheFifthApes "Carbon taxes are an idea to create a environment of technological advancement, they are not for profit"
That means absolutely nothing, complete jargon. So as we can see governments are making money of carbon taxes what is your point? I'm sure Ireland isn't the only government milking it when it comes to carbon taxes. yep USA have similar carbon taxes...check it out yourself.
@TheFifthApes "Carbon taxes are an idea to create a environment of technological advancement, they are not for profit." That means absolutely nothing, complete jargon. If you do a quick check on USA's carbon taxes, they are similar to Ireland's.
So you still think it is a "red herring"? Money is what makes the world speak, to say it doesn't is just naive. This is just one of countless examples.
"They are not for profit"... are you serious? or just winding people up?
READ the Bible:1.the world will never end, 2.God will provide for Earth's inhabitants forever,3.It's globalist schemes(too much power held by too few) that will destroy the Earth-like their BP boys-deliberately doing! Your logic is FLAWED by petty-money FOOLS! CAP&TAX is Global Scheme so bunch of corrupt EX-Pres.like RAMOS (Philippians) MAJOR(Brit,)Al GORE can steal more $BILLIONS from TAXES(ROMANS taxed WORLD)the GOV. PUPPETS need $ to join Ruling Elites vs.FEMA death camps with us PLEBS!.
(remove spaces) If Monbiot (moonbat to us climate realists) needs to change Lord Monckton's writings to suit his agenda, then it shows how low warmists will stoop to peddle AGW. Pack of liars, right @Nightversionn?
AGW religion and its reliance on CO2 is no different to Ozone (O3) and the scandal which continues to this day. The following graph shows no change in O3 levels despite a massive ban on CFC's (chlorofluorocarbons) after the Ozone hole discovery in 1985:
ww w. junkscience. com/Ozone/plot35910. gif
Will they ban CO2 fire extinguishers as they did BCF ones? You exhale 40,000ppm CO2 every breath (current atmospheric 388ppm), will they outlaw CPR and declare it attempted murder? Wake up people..
@MrOllyK We cycle carbon from the environment- eat stuff with carbon, exhale CO2. We are not "creating" CO2. That is how the ecological carbon cycle works. This is primary school stuff which you obviously don't get. The trouble is that we are now releasing gigatons of carbon that has been locked up millions of years ago.
I know all about the carbon cycle, so don't infer otherwise. What you don't get is that all this carbon was in the atmosphere previously, with no runaway greenhouse or fabled "tipping point", ever.
CO2 was some 10-15x higher in the Jurassic, and delicate aragonite corals evolved in non-acid oceans. The proof of which are those pesky un-dissolved fossils of corals and shellfish from that era that keep popping up. That's primary shool stuff you forgot all about.
Are they I think you might want to check that. I heard a rumour that the dry ice caps on Mars were shrinking too so you might want to check that out as well.
Stupit math nerds u got like 0.01% on schooæ dont tink u guys are smart btw the sea s are almost out of fish by al those fish boats gf 40 years almost al fish away?
co2 is used by every plant in the world for photosynthesis as well as sunlight and water to grow and make oxygen.if there were no co2 there would be no plants and no oxygen.thats fifth grade science people.
That what happens when you hire Mathamaticians,Computer Moderlers,and Physists...you get uguessing,predictions and simulation, not practical Scince via testing and verification
Yes it's hot in Australia now...but that is from Amplifieed "Climate variability" that will reverse in 7 years,just watch (time is on my side)
no,no no, your Univeristy and Government Faculty Physists are the ones that have never measured ever car,factory stack,train.plane,truk and ship to prove it's "90 million a day humans Majke"...they are guessing/estimating
Pfft land VOlcanoes are not the only thing, there are black smokers, midridge rifts,subduction zoanes and deep sea trenches that warmt he Ocean water and prevent IceAge by keeping the Ocean currents churning(smirk)
I can't believe he used the "1998 and the next few years" argument to support a "climate is not changing in any way unusual" canard. Google A23A for a somewhat more professional talk on CO2. Then decide which one you think is more reasonable.
xchopp 3 days ago
@xchopp He is providing an analysis of the data as a TRUE researcher would. 1998 was the start of the last El Nino Cycle, we are now entering the La Nina phase. His time line ends in 2006 becasue that is when the video was made. This guy actually used to lean towards warming but is pissed about the shoddy and corrupt science and now can only conclude that only shoddy and corrupt science suports warming. He is now correct.
Robbob9933 3 days ago
@Robbob9933 What do you mean "we are now entering the La Nina phase"? Haven't we been through several El Nino/La Nina cycles since 1998? Perleeze. And what do you mean by "TRUE researcher"? What about the vast majority of scientists who disagree with him? I'm not buying it.
xchopp 2 days ago
@xchopp (1/2) El Nino and La Nina cycles follow the sun spot cycle. When the IPCC report came out they stated the report was backed by 3,800 scientists. Among those listed were this guy and another was the founder of the Weather channel. Both refute their inclusion. Most of the scientists are social scientists. At present Al Gore is facing a class actino suit by over 30,000 scientists (phyical, natural, stastical, and a couple others) for slander among other claims.
Robbob9933 2 days ago
@Robbob9933 Almost everything you say is garbage. People, please check it out.
xchopp 2 days ago
@xchopp (2/2) When real science is practiced a hypothysis is conjectured. Then the hypothysis is examined and tested. ANY instance that contradicts the hypothysis means that hypothysis has been proven to be wrong. In the case of AGW, any evidence that shows that (1) the earth was warmer than it is now with out humans or (2) CO2 follows temperature increases, proves AGW false. It happens that both 1 and 2 are true. This means AGW is completely false. Claims to the contrary are fraud.
Robbob9933 2 days ago
@Robbob9933 Go watch Dr. Richard B. Alley's talk at AGU 2009 Fall meeting (google: A23A), note the reception he receives by the several hundreds of scientists in the room and tell us that he is lying or mistaken. Note too that he is a Republican, not in the slightest left-leaning (though not a Libertarian, as you seem to be).
xchopp 2 days ago
@Robbob9933 "(1) the earth was warmer than it is now with out humans or (2) CO2 follows temperature increases, proves AGW false."
(1) = true but irrelevant
(2) a logical fallacy (please: use your noodle -- THINK for heaven's sake). While CO2 did follow temp. increases over 100,000 year periods but this is no longer the case -- obviously from hard data.
xchopp 2 days ago
@xchopp BTW, atmospheric temperature 100% cooerlates to solar weather and sun spot activity.
Robbob9933 2 days ago
@Robbob9933 No, it doesn't. Where are you getting these ideas?
xchopp 2 days ago
@Robbob9933 For example, see skepticalscience:
solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming htm
xchopp 2 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
2:57 Proof that global temperature rise is within a natural scale, well, well into the industrial revolution.
please, tell me I'm wrong. Is it REALLY this simple?...
zieben64 4 days ago
Comment removed
zieben64 4 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
CASE CLOSED! "MANMADE" GLOBAL WARMING FALSE!
See evidence "Great Global Warming Swindle ABC Debates Part 7/9" youtube com/watch?v=QIzztkyovjc&feature=related
@1:50 & 2:49 Scientist ADMITS ice core data proves TEMPERATURE LEADS CO2 INCREASES & is CAUSED BY THE EARTH's ORBIT AROUND THE SUN. Sun's warmth releases extra planetary CO2 which adds atmospheric warmth. SUN INITIATES WARMING process! Then@8:12 & 8:35 its also admitted HIGHER CO2 levels DURING THE JURRASIC PERIOD 55 million yrs ago!
shawso7 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The climate models are not actually models you know they are spherical crystal devices that when the climatologists hands are laid on them a swirling mist reveals what will be happening in the future
LordMonckton78 2 weeks ago
this reminds me of a george carlin bit 25 endangered species die every day we didn't kill them all,the planet is fine the people are fucked :) genius
neamparibe 3 weeks ago
if you look at the charts..through ww2..a tiny blip appears..according to things the way i think, there should be a massive blip there,if the climatologists were right..Think about it...whole world at war..cities burning..millions of.bombs going off..industry at max..lots of co2 and green house gases being released, look again at the time of the oil well fires in kuwait..1000's of wells on fire..no blip at all..we are being missled by those who want to make money..and money is what its all about
metalworker007 1 month ago
@metalworker007 No: those spurts of industrial growth also produced massive volumes of particulate pollution that caused "global dimming", dampening the warming. Once you clean up the pollution, greenhouse climate warming kicks in again (as in the 1970's post-Clean Air Act).
xchopp 3 days ago
Evidence / impacts of climate change series (for those interested)..
.
Scientists sound alarm over Southern Ocean warming
.
New research shows the Southern Ocean is storing more heat than any other ocean in the world. The study, carried out by Tasmania's Antarctic Climate and Ecosystem centre, has found that carbon dioxide levels in the Southern Ocean will be corrosive to some shellfish by 2030 if current trends continue.
.
Australia ABC News, Australia
29 November 2011
Nightversionn 1 month ago
@Nightversionn The souce of ocean warming in the Antarctic Ocean has been located. It is a series of active undersea volcanoes
Robbob9933 1 month ago
@Robbob9933 And we know that these volcanoes have suddenly become more active (than say 100 years ago), do we?
xchopp 3 days ago
@xchopp Who knows? Better and faster copmmunication does not equal more events. But this is besides the point. Every day Kilauea volcano in Hawaii discharges more CO2, SO2, and gassious H2SO4 than man generates a year. Mount Etna and a over a dozen other active volcanoes do much the same.
Robbob9933 3 days ago
@Robbob9933 skepticalscience says otherwise
xchopp 3 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Everyone heard of the latest? Climategate 2.0.Yes that's right the second round of climate gate emails just released,simply google:-Climategate 2.0 emails – They’re real and they’re spectacular!
2wheels88 2 months ago
WANKERS
emoguitar0101 2 months ago
I want a scientist's opinion. I've done my own analysis that shows there is a positive correlation between C02 and global temperature, granted it only went back a few hundred years. However, my college professor did an analysis with the same data and found that although C02 does correlate with temp increase, there is no significant correlation between man make emission and temp increase. Can anyone who's an actual scientist explain this contradiction?
ca1cifer 2 months ago
@ca1cifer The guy on this video is a scientist. This poster posts scientific data off scientists all against the AGW lie.
However, be careful! Or due to politics you will never get tenure for any research.
m1aws 2 months ago
A graph from the last 30 years is too short a time to draw any conclusions from. He needs to look at the previous 100 years or so to spot the very definite trend.
And he doesn't really help his case with funny slides, abusive language and petty insults. He is also cherry picking his data and sources.
ToothbrushMan 2 months ago
What the f**k are we looking at a graph going back 6 million years for ?
ToothbrushMan 2 months ago
The current rate of change AND at our current temperatures (warm by the standards of the last million years, say) do stand out, contrary to what the speaker states. Cherry-picking large swings that only occurred when the earth was very cold doesn't prove his point. Additionally, there were no comfortable humans back millions of years. Current organisms have some adaptations going back that far, but those organisms are not the ones here today largely. And 100-yr predictions are 5 deg, not 1 or 2.
hozelda 2 months ago
@hozelda sorry, going about 100 years, the current average prediction I think is closer to 3 deg (not 5), maybe some more than 3 but depending on the assumptions of how humans might react (laws passed, population, etc).
hozelda 2 months ago
This man is right, those celebrites that trying to scare people based on computer models are a disgrace!
Jimraynor45 5 months ago
@mpc91
Regarding climate research spending, irrespective of how much is spent, science uses expensive equipment, your innuendo implies that there's something improper in this. Do you have any idea how much satellites cost to design & build, launch and support? I suggest you pick the bones out of the U.S. Global Change Research Program, you may learn something.
If you have proof of wrongdoing, provide it to the authorities, or withdraw your dishonest remarks.
pseudotruth 6 months ago
@pseudotruth Who is being dishonest??? Bob Carter?? I know that if you go to the current Labour Government they will disregard what ever statement a "None believer" does... even if you have the intellectual capacity of bob Carter...
AndrewBrown2nddan 6 months ago
@AndrewBrown2nddan
Are you capable of reading? Did you read the links?
Did you check the links to see whether they were true?
Do you have the intelligence to understand them?
Are you honest?
I don't think so.
pseudotruth 6 months ago
@pseudotruth The Labour Government and the media have a Non- Hidden Agenda... That Global Warming is such a danger to the environment? A carbon tax?? Would that honestly save the planet as the government proposes...? Or is it just the government handing our financial security to global banks??
vidcall.com/index.php/videos/show/2090/#chooseVidcallMailWin-coming-s
AndrewBrown2nddan 6 months ago
@AndrewBrown2nddan
You could stop reading what people are claiming the scientists are saying and actually read what the scientists ARE ACTUALLY saying.
BTW, you are wrong about the oceans out gassing, although this may become a problem in the future. The CO2 in the oceans is coming from combustion because of the isotopic composition, it cannot be coming from the ocean. The anthropogenic origin is confirmed by the declining proportion of oxygen in the atmosphere.
pseudotruth 6 months ago
@pseudotruth
But do you listen to both sides of the story? Have you watched this video above? And on the topic of videos.. Have you seen the movie produced by Al Gore? There are several faults within the Science behind it all that i know Year 7 Students have pointed out. Within the FACTS that the Scientists have released their Graphs even show that the Heating has come first...then the CARBON has raised Approx. 1-2 years later... If you have been watching the Video Above it shows how IT DEPENDS
AndrewBrown2nddan 6 months ago
@AndrewBrown2nddan
You still don't understand. Try reading some science! You will find that the so-called 'facts' you believe are wrong
BTW, ten years before the CO2 lag was seen in the ice-cores, it had already been predicted. Failure to understand the fact that CO2 is a feedback as well as a forcing is the equivalent of maintaining that chickens do not lay eggs, because they have been seen to emerge from them
This positive feedback is also a sign that sensitivity is higher rather than lower
pseudotruth 6 months ago
@pseudotruth - So a government program set up to find evidence of global change has found global change. I'm shocked! Shocked!
Your zealotry is impressive, if misguided. Your blindness or complicity to the implications of that zealotry are frightening. It's the solutions to "global warming" that are far more dangerous than the problems that they seek to solve.
mpc91 5 months ago
@mpc91
Would you care to expand upon: "the solutions to "global warming" that are far more dangerous than the problems that they seek to solve."?
pseudotruth 5 months ago
@pseudotruth - Sure, the new regulations have costs for business, this hurts the economy, destroys jobs, infringes on freedom. Anyone with an understanding of economics understands that with everything there are opportunity costs, and every "green"-motivated policy always involves a cost to the economy. Every green job costs at least 2.2 jobs in other industries.
mpc91 3 months ago
@mpc91
'Every green job costs at least 2.2 jobs in other industries'
Would you have a source for that?
As for 'costs', it's perfectly clear that what many industries are getting for free have real costs to the environment and those who live in that environment. So when the coal-powered electricity spews mercury etc. out of their power-stations, it is the people who are affected, and those costs are very real.
pseudotruth 3 months ago
@mpc91
You still haven't explained how "the solutions to "global warming" that are far more dangerous than the problems that they seek to solve."
Was this BS, or do you have evidence?
pseudotruth 3 months ago
@mpc91
The green jobs per 2.2 regular job came from a Spanish study that has been criticized internationally for its
poor methodology. It really is a joke of a study by a right wing professor with a really big market-economy-or-nothing-else axe to grind.
ToothbrushMan 2 months ago
@ToothbrushMan - Let's just say the study is inaccurate. I don't believe that, but let's just say that it is. If "green jobs" are profitable - in the long term, then why doesn't the voluntary economy invest their own money in them?
Might it be that politics, and not economics are the driving force?
mpc91 2 months ago
@mpc91
Just Google the Wall Street Journal with the title "Green Jobs, Ole: Is the Spanish Clean-Energy Push a Cautionary Tale?" for more details.
The private sector is spending on "green jobs" - especially outside of the US. But consider the silicon revolution - this would never have happened without government spending. Billions of government $ were spent in order to kick-start the high-tech industry, only then did the private sector started to buy in.
ToothbrushMan 2 months ago
Comment removed
pseudotruth 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Everything Bob Carter says has been debunked on the itsnotnova wordpress website.
ItsNotNova 6 months ago 2
Yes DR. Jensen is a scientist. Apparently he's an expert in ceramics.
gamesbok 6 months ago
The reason the temperature is dropping is because the ice caps are melting. After the ice caps melt, Earth will heat... and heat... and heat... until... we get out of this section of the "FIRE AGE" universal cycle on Earth.
Unrealll6666 7 months ago in playlist ClimateGate
This has been flagged as spam show
How about you fuck off and get back to your planking?
aus2045 8 months ago
@aus2045
Global cooling? - No it isn't! Unless by cooling you mean increasing temperatures.
For that myth debunked see: sks.to slash cooling
The BoM don't agree with you.
tiny dot cc slash OzAnnualMeanTemp
pseudotruth 8 months ago
For facts about Bob Carter, google:
Carter Confusion #1: Anthropogenic Warming
Carter Confusion #2: Green Jobs
After you've been alerted to his deceptions never believe him again.
pseudotruth 8 months ago
@pseudotruth - Did you check the sources on those who say Carter is lying?
You think they are objective?
The US National Renewable Energy Laboratory - a government group that gets money from Green Jobs programs.
UC Berkeley. If you think their politics aren't coloring their report, then I have some swampland to sell you.
The UN Environmental Programme.
Now that you've been alerted to your deception, no one should ever believe you again.
mpc91 6 months ago
@mpc91
Bob Carter is a serial deceiver. Your rhetoric proves nothing.
Google 'bob-carter-does-his-business'
pseudotruth 6 months ago
@pseudotruth - My "rhetoric" proves everything.
Your "scientific" fact is politically motivated. And not in a good way.
In a massive transfer of wealth way. In a way that WILL lead to the crippling of economies and the suffering of millions and maybe billions of people.
The temperature of the Earth goes up and down. You are either blind or complicit to the fact that global warming is a religion created to take make people less free.
You are aptly named, pseudotruth.
mpc91 6 months ago
@mpc91
Once again you choose a proven deceiver over the mainstream. You have shown not a shred of evidence to support Carter, nor have you shown that the sources I have offered are wrong. Carter is a cherry-picker and a spreader of false information. Were you to check his claims they will fall apart.
You do not understand what a religion is and I cannot be certain why you make the claims that you do, but you are either an idiot or someone successfully imitating one.
pseudotruth 6 months ago
@mpc91
Temperatures have been and are on the rise and scientists know why. We are altering the Earth's climate. The science is robust.
Graphic showing the global land / ocean temperature anomaly from the 5 major datasets GISS / NOAA / HADCRUT3 / RSS / UAH.
Note the similarity of data and the associated trends. Note that surface temperature measurements match closely the satellite data, something that Carter is determined to conceal.
Tiny dot cc slash GLOTAGissNoaaHadRssUah1
pseudotruth 6 months ago
@pseudotruth - Oh well if the science is robust... sorry. But that "science" as you call it seems to come rather regularly from "scientists" with an ax to grind. Scientists who support Global Warming get more funding, so they have a motivation to find it. Universities are increasingly liberal, because that's how they get grant money.
You can quote all the pseudoscientists you like. THEY ARE NOT OBJECTIVE. When "science" loses its objectivity, it is meaningless.
Follow the money.
mpc91 6 months ago
@mpc91
'Scientists who support Global Warming get more funding' - Evidence please!
pseudotruth 6 months ago
@pseudotruth - The US government has spent over $80 BILLION in global warming research since 1989.
Article after article after article exists to show that funding goes to those who already believe in Global Warming.
Look up Dr. William Happer. He was fired by Clinton/Gore for not denying Global Warming, but for saying he was "open-minded" about it.
Google global warming research grants. There's too much for the youtube character limit.
mpc91 6 months ago
@mpc91
'The US government has spent over $80 BILLION in global warming research since 1989.' - citation please! Surely you could provide a credible source! Just because you believe that crap, doesn't make it true.
All the links I saw were denialist crap, funded by Exxon, Koch etc.
Either William Happer doesn't know what he's talking about or he's lying. He isn't a climate scientist.
Search 'Even Princeton Makes Mistakes'
BTW, how many p/r studies has Happer published on climate? Answer=0
pseudotruth 6 months ago
@pseudotruth - Would the ultra-liberal New York Times be a good enough source for you. Oct. 10th, 2006 (and we haven't stopped spending since then).
So anything you disagree with is "denialist crap?. Anything that doesn't agree with you is a scam. How can you be objective with such a slanted view?
You miss the whole Happer point. He wasn't fired for coming out on Global Warming either way, he was fired because he had an open mind.
You should try it.
mpc91 6 months ago
@mpc91
Happer is a FUD merchant. In his Testimony to Senate Energy Committee – made under oath
, he invokes politics, he believes uncertainty is the basis for confidence, it is a sign of dishonesty. He is strong on irrelevant bullshit, rhetoric and climate myths that have been debunked.
He thinks that CO2 is plant food; fails to understand that CO2 is a feedback and a forcing, which is the equivalent of maintaining that chickens do not lay eggs, because they have been seen to emerge from them.
pseudotruth 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@mpc91
'You can quote all the pseudoscientists you like. THEY ARE NOT OBJECTIVE. When "science" loses its objectivity, it is meaningless.'
I agree and it applies to Bob Carter perfectly.
pseudotruth 6 months ago
Thank god that this man can be here to tell the truth.
aus2045 8 months ago
@aus2045
You have been fooled. Carter doesn't tell the truth about climate change.
Google: Carter Confusion #1: Anthropogenic Warming
pseudotruth 8 months ago
@pseudotruth , Well from my viewpoint, and having a scientific background I consider this the closest opinion to my own. I appreciate you comment, however, I do think we are on the cusp of another ice age. As I type this from Tropical Australia in late May, I am freezing my butt off. I have never been so cold. Global warming is nothing but a cash grab. Shame on all of you.
aus2045 8 months ago
@aus2045
'As I type this from Tropical Australia in late May, I am freezing my butt off.' - local temperatures are 'local' and do not necessarily reflect global temperatures.
As someone who claims 'a scientific background' you must know that AGW does not mean monotonic warming everywhere. As for: 'we are on the cusp of another ice age', that's completely incompatible with many decades of data and the science.
When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir? - John Maynard Keynes
pseudotruth 8 months ago
@aus2045 I have a scientific background too and I quite agree with you. From my observations over the last few weeks temperatures have been dropping at an average of 5 degrees per month. I know this because of the weather forecasts on the telly and because I can no longer wear a t shirt outside like i could a few months ago. If this trend continues Melbourne will be under a sheet of ice by the end of the year. We need to burn all of the coal immediately to stop this from happening.
limeshakes 8 months ago
truth
viktorass22 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Hi all, just trying to spread the word about a new community site we're putting together based around our planet - earth-forums (dot) com. Take a look if you'd like!
hoppimike 8 months ago
He uses statistics as if there are no other variables that would affect the relationship between global warming and human behavior. He is saying: "Don't be an alarmist. Look at the data in the past. You are over-reading the 'present'." But the data and information of the "present" are saying: "What happened in the part will be different from what will happen in the future unless we do something." Much more, statistics is never exacting with degrees of error. Carter is more into this error.
siwawervintar 11 months ago
bob carter has NEVER completed a study about how humans affect climate. I asked him. He studies ANCIENT climates using marine sediment.
.
So, in the face of have NO respected studies or scientific institutions to support then naysaying position maybe you deniers should get a grip on reality, try some critical. Where the credible bases for your opinion?
.
Here's a recent article about some current changes.
.
Google: Island-scale study reveals climate-change effects
ReduceGHGs 1 year ago
@ReduceGHGs I certainly agree... He said that the "cooling of the planet will certainly happen." How sure is he? We are basing our predictions today based on the recent actions of human beings and not on a more predictable pattern of the climate.
siwawervintar 11 months ago
@siwawervintar .
Current climate forecasts use a wide variety of info including past, present, and predicted conditions. Carter is not taken seriously in the field of climate science. Read about his industry connections at Wikipedia.
This guy has no study to back up his claims that CO2 is not a problem. I asked him.
ReduceGHGs 11 months ago
@ReduceGHGs... As I suspected.... The industries are truly spending billions of dollars to twist data and information on climate change. They are even hiring some "experts" just to debunk the reality about climate change. They are doing the same in the Philippines.
siwawervintar 11 months ago
@siwawervintar .
Yea, that fuss over the emails was a big deal. It's like the deniers are falling off a cliff and grasping for any root or twig to save them. They have nothing of substance to hang onto but there is a willing audience, a gullible sector of the public that needs to hear we have nothing to worry about.
I say a good documentary a couple days ago and there are a few vid here on YouTube about it. Highly recommended.
YouTube search: Albert Bartlett - Blind Spot
Enjoy!
ReduceGHGs 11 months ago
@siwawervintar Show me the industries paying him with conclusive evidence. Our local weatherman [climatologist] agrees wholeheartedly with these ideas and evidence. He's certainly not in the pay of anyone. This is the typical reaction of those who won't believe the facts. These same true facts were in place and discussed in the 70's when it was so cold. Everyone knew of the cycles back then.
3nails3days1way 9 months ago
@3nails3days1way Bob Carter doesn't actually disclose who he is funded by, 3nails. A 'weatherman' is not a climatologist, but a meteorologist. A know an 80 year old meteorologist who has both the experience and qualifications to say that weather patterns have definitely changed in the passed 55 years, but this doesn't prove or disprove anthropogenic climate change. What are your 'facts' and who is 'everyone'?
limeshakes 8 months ago
@ReduceGHGs wikipedia: now there is a rock-solid source of info--that anyone can alter at a whim.
3nails3days1way 9 months ago
@3nails3days1way .
No silly! Wiki is NEVER consider a source. What they have is a site with the respected scientific institutions' position statements. They are accurate. Been there and checked em out. They also provide links to the institutions (the sources) so the reader can do further research.
Wiki a source? lol!
ReduceGHGs 9 months ago
Dr. Dennis Jenson (MP) has a PhD in materials engineering on ceramics from Monash University. He is not a climate scientist and therefore not qualified to make such a bold statement on AGW.
limeshakes 1 year ago
@limeshakes Am not qualified to be a computer technician, yet i can do more than what some qualified 1s can do
toonyloons2006 1 year ago
@toonyloons2006 Well thats good for you toony you have experience, but unless you could provide a personal recommendation and examples of your work I would rather a qualified technician fix my computer. Dr. Dennis Jenson doesnt have experience or qualifications to back up his claims, so how do I know he understands what he is talking about?
limeshakes 1 year ago
@limeshakes I've had people go to qualified techs, then they come to me, who fixes them by experience just like toonyloons. I give them 2nd diagnosis and I repair it completely for cheaper when the shop said it was dead and charged a fortune for a stupid diagnosis. So most who know about me come to me before the experts. I would rather go to a guy like this. The big money goes to the global warming loonies, which is why they ignore the evidence.
3nails3days1way 9 months ago
@3nails3days1way Paraphrased: Your experience as an unqualified computer tech shows that you are cheaper, more effective and have a better rep than a qualified computer tech. You have now applied this experience to all professionals as unqualified amateurs will have the same skills in their field as you do in yours. So the next time you are sick you'll go to an unqualified friend and not the doctor and hospital, as doctors are bribed by drug companies. Or do you just apply this reasoning to ACC?
limeshakes 8 months ago
@limeshakes I am qualified by experience. This used to be the norm: internships or apprenticeships with a blacksmith, doctor, banker, etc. I have no problem with going to a doctor who did an internship with a good doctor rather than med school. In the state of VA it is not mandatory to go to law school to be a lawyer. An internship can substitute. It is real life training rather than unrealistic & limited computer models.
3nails3days1way 8 months ago
@3nails3days1way So you agree with me then. We shouldn't listen to any old fool about what they say about climate change. They must have experience and/or qualifications (you have equated these two) and some kind of recommendation. Dr. David Jennings, the guy in the lecture vid above, has no experience, qualifications or recommendation on the subject of climate change. His conclusions are flawed. And for the last part, mate, climate science is not solely based on some abstract computer model.
limeshakes 8 months ago
@limeshakes To clarify: Dr David Jennings is the WA politician who released a minority report for the WA government sub committee on carbon sequestration (6.01). Bob Carter goes on to say that this conclusion is made by 'the only qualified scientist in our entire parliamentary system' (6.41). This statement is misleading as Dr. David Jennings has neither the experience nor the qualification to make this conclusion.
limeshakes 8 months ago
@3nails3days1way As for ignoring 'evidence', what 'evidence' has been ignored? So there has been a research paper published in a reputable scientific magazine that a global community of climate scientists have specifically ignored? Which paper was that? And as for funding, mate, there are some very deep pockets out there who have a great fiscal interest in keeping people like you from listening to what a global community of scientists tell us. Is this the end of the age of reason?
limeshakes 8 months ago
@limeshakes It is the age of reason. I use mine; I never go with the majority just because they are the majority. Right is right, not numbers. It was a small number of Christians that were against slavery against the majority of people in many countries, some of the majority even were so-called Christians, but it was the small number that was right and eventually won out. In the US not only the laws but the supreme court ruled in favor of slavery.
3nails3days1way 8 months ago
@3nails3days1way You must used your reason to understand that this is a scientific issue, based on hypothesis, testing and publishing your findings for peer review. This is not a social issue like the one you have exampled. It has absolutely nothing to do with Christianity or 'God' or slavery or the US judiciary. There is a wealth of peer reviewed scientific research that shows what we currently know about the earths climate and how it is effected by different drivers.
limeshakes 8 months ago
@limeshakes Slavery was also a scientific issue. They were not considered fully a person, as seen in the supreme court case and general thought of the day. They were considered by scientists to be lower on the evolutionary scale, so more like animals. Check out friends of science.org; ://en.word press.com/tag/global-freeze/; live leak.com/view?i=118_1228824580; ice age now.com/Ocean_Warming.htm for loads of science [there is much more]
3nails3days1way 8 months ago
@3nails3days1way So we agree now that this is a scientific issue and not a moral issue based on right vs. wrong. Bob Carter is yet to publish any of his research on ACC in a scientific journal. His conclusions are dubious or have already been refuted (proven otherwise). Check out youtube.com/watch?v=w5hs4KVeiAU for a concise explanation. As for science, 3nails, you should start looking at research papers like 'CO2 forced climate thresholds during the Phanerozoic' (D.L.Royer), NOT Al Gore.
limeshakes 8 months ago
i am an American and proud to be one and proud of my country. Anyone reading this, please do not assume we all believe Al Gore just because he is from the US. some 78% of the general US poplulation do not believe that human caused climate change is a problem. It just happens that "internet inventer" happens to be from the US. not one of my proud exports.
Black70Fastback 1 year ago
@Black70Fastback So does that mean that 78% of Americans don't agree with the latest scientific research or that 78% of Americans are ambivalent about the whole issue of Anthropogenic Climate Change? Either way its very, very sad.
limeshakes 8 months ago
How dare a Professor / scientist use facts , tests and evidence to disprove my brain necroses and Al Gore's video's. Al worked on in all weekend and just because Bob Carter has proof of thousand of years why should I believe him. After all Al did get the Nobel peace prize in 2007 for it.... taken from Irena Sendler....
rod2614 1 year ago 2
Bob Carter is a best example (see His web site and you-tubes)
And of course the many links and others Use google search!!!
The People that spread CO2 as a poison.
Are in league with the people that want the poor to stop poor and uneducated
To keep ignorant and suppressed---
are in league with USA imperialism and the USA war agenda.
wscparks 1 year ago
@wscparks How do you make these great connections between such disassociated groups as Climate Scientists and Far right wing capitalists? Been smoking too much weed lately?
limeshakes 8 months ago
It's an interesting document that may work as part of an AGW argument. Meanwhile, a quick internet search demonstrates the massive body of scientific refutation of and debate upon the notion of AGW. It's a hot debate with EU/US alarmist politics at its core. If there really were an AGW crisis, those maniacs would be the last ones to call for help. Anyway, I'll drop off the comments page soon, so you and the Global Media can carry on with the whitewash campaign.
sxmadrid 1 year ago
"the actual science", you say: by Al Gore, perhaps?
"I've been reading what's been coming out of the science journals for a couple of years now"
Have you really? Congrats. Show me the evidence for manmade global warming and I'll show you a glossy marketing front for anyone who can slip a scientist a Prize and some funding.
sxmadrid 1 year ago
@sxmadrid You can start by reading Ghosh 2002 Stable isotope ratio mass spectrometry in global climate change...
robhoneycutt 1 year ago
@robhoneycutt Seen it before. It's pretty heavy on the science, and apart from its connection to the military propagandists of Elsvier, it's not alarming. It may act as a lay-up shot for the manmade GW assertion, such that 'if you accept this, then get this...' but alone it's just interesting.
sxmadrid 1 year ago
@sxmadrid You asked for the fingerprint of AGW. That is one. If you can't comprehend it then go find someone who can and try to understand it rather than just rejecting it.
robhoneycutt 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"the actual science", by Al Gore, perhaps, that major publishing climate authority? Who else should we read, rhc?
sxmadrid 1 year ago
I just flew over Kilimanjaro last month. There was hardly any snow at all, compared to when I grew up in Tanzania. Please see my Kilimanjaro footage on my video, filmed at 6.56 AM on 15th October 2010, at 35000 feet, from BA flight London Heathrow to Dar es Salaam. It's scary!
speakswahilidammit 1 year ago
@Speakswahilidammit--- Cheer up--- get on the web and particularly you-tube
and all is OK.
No need to wreck the worlds economies and keep the poor countries poor
Cheap power and better education with the money saved.
Not to mention the many world wide problems that can be solved with the change.
wscparks 1 year ago
science is important
Bob Carter and Ian Plimer are the best I have found and the best information is still coming----do not give in till the pro fascist are isolated and the poor of the world are allowed cheap power and education
wscparks 1 year ago 2
@wscparks Again, neither Carter nor Plimer are specialists in climate science. These guys are expressing their political positions, not presenting science.
robhoneycutt 1 year ago
@robhoneycutt
Science is from satellite temperatures.
Science is for sea and deep sea temperatures.
Science is from high air balloons.
Get onto Google and check it all out (past and present).
Good luck with all that the searching through Google and you-tube.
wscparks 1 year ago
@wscparks I can promise you I've been reading what's been coming out of the science journals for a couple of years now. I know of what I speak.
robhoneycutt 1 year ago
I would point out here that Carter has NO published research into climate issues. This video is like listening to your dentist lecture you about how cancer works.
robhoneycutt 1 year ago
@robhoneycutt Pressumably your dentist supplies you with plenty of detailed data on the history and nature of cancer? Perhaps he's a cancer specialist when he's not treating your slack jaw?
sxmadrid 1 year ago
@sxmadrid Your dentist is still a dentist. Not an oncologist.
robhoneycutt 1 year ago
@robhoneycutt Everyone's expressing their political or social position. Everyone. It doesn't invalidate our arguments. You're argument excludes just about all of us from this debate since we're neither scientists nor professionally trained to evaluate and respond to the arguments of others, like, say, trial judges or military information specialists.
sxmadrid 1 year ago
@sxmadrid If you spend any time reading the actual science you realize that the scientists involved in this issue are NOT presenting a political position, they are merely presenting their findings. Those findings happen to continually confirm anthropogenic global warming.
People like Carter and Plimer are reacting due to their own political leanings. They are not publishing climate scientists.
robhoneycutt 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@robhoneycutt "the actual science", by Al Gore, perhaps, that major publishing climate authority? Who do you suggest, rhc?
sxmadrid 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@robhoneycutt ·"the actual science", By Al Gore, perhaps, that major publishing climate authority? Who else, rhc?
sxmadrid 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@robhoneycutt •"the actual science", By Al Gore, perhaps, that major publishing climate authority? Who else, rhc?
sxmadrid 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@robhoneycutt "the actual science", By Al Gore, perhaps, that major publishing climate authority? Who else, rhc?
sxmadrid 1 year ago
in my opinion as a biologist that the prof is not fully appreciating that biodiversity will very likely go down in a fast warming planet that is over run by human influence. While it may be true that a healthy ecosystem can thrive in ever warmer and higher CO2 levels, I would successfully argue that we do not have a healthy, well running ecosystem. I would also argue that its obviously getting worse, regardless of climate change.
Thus, I believe Prof Bob is wrong on that point specifically
bdhcarbon 1 year ago
@bdhcarbon the biodiversity has been in decline way before anyone thought up global warming. it's far more certain to blame biodiversity on mans encroachment of habitat. the ecosystems unaffected by man directly are also unaffected by temperature change.
stupidnamenoonecares 1 year ago
@stupidnamenoonecares Check your facts. According a recent statement from the Royal Society we are today experiencing species extinction faster than what has happened ANY time in earth's history.
Their exact words:
“There are very strong indications that the current rate of species extinctions far exceeds anything in the fossil record.”
robhoneycutt 1 year ago
@robhoneycutt check your comprehension. i said that biodiversity decline started before global warming. not that it isn't happening now. my contention isn't that species extinction was incorrect. it was that the likely culprit is habitat destruction. i'll also add in over harvesting of wild species also for completeness sake.
does the royal society blame global warming for species extinction?
stupidnamenoonecares 1 year ago
@stupidnamenoonecares Maybe check your context. You're posting on a video of someone denying climate change.
robhoneycutt 1 year ago
@robhoneycutt and specifically replying to a reply bringing up species extinction in that context. the author of the first post i replied to was pretty much saying what i said even. i wasn't even arguing, merely emphasising that species decline started before the theory of anthropomorphic global climate change.
i should also correct you there, the video specifically says that climate change is real and has been for millennia.
your obviously trying to reply to something i never said. good day.
stupidnamenoonecares 1 year ago
@stupidnamenoonecares And how do determine WHEN anthropogenic climate change began? It's been studied since the 1850's.
I know what Carter says about climate change. He's a crackpot with absolutely no basis to most of his statements.
robhoneycutt 1 year ago
@stupidnamenoonecares * gah anthropogenic, not anthropomorphic.
stupidnamenoonecares 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Stuff They Dont Want You To Know, here: stdwytk dot blogspot dot com (with no ’’donate’’ button !!!)
and also google: the 2012 deception documentary, its 56 minutes
boldhero44 1 year ago
i'm collecting info on various topics and thought people might like to see the vids on my profile about chem trails a.k.a. geo-engineering where you can find the links to the patents for these aerosols which are supposedly being used to cool the planet since the mid 1990s. There are also other asortments of youtube vids on miscellaneous topics
honestTom333 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Free Energy is real but the coverup is strong, if you are interested in a REAL free energy machine then
just search for the LT MAGNET MOTOR in the youtube video search , it is probably the ONLY working magnet
motor out there. Join the free energy revolution!!
glennjgd 1 year ago
I see regime-switching towards the middle of the graph shown at 2:40. Has anyone investigated that bifurcation point? Something OBVIOUSLY happened there and the qualitative behavior of the climate changed dramatically.
idontcarewtfwhat 1 year ago
The oceans have dissolved in them “40 times more carbon than the atmosphere contains, a total of _30 Trillion tons_, or 30 times the world’s coal reserves.
Man is not going to change THAT anytime soon.
FreeAgain2 1 year ago
To bad for your "facts", mister. CO2 increases contributes big time to warming, completely backed up by thermodynamics of the atmosphere and theory of radiation balance on first principles of physics. Greenhouse effect of CO2 is verified even in laboratory experiments carried out to refine model parameters for models that well explain the measurements, none of which he shows. Instead of presenting rational arguments, he makes a big show. That may be OK for Al Gore, but: Bob - where's the math?
rewtnode 1 year ago
@rewtnode Did the Wooly mammoths cause the ice age to end because they left there electric heaters on and drove there suvs to much?
jjason55740 1 year ago
@rewtnode You are the one who has the math wrong. The global temp historical record illustrates that CO2 increase "lag" warming, --not-- lead actual warming trends. You have the cause-and-effect relationship backwards.
RMacReady 1 year ago
@RMacReady That is because historically CO2 is a feedback mechanism that works in response to orbital forcing. Orbital forcing can only account for about 1C of global temperature change, the remaining change is due to CO2 feedbacks in conjunction with water vapor.
Today is different. We are taking the feedback with the most profound effect and turning it into a forcing by human introduction of CO2 into the atmosphere.
robhoneycutt 1 year ago
We need a lot of wikileakers in order to understand reasons why Apple IPhone is a real proprietary platform by technology or just by logo registration and language commercialization twists only.
beancube2010 1 year ago
This lecture is already some years old. Has the good professor already learned that his El Nino / 'climate hasn't changed' argumentation was rebutted and panned by several papers in the meantime? And what about your hypocrisy regarding the scientific method, Bob? To cherrypick local data to explain global events is not very scientific, isn't it?
Tervinger 1 year ago
Climate Change THEORY = Propaganda = Money = Carbon Taxes
There is money to be made from this. Al Gore is a smart cunt what ever way you look at it. He's the one rolling in it because many people have falling for this THEORY which has no concrete evidence at all. Fair fucks to the guy, although he is a cunt
peeobee 1 year ago
@peeobee I see you use the word 'Theory' the same way creationists do. Tisk tisk.
TheFifthApes 1 year ago
@TheFifthApes Yes i agree, i did use the word theory inncorrectly. I accept that people have an influence on the earth's climate but climate change is being abused and exaggerated to profit of people like so many other stories. maybe it should read;
Climate change hyperbole/exaggeration = Propaganda = Money = Carbon taxes.
peeobee 1 year ago
@peeobee This is a red herring. The fact that people exploit it for personal gain says nothing about it's truth value. Carbon taxes are an idea to create a environment of technological advancement, they are not for profit.
Now. How much have your carbon taxes cost you this year? . . .
TheFifthApes 1 year ago
@TheFifthApes I'm paying carbon taxes right now. Here check out moneyguideireland on carbon taxes. Gives you accurate carbon taxes im paying.
These taxes will have an inevitable effect on food via transport cost increase, heating my home will be dearer this christmas and filling up my car will be dearer too...so whats your point?
Do you think carbon taxes will actually reduce carbon output of the world?Its a simple answer, they won't. Nice little money earner for the government though.
peeobee 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheFifthApes "Carbon taxes are an idea to create a environment of technological advancement, they are not for profit"
That means absolutely nothing, complete jargon. So as we can see governments are making money of carbon taxes what is your point? I'm sure Ireland isn't the only government milking it when it comes to carbon taxes. yep USA have similar carbon taxes...check it out yourself.
peeobee 1 year ago
@TheFifthApes "Carbon taxes are an idea to create a environment of technological advancement, they are not for profit." That means absolutely nothing, complete jargon. If you do a quick check on USA's carbon taxes, they are similar to Ireland's.
So you still think it is a "red herring"? Money is what makes the world speak, to say it doesn't is just naive. This is just one of countless examples.
"They are not for profit"... are you serious? or just winding people up?
peeobee 1 year ago
READ the Bible:1.the world will never end, 2.God will provide for Earth's inhabitants forever,3.It's globalist schemes(too much power held by too few) that will destroy the Earth-like their BP boys-deliberately doing! Your logic is FLAWED by petty-money FOOLS! CAP&TAX is Global Scheme so bunch of corrupt EX-Pres.like RAMOS (Philippians) MAJOR(Brit,)Al GORE can steal more $BILLIONS from TAXES(ROMANS taxed WORLD)the GOV. PUPPETS need $ to join Ruling Elites vs.FEMA death camps with us PLEBS!.
exposetruthwolf 1 year ago
@exposetruthwolf So: 1. the world can never end, 3. people are destroying the world. Now please, explain....
imorio 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Warmist George Monbiot needs to lie to be credible. Compare paragraphs on these 2 sites containing "praised them to the warming skies".
`
climaterealists. com/?id=5843
`
sppiblog. org/news/a-preliminary-response-to-john-abraham-the-extremists-join-the-climate-debate-at-last-2
`
(remove spaces) If Monbiot (moonbat to us climate realists) needs to change Lord Monckton's writings to suit his agenda, then it shows how low warmists will stoop to peddle AGW. Pack of liars, right @Nightversionn?
MrOllyK 1 year ago
8:04.
Kinda killed it there, didn't he.
I don't think he'd be a very good stand-up comedian.
DeadlyV1RU5 1 year ago
AGW religion and its reliance on CO2 is no different to Ozone (O3) and the scandal which continues to this day. The following graph shows no change in O3 levels despite a massive ban on CFC's (chlorofluorocarbons) after the Ozone hole discovery in 1985:
ww w. junkscience. com/Ozone/plot35910. gif
Will they ban CO2 fire extinguishers as they did BCF ones? You exhale 40,000ppm CO2 every breath (current atmospheric 388ppm), will they outlaw CPR and declare it attempted murder? Wake up people..
MrOllyK 1 year ago
@MrOllyK We cycle carbon from the environment- eat stuff with carbon, exhale CO2. We are not "creating" CO2. That is how the ecological carbon cycle works. This is primary school stuff which you obviously don't get. The trouble is that we are now releasing gigatons of carbon that has been locked up millions of years ago.
indulis1 1 year ago
@indulis1
I know all about the carbon cycle, so don't infer otherwise. What you don't get is that all this carbon was in the atmosphere previously, with no runaway greenhouse or fabled "tipping point", ever.
CO2 was some 10-15x higher in the Jurassic, and delicate aragonite corals evolved in non-acid oceans. The proof of which are those pesky un-dissolved fossils of corals and shellfish from that era that keep popping up. That's primary shool stuff you forgot all about.
MrOllyK 1 year ago
How can this guy say he "doesn't have an axe to grind." Half of this lecture is him preaching...
Foulacy 1 year ago
@Foulacy I think you mistake a sense of humour and passion for 'preaching'. Er.. well. It is a lecture... isn't that what you do, kinda ? : )
Pinch0fSalt 1 year ago
Well, why are the ice caps melting?
ClimateChangeUK 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ClimateChangeUK "Well, why are the ice caps melting?"
Are they I think you might want to check that. I heard a rumour that the dry ice caps on Mars were shrinking too so you might want to check that out as well.
OvoidCranium 1 year ago
Stupit math nerds u got like 0.01% on schooæ dont tink u guys are smart btw the sea s are almost out of fish by al those fish boats gf 40 years almost al fish away?
isisrufus 1 year ago
co2 is used by every plant in the world for photosynthesis as well as sunlight and water to grow and make oxygen.if there were no co2 there would be no plants and no oxygen.thats fifth grade science people.
MrJasin30 1 year ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Impacts of climate change in the news
Warmer planet to stress humans: Study
A large number of healthy people won't handle the heat if temperatures continue to increase into next century, predict researchers
SYDNEY ABC NEWS
AUSTRALIA
May 4, 2010
Nightversionn 1 year ago
Key word s arre "IF" and "PREDICT"
That what happens when you hire Mathamaticians,Computer Moderlers,and Physists...you get uguessing,predictions and simulation, not practical Scince via testing and verification
Yes it's hot in Australia now...but that is from Amplifieed "Climate variability" that will reverse in 7 years,just watch (time is on my side)
TheRealArchAngel 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
RAA You are a proven fool making WILD unsubstantiated claims.
Do you have even ONE speck of scientific evidence for any of your silly claims???
Humans produce 130X the CO2 of volcanoes annually.
Check USGS (U.S. Geological Survey)
Search: Volcanic Gases and Their Effects
Comparison of CO2 emissions from volcanoes vs. human activities.
goog2k 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheRealArchAngel This is also what you previously said:
"Well, .4c in 30 years does seem like a lot until to look at the progressive warming average for the last 100.000 years being about 1.5c a century."
That's unbelievably idiotic!
1.5C x 100,000 /100 = 1.5 x 1,000 = 1,500C
By your assertion it should be 1,500C outside. Is that right??
JEEZ, I hope that cooling trend kicks in soon, didn't realize it was so HOT!!!
RAA, you are the DUMBEST guy I've seen on these YouTubes. Congratulations!
goog2k 1 year ago
@TheRealArchAngel, you are such a fool.
Do you have even ONE speck of scientific evidence for any of your silly claims???
Humans produce 130X the CO2 of volcanoes annually.
Check USGS (U.S. Geological Survey)
Search: Volcanic Gases and Their Effects
Comparison of CO2 emissions from volcanoes vs. human activities.
goog2k 1 year ago
no,no no, your Univeristy and Government Faculty Physists are the ones that have never measured ever car,factory stack,train.plane,truk and ship to prove it's "90 million a day humans Majke"...they are guessing/estimating
Pfft land VOlcanoes are not the only thing, there are black smokers, midridge rifts,subduction zoanes and deep sea trenches that warmt he Ocean water and prevent IceAge by keeping the Ocean currents churning(smirk)