That woman is right, even if you dont agree it is real its still negative to do nothing about it as what we do, even if its not real, is still good for the economy.
And yet, 10 prominent Republicans who publicly acknowledged global warming 2 - 3 years ago have backtracked. We're so screwed if these guys gain more control - heck, we're probably completely boned already
Than why is it that all the planets in our solar system are warmingup? I guess we are to blame for that too? Im not saying that we can"t do things to help with fossil fuels and other stuff,but I dont think we are to blame for everything.I watch the big factories blow that shit outta there stacks 24/7 365 days a year.Al Gore and his cronies can go to hell , he has already been proven a liar and fraud.
@webber1966 no, they aren't. If that were the case, don't you think climate scientists would come out and say that the suns increase in activity is to blame for global warming? No? Then you don't even have a basic understanding of science. The sun has had stable activity since the 50's, and yet, the tempruature has continued to go up across the world. I don't really like Gore either, but for different reasons; he has turned globa warming into entertainment and has exaggerated some of the data
@SVOkid86 so let me get this straight the sun does NOT effect earth's climate/warming according to "man made global warming believer" so according to your logic.. the earth was a big ice ball, until we started to build SUV and powerplants.... no... i think the earth was heated.. cause of... THE SUN
@fireking9934 haha, I've never said that. The fact is that other planets have not been getting warmer in correlation to earth. Scientific journals back this up. Of course all planets get their warmth from the sun, only an idiot would think otherwise. But the evidence points to sources other than the sun having the most impact on our planet getting warmer. As I have said, solar activity peaked in the late 50's, has fluctuated, but has moved lower overall since then.
@fireking9934 Solar activities and natural climate change was already taken into account in the theory.
The whole point of global warming is that CO2 and methane causes unnatural changes in our environment. The ocean warming can affect thermohaline circulation, which in terms cause more unstable weather since our weather is governed by ocean temperature. In the worst case it can cause extinction.
Talking about hotter or colder on this issue demonstrate ignorance of the actual theory.
Global warming today is the natural heating cycle of the planet being SPED up by carbon dioxide in the atmosphere due to fossil fuel burning.....the last time "global warming" happened there was no burning of fossil fuels hence the planet could manage it.
Global warming is nothing but a bunch of Bullsh** ,This planet has been through many ice ages and right now we are in a period of time between these ages.This is just a way for the coorporate government thats in control now, to tax you some more and scare you into thinking this isall our fault..When i was in highschool in the 80s they preached the same things. Carbon tax coming soon to a Country near you : )
@webber1966 No one is denying it has happened before, but what has never happened before is such a quick change. I know first hand living in coastal British Columbia, the past 5 years winters have been weirder and summers have been extremely dry and hot. Theres forest fires every summer now for the past 5 years in one of the rainiest parts of the world, last year the fires consumed an area larger the size of France.
the debate should be focused on the bull shit policies being passed by politicians and of course their Business buddies. Cap and trade and all the other policies you will soon see being passed are just ways of reducing your liberties and reminding you they can fuck with you any time want.
@arus1958 How exactly does cap and trade reduce my liberties? Do you honestly think they're sitting around saying "Hey let's fuck with them for no reason just to prove we can! Muh hah hah hah!" I enjoy the liberty of breathing clean air and having the environment preserved for my children and their children. And God bless them for fighting for that liberty!
here are the facts. Climate changes it has always changed remember we had ice ages. When looking at previous temperature cycles we are due for a global warming with evidence suggesting sun spots along with numerous other factors causing the warming. It is debatable if greenhouse gases cause warming. I think we have little effect on our planets climate. i agree pollution is bad and should be stopped (although plants are thriving on the extra CO2).
@arus1958 There is no debate in the scientific community that greenhouses gasses cause warming. None. You want an example of a runaway greenhouse effect, look at Venus. Venus is the hottest planet in the solar system, hotter than mercury which is significantly closer to the sun, and its atmosphere in 99% CO2. As far as humans affecting the climate, we reduce the planets ability to recycle greenhouse gases while at the same time increase the amount being put into the atmosphere. Pretty simple.
here are the facts. Climate changes it has always changed remember we had ice ages. When looking at previous temperature cycles we are due for a global warming with evidence suggesting sun spots along with numerous other factors causing the warming. It is debatable if greenhouse gases cause warming. I think we have little effect on our planets climate. i agree pollution is bad and should be stopped (although plants are thriving on the extra CO2).
@arus1958 Wow that's a nice list of thoroughly-debunked arguments from climate deniers over the years. It is NOT debatable that greenhouse gasses cause global warming --the debate was over in the 80s. EVERY accredited scientific body in every country agrees and has agreed for some time now. There's no evil govt conspiracy trying to control you. There is an evil corporate conspiracy trying no to be held accountable for their emmissions. They have an obligation to their shareholders.
“The planet is warming due to increased concentrations of heat-trapping gases in our atmosphere. A snowy winter in Washington does not alter this fact.
Climate change is a theory as certain as the theory of the Earth’s age (4.5 billion years), the Big Bang Theory, and the theory of evolution."
This headed a list of “fundamental conclusions about climate change” provided by the National Academy of Sciences, signed by 255 prominent climate scientists, and published in Science Magazine.
@seanthemedicjudoman I hope that your next post includes your proof that top climatologists, NASA and NOAA are lying to keep their funding. These second-tier "experts" you have mentioned are pathetic.
Furthermore, make sure you show the conspiracy link with other non-gov't scientists that are members of the National Academy and Royal Society.
There was a time when the foremost "experts" had a consensus that the earth was flat. I'm not impressed with consensuses. And as long as their are respectable and reputable scientists who disagree with AGW, I will not be so presumptuous to deceive myself that AGW is a scientific fact. Clearly you are not as objective as you like to think of yourself.
@seanthemedicjudoman "Clearly you are not as objective as you like to think of yourself. "
You're not being objective. 97% of the top climatologists say GW is happening - is it reasonable or objective to ignore the vast majority of these top experts?
As long as any scientist disagrees with GW, you will keep your indefensible position.
Please name me ANY study that shows the majority of climatologists say GW is not real or ANY top credible scientific organization that say GW is not true.
not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased: an objective opinion.
I am objective. You are not. I stated that in my opinion I am not convinced of the proposed "fact" of AGW. It's not a fact. Therefore it must be an opinion. And as far as opinions go they're like butts, everyone's got one and your's stinks. I don't think you know much about geo-physics either. I think you like to believe because it gives you a mandate
@seanthemedicjudoman Let me explain. Scientific consensus is the collective judgment, position and opinion of the community of scientists in a particular field of study.
That field is climate. The relevant experts? Climatologists. 97% of top climatologists say GW is happening.
The experts came to this conclusion by looking at FACTS (temp. data, natural variations, climate patterns, physical observations such as glacial melting etc.)
Top experts look at the FACTS and say GW is happening.
The emission of billions of tons each year has an impact. How much? Well, NASA and top climatologists say enough to be a primary cause of the global warming we have seen over the past 2 decades.
But I guess you know more than they do about how much CO2 will have an impact. And your qualifications are?
I love how GW deniers think they know more than the top experts, in addition to the AAAS, NAS, Royal Society etc.
@seanthemedicjudoman I'm still waiting for you to name ANY study showing the majority of climatologists say GW is not real or ANY top credible scientific organization that says GW isn't true.
If these experts look at all facts and come to the conclusion that GW is real, why is your interpretation of the same facts better than those who have PhDs, spent years in the climate field and possess the computer models necessary to analyze the impact of greenhouse emissions?
Think about it fool, when is the last time a weather man got anything right? All of their complex models and charts and they can't even predict the weather next weekend accurately. Even rain expectation is based on past conditions and is a probability. Clearly it's still a debate, and the fact that there are dozens of companies lines up to line their pockets by telling me how to emit my carbon is a prime indicator that their research should remain suspect. Again, wake up.
No zealot. You're the loser. And your religion is clearly not based in science. It's a pseudo science. I think a better name for you is Miss Cleo. You can see the future Miss cleo?! Tell me Miss Cleo! What does my future hold? Well, unless you change the infinitesimal effect that CO2 has on your ecosystem right now, you will have GLOBAL WARMING! lol! Why don't you go find buddha or something...it'll serve you better than this nonsense.
You're all blind...and stupid. The latest research from australia shows that antarctica's eastern shelf is cooling 4x faster than the western shelf is melting. Watching these monkeys call names and hurl poo at each other is like watching a bunch of retards hump a door handle. Get a clue. It's a debate. Read both sides. You can't just speculate on how horrible life will be if the earth warms...if it's even warming. We don't know everything...every earth cycle. So chill. ;)
So you're calling the climatologists in Australia non-experts? If you think you know everything you will never learn anything. You're like blind zealots following a religion. I suppose you don't remember the 60's when they tried to make everyone shit their pants saying the earth was headed for another ice age. They're earth cycles and 20 year solar cycles. Wake up dude.
@seanthemedicjudoman The Ice Age myth is untrue. Yes, some media publications were saying an ice age was coming in the 70's, but more scientific papers were arguing for warming, not cooling. You should not confuse the media with the scientific community.
Google:
Skeptical Science Did scientists predict an impending ice age in the 1970s?
97% of top climatologists now say GW is happening. Do you really want to side with 3%? In addition, NASA says GW is real - are you smarter than NASA?
@seanthemedicjudoman "They're earth cycles and 20 year solar cycles. Wake up dude. "
So you are telling me that NASA and top climatologists do not know that there are natural cycles, and that they do not account for these? Wow, you are delusional. Either that or you think NASA is filled with a bunch of morons.
I love how you possess no expertise in GW, yet question the conclusions of those that do. Priceless!
Two German environmental scientists, Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch conducted a survey. Bray is a research scientist at the GKSS Institute of Coastal Research in Geesthacht, Germany. Von Storch is a climatology professor at the University of Hamburg and director of the Institute of Coastal Research. More than 530 climate scientists from 27 different countries provided numerical answers. All responses were anonymous.
“do you agree or disagree that climate change is mostly
the result of anthropogenic (man made) causes?” Slightly more than half (55.8 percent) of climate scientists surveyed agreed, 14.2 percent were unsure, and 30 percent disagreed.
Again, zealot, maybe you shouldn't believe everything you hear from people who have a financial incentive to "convert" you.
@seanthemedicjudoman "Slightly more than half (55.8 percent) of climate scientists surveyed agreed, 14.2 percent were unsure, and 30 percent disagreed."
So the majority agree that AGW is happening even in your survey?
Also, the most comprehensive study among the top-recognized and published climatologists is that 97% say GW is happening.
@seanthemedicjudoman "Slightly more than half (55.8%) of climate scientists surveyed agreed, 14.2 percent were unsure, and 30 percent disagreed."
So even in your B.S. "anonymous" survey, the majority agree with me?
The most relevant survey is the one with the most respected climatologists with the most research and peer-reviewed papers. That survey says 97% believe in GW.
Google: global warming 97% climatologists cnn
Direct me to your "anonymous" survey. Was the survey peer-reviewed?
@seanthemedicjudoman I love how even the biggest B.S. "anonymous" survey you could find says the majority of climatologists say GW is happening.
I can see that the sample size is huge - I am quite sure that at least 100 of these "anonymous" climatologists are not well-respected within the scientific community.
Please provide a link to the coverage of this survey in any prestigious scientific journal. If no top journal will run it, the survey is likely not credible.
no, it just reflects the growing change of "consensus" in the "scientific" community. Btw, over the next several years as we enter another cooling phase, if your small brain has enough space in it to remember this "GW" bullshit, maybe then you'll wake up and realize how geo-politics play a role in "science."
Nice try comparing my arguments to religion. It is the exact opposite. I am using the conclusions of the top climatologists and NASA, which have been confirmed by the two most credible scientific organizations - NAS and Royal Society.
Did you come up with proof of the systematic "conspiracy" yet?
So who is more of an expert on climate than the world's top climatologists and NASA? Please tell me.
Antonino Zichichi,Pubs emeritus professor of nuclear physics at the University of Bologna and president of the World Federation of Scientists : "models used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) are incoherent and invalid from a scientific point of view".[9] He has also said, "It is not possible to exclude that the observed phenomena may have natural causes. It may be that man has little or nothing to do with it"
Khabibullo Abdusamatov, mathematician and astronomer at Pulkovo Observatory of the Russian Academy of Sciences: "Global warming results not from the emission of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, but from an unusually high level of solar radiation and a lengthy – almost throughout the last century – growth in its intensity...Ascribing 'greenhouse' effect properties to the Earth's atmosphere is not scientifically substantiated...Heated greenhouse gases, which become lighter as a result of
How come NASA and 97% of top climatologists believe GW?
Much more importantly, the National Academy of Sciences and Royal Society have MUCH more credibility than the organizations you mentioned.
Even your B.S. anonymous climatology survey said the majority of climatologists believe GW. Did you find any reputable journal that covered that B.S. survey yet? I am still waiting.
Ian Clark,Pubs hydrogeologist, professor, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa: "That portion of the scientific community that attributes climate warming to CO2 relies on the hypothesis that increasing CO2, which is in fact a minor greenhouse gas, triggers a much larger water vapour response to warm the atmosphere. This mechanism has never been tested scientifically beyond the mathematical models that predict extensive warming,
and are confounded by the complexity of cloud formation – which has a cooling effect. ... We know that [the sun] was responsible for climate change in the past, and so is clearly going to play the lead role in present and future climate change. And interestingly... solar activity has recently begun a downward cycle."
So again, you can gain all of the "consensuses" that you want to, but science is now and has always been about who supplies your general funds. The truth lies in those that are objective, or, are the most objective...and those people realize that the positive anthropological effect on climate change is without certainty.
@seanthemedicjudoman "science is now and has always been about who supplies your general funds. "
So your entire argument lies on the assumption that climatologists, NASA, NOAA are lying to keep their funding. Furthermore, other non-gov't scientists that are members of the National Academy and Royal Society are in on this conspiracy also.
Please provide prove of this widespread conspiracy. Just saying it does not make it true.
William M. Gray, Professor Emeritus and head of The Tropical Meteorology Project, Department of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University: "This small warming is likely a result of the natural alterations in global ocean currents which are driven by ocean salinity variations. Ocean circulation variations are as yet little understood. Human kind has little or nothing to do with the recent temperature changes. We are not that influential."
"I am of the opinion that [global warming] is one of the greatest hoaxes ever perpetrated on the American people."[21] "So many people have a vested interest in this global-warming thing—all these big labs and research and stuff. The idea is to frighten the public, to get money to study it more."
Tad Murty, oceanographer; adjunct professor, Departments of Civil Engineering and Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa: global warming "is the biggest scientific hoax being perpetrated on humanity. There is no global warming due to human anthropogenic activities. The atmosphere hasn’t changed much in 280 million years, and there have always been cycles of warming and cooling. The Cretaceous period was the warmest on earth. You could have grown tomatoes at the North Pole"
I hope that your next post includes your proof that top climatologists, NASA and NOAA are lying to keep their funding. These second-tier "experts" you have mentioned are pathetic.
Furthermore, make sure you show the conspiracy link with other non-gov't scientists that are members of the National Academy and Royal Society.
Nice try comparing my arguments to religion. It is the exact opposite. I am using the conclusions of the top climatologists and NASA, which have been confirmed by the two most credible scientific organizations - NAS and Royal Society.
Did you come up with proof of the systematic "conspiracy" yet?
So who is more of an expert on climate than the world's top climatologists and NASA? Please tell me.
@seanthemedicjudoman "William M. Gray, Professor Emeritus and head of The Tropical Meteorology Project, "This small warming is likely a result of the natural alterations in global ocean currents which are driven by ocean salinity variations. Ocean circulation variations are as yet little understood."
So he thinks GW is likely due to something neither he nor anyone else fully understands? Brilliant!!!
So he has ZERO proof of this source of GW, just a guess? lol
Don Easterbrook,Pubs emeritus professor of geology, Western Washington University: "global warming since 1900 could well have happened without any effect of CO2. If the cycles continue as in the past, the current warm cycle should end soon and global temperatures should cool slightly until about 2035"
it' all about the $ i went to look at a dodge challenger the other day and low and behold guess what 1000$ of the cost was global warming tax. wake up idiots!!
@fenderjagmeister that's a market-based policy to help deal with problems, it's common. did it make you not want to buy it? If so, you know how it works. taxes on cigarettes? taxes and caps on pollution stopped rivers from catching on fire and (acid) rain from "melting" the paint off cars.
@ronintje What "real scientists" say GW is not happening? The most relevant scientists on GW are climatologists. 98% of top climatologists who have done the most research say it's real.
Furthermore, the most credible science organizations have looked at all the evidence and say GW is real. So I guess NASA, NOAA, National Academy of Sciences and Royal Society are wrong?
Yes, many "real scientists" disagree, but these are petro engineers, meteorologists, chemists etc. with no expertise in GW.
@TheSnoopy1750 Guess you were sleeping when the climategate happened with all the real scientists and their emails which showed those who didn't choose to be ignorant that they were just fixing data and spreading lies.
Real scientists destroy data when other scientists want to check the data, right?
I guess you like most GW hoaxers consider the scientist that support their idea are real and the ones that don't follow the leader are frauds.
@TheSnoopy1750 I don't need to invent numbers like the 98% you just invented to try and prove your point and i neither intend to stop climatechange that has been happening on this planet for millions of years, nor do i think anything people do CAN prevent that change that has been going on for millions of years.
Two questions were key: Have mean global temperatures risen compared to pre-1800s levels, and has human activity been a significant factor?
About 90% of the scientists agreed with the first question and 82% the second.
The strongest consensus on the causes of global warming came from climatologists who are active in climate research, with 97% agreeing humans play a role.
Petroleum geologists and meteorologists were among the biggest doubters, with only 47% and 64%.
I hate Bill Maher's bullshit shows, giving undeserved airtime to conservatives.
But, at least he is smart on global warming and atheism.
Funny how he says 3 years ago, GW Bush and the Republicans were forced to eat their own shit and admit the proven fact of anthropogenic global warming (AGW). So these Republicrats today, in December 2010, KNOW they are wrong and just spew shit.
Oh yeah I now am too a scientist my whole life is stuck on always trying this. I can't live on science alone. You can't live on science alone green was cool but it's now governments new unit seance you find what is hip, we will market it. we will find the trends us the purveyors then we'll sell your ideas back to you the consumers. update of American degeneration. People they just really wanted to get this theory to hump and get down. Popularity for tortured scientist for sale
the earth has natual cycles yus and what people are now calling global warming or climte change or wtever the hell they call it is a natural part of that cycle. however humans pollute the earth and cut down to many trees that either cant grow back (rain forrest) or we dont plant trees and so many other things that hurt the invoment we should look after the plant not because the sky is falling (climtechange) but because the plant gives us what we need (nautaral resouces)
WTF maher is twisting the word of scintists, over 30,000 have sued al gore for fraud, his documentary was proved to be forged - global warming IS happening but its a natural process of earth-ageing, this has to do with the sun solar activity and cosmic ray. Man produce ONLY 0.028% of green house gases!!! There is difference between acidic gases (pollutants) and natural occuring gases like C02!!
PLEASE EDUCATE YOURSELVES: go to "what really happened" website and click on "climategate"
I used to like Maher, just like I used to like Dennis Miller, until I watched the mutual ass-kissing on O'Reilly. He only has people on his show that are willing to kiss his ass and bow to the mainstream BS. Do these people EVER check their numbers? I don't know ANYBODY who watches him. I suppose one would need to attend a tractor-pull show or go bowling to meet his caliber of viewing audience. Man-up Maher and have a real debate instead of having your goons run them off you coward.
with all the crap they have been saying for around 80years, shouldnt Manhattan be under water by now, well it's not, they ARE ALL FULL OF SHIT, ESPECIALLY MAHER THE WORLDS BIGGEST ASSHOLE.
We have clear data, there thousands of books, but your Christian freaks don't like evolution since it is not in the Bible and your Capitalist freaks don't want Global warming because they like their economic advantage over Europe, where strong regulations are alreardy in place
Hi, christian freak here: I think we are evolving. Every time an ice cube melts in a high-ball in nyc, the oceans go up an inch. Look, if it is happending, please go down to the shore and drown yourself. NOW THAT would prove ti me. and I can have some fun with it. and take Maher. with you. cheers mate.
must say that last guy was defiantly a creationist, I hope global warming i bad, so people can see that animals EVOLVE. Seriously though a "little change" in temp would just cause the species to change
@EnchancedHuman Right, because species immediately evolve when temperatures rise or fall drastically, and the climate becomes a hectic mess. No, sorry, they don't, some do evolve, over copious amounts of time, however most of them just die. Sorry, this isn't Pokemon. But of course, let us just lazily toss the mess onto the next generation. They can have fun with the excessive amount of insects, drought, loss of arable land, flooding, disease, natural/man-made disasters, overpopulation, and death
@boboangry One generation is all it takes, its proven, obviously you are no scientist, at least not in the field I'm educated in. Species can evolve remarkably faster then we have previously thought, it might not be Pokemon, and some species may die, but many species will survive as they have during this period in earths cycle many times before. It is not the first time the Polar bears and other creatures have adapted to this "warming".
something no one mentions, 7 billion people on the surface of Earth, all at almost 100 Fahrenheit, even at night, must be heating up the atmosphere somewhat. We are almost always in air that is cooler than we are, we are machines that create heat, so we all are adding heat to the air everday and night.
7 billion people times approx 180 lbs each = 1.2 TRILLION pounds of 100 degree flesh walking around.
Global Warming is complete hogwash!!!! Do the math yourself. Take the average world temperature from 1800 on. IT'S THE SAME TODAY AS IT WAS THEN!!!! Ask yourself, Who stands to make money off of this?
@violatione It has changed and is changing but this Al Gore and other media hype is bull shit, we cannot ignore that a very slow, not drastic change is taking place but it is not something we can do anything about and it is not something that will effect our generation, basically the problem is it like people saying the war in the middle east it WW3.
I see this clip is nearly 2.5 years old. I remember in 2006 when the IPCC came out with their latest report, and even the subhuman trash conservative Republicrats were finally forced by reason & logic to admit that the scientists were right that GW is real & serious & caused by humans. I thought that was the end of it. But, nope: they are lying self-contradictory hypocritical bastards even today.
global whining.... every prediction that has ever been made about the end of the world has been wrong, from paul ehrlich to the crazies back in the 1980s saying the sun would be blocked by pollution. where is supreme chief meteorologist algore's study of the sun? null hypothesis? scientific method? democrat scientists say it's true, others say it's BS. mister gore, next legacy please. there are enough new, uneducated voters in the system, try to resurrect the acid rain scam.
Scientists question all the time, but denialists deny. Global Warming denialists live disconnected from facts and reality. To me, that sounds more like a religion than scientists who spend decades doing rigorous research that they publish in peer reviwed journals. 97% of active climatology researchers & around 80% of scientists in all fields from around the world support anthropogenic global warming. Should I trust those who are ignorant or should I trust the experts?
@applefrog111 knowledge of nature's pattern's can give you great power over the masses. just like the king who told his people to do as he say's or he will make the sun disappear. no one is saying the earth isn't getting hot. the earth had crazy weather before, even without cars.
@CartervonRiedel yep...and there we have it folks...more stuff that political groups shove down our throats....but when alls said and done, humans in general are arrogant...its this arrogance and makes people actually think we can save the planet...as george carlin used to say, the planet is fine, its we who are fucked.
@CartervonRiedel you make a good point, it is fact that the earth is getting warmer, but it is absolute bull shit that it is going to be devastating, its no end of the world scenario, it is just change and it is not guna kill us. They are taking a small fact and making it a huge story. It is all about the money, but people should not rebel completely because it is true, just not near as hyped up as you see on T.V
Craig Ferguson is waaay dumber than I thought. I know Bill Maher's a meathead. He's smarmy and self congratulatory. Moron. The facts on global warming being anthropomorphic are not resolved in any way. Ridiculous. I know what this woman is saying, yeah it's better to be on the safe side what's the cost? The cost of distracting from more serious environmental emergencies and being taxed into the stone age seems like a very big cost to me. The cost to the third world even bigger. For what?
Science is never resolved and scientists never claim science to be resolved. Anyone who talks about science in these times doesn't understand science.
Most scientists in general support Anthropogenic Global Warming. If you consider climatologists, the support is higher than among scientists in general. And if you consider climatologists who are active researchers, the support is the highest (97%).
Listening to people chortle on and on about things they hear on Faux News or hear someone shout in a sports bar is often times very annoying. Like this thread.
The level of discourse for serious discussions of clathrate displacement over time or albedo balance against greenhouse gas is never present. This is due to a flaw in the United State's educational system. Not much can be done at this point to re-educate teevee zombies......
I was not trying to say we are "lost", I was simply upset at the rudimentary level at which people treat such a sophisticated, and important topic.
We have more time than alarmists allow, and this while there most certainly is global climatic shift due to anthropogenic causes which the people on talk radio constantly show their ignorance of. Had I not worked for NOAA or perhaps never have been introduced to Roger Revelle (a good guy) in the 80s before his death....I could become a TV zombie.
I'm not a scientist, but neither am I a teevee zombie. I'm just someone who tries to understand the world by using reason and by researching the facts. To deny climate change is to literally disconnect your mind from reality. It doesn't take a scientist to understand this.
My problem is if you're not a scientist and don't understand science please don't deny the consensus of scientists & the conclusions of science. I respect experts who dedicate their lives to understanding a specific field.
GH gases keep the Earth comfortably warm, this cannot be challenged. Increasing atmospheric CO2 produces rising temps at ground level. Overall CO2 rise is from below 280 ppm (pre-industrial ) to present values above 360 ppm, an increase factor of 1.3. The log of 1.3 is 0.11, and of 2 is 0.30. We are more than 1/3 of the way to doubling CO2, on a log scale. If 2X CO2 produces a temp rise of 1.5-5 C (using climate models), we should see a warming of between 0.5 and 1.7C.
@Getsen42: You can't use the present as an example, as the present time period is what is being investigated. I'm talking about throughout the entire Earth's history, can you point to any instance in which a rise in CO2 has caused a rise in temperature?
@PainTrain87, your question was "can you point to any instance in the Earth's History where an increase in CO2 has caused temperature to rise?"
The present isn't "being investigated", the data is present and logged.
1998 is not the present.
You seem to wish to frame the debate with yourself, so draw your own conclusions. What do you need a scientist for, the facts aren't necessary they would only get in the way.
So you are basicly saying greenhouse gasses are myths? Because you ask to any example where the world got warmer, and you might think the name 'greenhouse'-gas would give you a clue, they didn't name it like that because it just happened to have a nice ring to it...
If u have no idea about climate or biology, then keep your nose out of it
@SSTTEEAALLTTHH You never stated any instance in earth's history where a temperature rise was caused by a rise in the CO2. Why not? Do YOU NOT KNOW the science behind it? Please, just point to any instance in earth's history. Any response not giving a time period is your admission to your lack of knowledge on this topic.
@SSTTEEAALLTTHH That is a bad argument. You can't say because I deny it, that I lack knowledge. There are over 31000 scientists that are against the global warming theory. Over 6000 of them have PhDs. Do they lack knowledge on the issue? Authors of the IPCC reports, which are not the gold standard by any means on specific climate science, have come out against the theory and have asked for their names to be removed from the reports. Bad argument; not logical.
@SSTTEEAALLTTHH This very moment? What is your time frame on moment? FYI, you can't use the present as an example, if the science about the present is under question.
@Getsen42 So, it's been 3 days now since I last asked you to produce a time period in earth's history, excluding the present (because the present is in the time period in which the global warming theory uses), in which a rise in CO2 has caused a rise in temperature. Considering you are a scientist, do you care to produce the time for me?
Yes, we can involve the present, it is absurd to discuss global warming under men made conditions and not include our very own time period. if you will look at the statistics, you will see that we have reached the same concentration-gradients of CO2 in decades that it took nature to reach in 1000's of years before great climate changes.
@SSTTEEAALLTTHH You can bring the present into the question, only when you have understood the past. Do you understand the past? Im not sure yet, because it's already been four comments and you have yet to provide me a time in the past, excluding today (because the present is in the time period in which the global warming theory uses), in which a rise in CO2 has caused a rise in temperatures. Any response not answering the question is your admission of lack of knowledge on the issue.
I already replied Paleocene and Eocene. Now, simply denieing that someone answered instead of bringing up counterarguements, that's an admission of lack of knowledge. Do you even know what you are talking aabout. Since you didn't counter-argued my statement about CO2 concertration gradients (not that it can be counter-argued, seeing it is a solid fact)
@SSTTEEAALLTTHH First off, when you reply to someone on youtube, they get an email. I never got any email about replying. So, you obviously never replied to me. Second, NEVER in the earth's history has a rise in CO2 caused an increase in warming. A rise in temperature has always come first, by 800-1000 years. We see this in the ice core records. I'm not saying that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas. What I am saying, is that it is not a major temperature driver as it has been made out to be.
If you would be able to scroll down, you will see i have replied. furthermore, when yutube sends you a mail of one replier who repeatedly aswers you , they all end up in the same mail-folder. So is this due to your lack of knowledge of scrolling or just email?
Again, Eocene and Paleocene. Unless you can come up with an alternate explanation, which makes more sense then those of paeontologists and climatologists, which i'm already sure you can't. You don't seem much of a scientist
@SSTTEEAALLTTHH I never got an email. I don't have an email folder that is filled with more than 20 things. I would have seen something if you had replied, and I NEVER got anything. That is fact. Temperature rose before CO2. I have said this. If CO2 did cause such an incredible effect, as the global warming theory claims, then the CO2 response from the increased temperature, should have produced more warming. However, we don't see this reaction in the reconstructed temperature records, do we?
"I never got an email so you must never have replied".
Hit 'refresh' Einstein, maybe the unthinkable happened and the server didn't send you the notice of is reply immediately? Wow....can that happen? Duhhh
@PainTrain87 , no, what you are saying is that YOU are completely ignorant of the data in the archives and the most recent paleo-clomatic models. You are also most likely one of the ignorant mass members who feel that Stanford professor Stephen Schneider is part of a conspiracy because he did work on the reciprocal climatic shifts years ago and was taken out of context. So he's the bad guy right. None of his lectures can be trusted, although he is a tenured professor you're smarter right?
@PainTrain87 I hate to rain on your parade, but you are showing why most people don't comment on youtube threads. The intelligence and exposure level of those on here frustrates the wish to have salient discourse.
NOAA's website is up all year long to answer this and any other questions you have on global warming.
I'll cut and paste two paragraphs from their site (your tax dollars pay for) so you can see the undisputed correlation, ok?
@PainTrain87 Human activity has been increasing the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere (mostly carbon dioxide from combustion of coal, oil, and gas; plus a few other trace gases). There is no scientific debate on this point. Pre-industrial levels of carbon dioxide (prior to the start of the Industrial Revolution) were about 280 parts per million by volume (ppmv), and current levels are greater than 380 ppmv and increasing at a rate of 1.9 ppm yr-1 since 2000.
@PainTrain87 Global surface temperatures have increased about 0.74°C (plus or minus 0.18°C) since the late-19th century, and the linear trend for the past 50 years of 0.13°C (plus or minus 0.03°C) per decade is nearly twice that for the past 100 years.
@Getsen42 so instead of commenting with your own knowledge, that you claim you have with being a scientist, you copy and paste specific paragraphs from a government influenced program. The IPCC is a government influenced program as well, and look how much of their final reports are pure science.
@Getsen42 I have read their reports. In fact, it appears that every new report that they do, has to correct data from a previous report. They still do not know the exact sensitivity of the climate. Furthermore, three times during the publishing process, government agents look through, edit, and correct statements made. The final report ends up being something that the scientists did not write, or meant to say. Scientists have come out and admitted this.
@PainTrain87 NO they didn't, that is something you heard watching too much T.V.
They could actually make money suing if the urban myth you just passed along were the truth. Look LameTrain, I have submitted to the IPCC, just as every other business that emits chemical processing beyond limits for local ordinances must, and that data remains in tact. It is verifiable and I have verified.
Go back to Glenn Beck and cry together with him on his shoulder, o.k.?
@Getsen42 Actually, they did. Only after threatening to sue, did the IPCC remove their names from the author list. Are you going to comment on whether or not the IPCC is a government influenced body, and not a purely science practicing body. I have read the reports. I have seen the process of how they publish the reports. Go look it up if you don't believe me. In fact, go look up everything I have said if you don't believe me. It is all verifiable.
I don't even know where you would get such a number as 31000, but ,ot every scientist is a good one. I will go for the most accredited ones, who's reviews have been publicized numerous times over some college-boy who wants to get immediate fame and claims he has found global warming to be a hoax.
@SSTTEEAALLTTHH Oregon Petition. I would hope you have heard of it. You are right that not every scientist is a good one. But, it seems to me that you dismiss any scientists whose findings are not in line with your beliefs. It is fact that the theory of global warming is the more accepted side. The majority of the scientific community believes in it. It's no wonder that they would publicize papers that are in favor of the theory, over papers that are not.
I dig Ferguson a lot, but he said it: "I`m no scientist".
If the northern polar icecap melts, it won`t raise the level of the oceans ONE INCH - now, the southern one, well that`s another issue entirely.
steveb0503 2 weeks ago
That woman is right, even if you dont agree it is real its still negative to do nothing about it as what we do, even if its not real, is still good for the economy.
kalijasin 3 months ago
HAIKU
I hatch! Crawl! And swim!
Oh how I love my sweet life,
But—why's the sea so WARM?
StephanieLisaTara 4 months ago
2:47 whistle
2:50 2nd whistle
2:56 back for more!
IamAsi94 7 months ago
And yet, 10 prominent Republicans who publicly acknowledged global warming 2 - 3 years ago have backtracked. We're so screwed if these guys gain more control - heck, we're probably completely boned already
bannor99 7 months ago
Than why is it that all the planets in our solar system are warmingup? I guess we are to blame for that too? Im not saying that we can"t do things to help with fossil fuels and other stuff,but I dont think we are to blame for everything.I watch the big factories blow that shit outta there stacks 24/7 365 days a year.Al Gore and his cronies can go to hell , he has already been proven a liar and fraud.
webber1966 8 months ago
@webber1966 no, they aren't. If that were the case, don't you think climate scientists would come out and say that the suns increase in activity is to blame for global warming? No? Then you don't even have a basic understanding of science. The sun has had stable activity since the 50's, and yet, the tempruature has continued to go up across the world. I don't really like Gore either, but for different reasons; he has turned globa warming into entertainment and has exaggerated some of the data
SVOkid86 7 months ago
@SVOkid86 then explain why the many other planets in our solar system are HEATING up..
how is mars warming up, maybe its man's fault
fireking9934 7 months ago
@fireking9934 they aren't. At least any more. You've been lied to.
SVOkid86 7 months ago
@SVOkid86 so let me get this straight the sun does NOT effect earth's climate/warming according to "man made global warming believer" so according to your logic.. the earth was a big ice ball, until we started to build SUV and powerplants.... no... i think the earth was heated.. cause of... THE SUN
fireking9934 7 months ago
@fireking9934 haha, I've never said that. The fact is that other planets have not been getting warmer in correlation to earth. Scientific journals back this up. Of course all planets get their warmth from the sun, only an idiot would think otherwise. But the evidence points to sources other than the sun having the most impact on our planet getting warmer. As I have said, solar activity peaked in the late 50's, has fluctuated, but has moved lower overall since then.
SVOkid86 7 months ago
@fireking9934 Solar activities and natural climate change was already taken into account in the theory.
The whole point of global warming is that CO2 and methane causes unnatural changes in our environment. The ocean warming can affect thermohaline circulation, which in terms cause more unstable weather since our weather is governed by ocean temperature. In the worst case it can cause extinction.
Talking about hotter or colder on this issue demonstrate ignorance of the actual theory.
Neosaigo 7 months ago 5
@Neosaigo but people are to stupid to understand global warming.
kalijasin 3 months ago
@SVOkid86 Don't waste your time arguing with these subhuman fanatic terrorists.
mphello 5 months ago
Global warming today is the natural heating cycle of the planet being SPED up by carbon dioxide in the atmosphere due to fossil fuel burning.....the last time "global warming" happened there was no burning of fossil fuels hence the planet could manage it.
luv4knowledge 8 months ago
Global warming is nothing but a bunch of Bullsh** ,This planet has been through many ice ages and right now we are in a period of time between these ages.This is just a way for the coorporate government thats in control now, to tax you some more and scare you into thinking this isall our fault..When i was in highschool in the 80s they preached the same things. Carbon tax coming soon to a Country near you : )
webber1966 8 months ago
@webber1966 No one is denying it has happened before, but what has never happened before is such a quick change. I know first hand living in coastal British Columbia, the past 5 years winters have been weirder and summers have been extremely dry and hot. Theres forest fires every summer now for the past 5 years in one of the rainiest parts of the world, last year the fires consumed an area larger the size of France.
scarbadk 8 months ago
@UrSoMeanBoss But in theory Politicians and secret societys want to use everything for their own gain?
does that mean we stop doing everything?
shandcunt 8 months ago
Wait, what are the steps to reducing Global Warming?
Less air pollution
Less pollution in general......
why are we against that?
shandcunt 8 months ago
@shandcunt because politicians and secret societies want to use that to their own gain. like Al Gore
UrSoMeanBoss 8 months ago
cooler,warmer...just let the NATURAL cycle take its coarse.
Pat9201 8 months ago
@Pat9201 You sir, are stupid.
StarWarsUpdates 8 months ago
@StarWarsUpdates to much maher for you.
Pat9201 8 months ago
@Pat9201 I believe you mean to much intelligence for me.
StarWarsUpdates 8 months ago
@StarWarsUpdates ok darth...lol
Pat9201 8 months ago
@StarWarsUpdates so,hows the climate up on the death star dork...lol
Pat9201 8 months ago
BTW from 2001-2010...the world cooled slightly.
Pat9201 9 months ago
@Pat9201 No it didn't. Who told you that?
watch?v=xvMmPtEt8dc&feature=channel_video_title
watch?v=Ai6ju28nAyk&feature=channel_video_title
Richard482 8 months ago
1:36...or maybe it natural...;^)
Pat9201 9 months ago
the debate should be focused on the bull shit policies being passed by politicians and of course their Business buddies. Cap and trade and all the other policies you will soon see being passed are just ways of reducing your liberties and reminding you they can fuck with you any time want.
arus1958 10 months ago
@arus1958 How exactly does cap and trade reduce my liberties? Do you honestly think they're sitting around saying "Hey let's fuck with them for no reason just to prove we can! Muh hah hah hah!" I enjoy the liberty of breathing clean air and having the environment preserved for my children and their children. And God bless them for fighting for that liberty!
sinistar99 9 months ago
Everyone is debating the Wrong issue.
here are the facts. Climate changes it has always changed remember we had ice ages. When looking at previous temperature cycles we are due for a global warming with evidence suggesting sun spots along with numerous other factors causing the warming. It is debatable if greenhouse gases cause warming. I think we have little effect on our planets climate. i agree pollution is bad and should be stopped (although plants are thriving on the extra CO2).
arus1958 10 months ago
@arus1958 There is no debate in the scientific community that greenhouses gasses cause warming. None. You want an example of a runaway greenhouse effect, look at Venus. Venus is the hottest planet in the solar system, hotter than mercury which is significantly closer to the sun, and its atmosphere in 99% CO2. As far as humans affecting the climate, we reduce the planets ability to recycle greenhouse gases while at the same time increase the amount being put into the atmosphere. Pretty simple.
s5b678 10 months ago 4
Comment removed
rusty1491 9 months ago
Everyone is debating the Wrong issue.
here are the facts. Climate changes it has always changed remember we had ice ages. When looking at previous temperature cycles we are due for a global warming with evidence suggesting sun spots along with numerous other factors causing the warming. It is debatable if greenhouse gases cause warming. I think we have little effect on our planets climate. i agree pollution is bad and should be stopped (although plants are thriving on the extra CO2).
arus1958 10 months ago
@arus1958 Wow that's a nice list of thoroughly-debunked arguments from climate deniers over the years. It is NOT debatable that greenhouse gasses cause global warming --the debate was over in the 80s. EVERY accredited scientific body in every country agrees and has agreed for some time now. There's no evil govt conspiracy trying to control you. There is an evil corporate conspiracy trying no to be held accountable for their emmissions. They have an obligation to their shareholders.
sinistar99 9 months ago
“The planet is warming due to increased concentrations of heat-trapping gases in our atmosphere. A snowy winter in Washington does not alter this fact.
Climate change is a theory as certain as the theory of the Earth’s age (4.5 billion years), the Big Bang Theory, and the theory of evolution."
This headed a list of “fundamental conclusions about climate change” provided by the National Academy of Sciences, signed by 255 prominent climate scientists, and published in Science Magazine.
TheSnoopy1750 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@seanthemedicjudoman I hope that your next post includes your proof that top climatologists, NASA and NOAA are lying to keep their funding. These second-tier "experts" you have mentioned are pathetic.
Furthermore, make sure you show the conspiracy link with other non-gov't scientists that are members of the National Academy and Royal Society.
TheSnoopy1750 11 months ago
@TheSnoopy1750
There was a time when the foremost "experts" had a consensus that the earth was flat. I'm not impressed with consensuses. And as long as their are respectable and reputable scientists who disagree with AGW, I will not be so presumptuous to deceive myself that AGW is a scientific fact. Clearly you are not as objective as you like to think of yourself.
seanthemedicjudoman 11 months ago
@seanthemedicjudoman "Clearly you are not as objective as you like to think of yourself. "
You're not being objective. 97% of the top climatologists say GW is happening - is it reasonable or objective to ignore the vast majority of these top experts?
As long as any scientist disagrees with GW, you will keep your indefensible position.
Please name me ANY study that shows the majority of climatologists say GW is not real or ANY top credible scientific organization that say GW is not true.
TheSnoopy1750 11 months ago
@TheSnoopy1750
objective: 5.
not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased: an objective opinion.
I am objective. You are not. I stated that in my opinion I am not convinced of the proposed "fact" of AGW. It's not a fact. Therefore it must be an opinion. And as far as opinions go they're like butts, everyone's got one and your's stinks. I don't think you know much about geo-physics either. I think you like to believe because it gives you a mandate
seanthemedicjudoman 11 months ago
@seanthemedicjudoman Let me explain. Scientific consensus is the collective judgment, position and opinion of the community of scientists in a particular field of study.
That field is climate. The relevant experts? Climatologists. 97% of top climatologists say GW is happening.
The experts came to this conclusion by looking at FACTS (temp. data, natural variations, climate patterns, physical observations such as glacial melting etc.)
Top experts look at the FACTS and say GW is happening.
TheSnoopy1750 11 months ago
@seanthemedicjudoman CO2 like water vapor, methane etc. is a greenhouse gas.
The emission of billions of tons each year has an impact. How much? Well, NASA and top climatologists say enough to be a primary cause of the global warming we have seen over the past 2 decades.
But I guess you know more than they do about how much CO2 will have an impact. And your qualifications are?
I love how GW deniers think they know more than the top experts, in addition to the AAAS, NAS, Royal Society etc.
TheSnoopy1750 11 months ago
@seanthemedicjudoman I'm still waiting for you to name ANY study showing the majority of climatologists say GW is not real or ANY top credible scientific organization that says GW isn't true.
If these experts look at all facts and come to the conclusion that GW is real, why is your interpretation of the same facts better than those who have PhDs, spent years in the climate field and possess the computer models necessary to analyze the impact of greenhouse emissions?
Yep, you must be right!
TheSnoopy1750 11 months ago
@seanthemedicjudoman For the letter in the prestigious Science magazine, google:
"Climate Change and the Integrity of Science" Science on May 7, 2010
TheSnoopy1750 11 months ago
Think about it fool, when is the last time a weather man got anything right? All of their complex models and charts and they can't even predict the weather next weekend accurately. Even rain expectation is based on past conditions and is a probability. Clearly it's still a debate, and the fact that there are dozens of companies lines up to line their pockets by telling me how to emit my carbon is a prime indicator that their research should remain suspect. Again, wake up.
seanthemedicjudoman 11 months ago
@seanthemedicjudoman So the $ millions oil companies are spending to fool chumps like you is OK?
Loser. You ignore the absolute top experts in climatology.
I am done discussing GW with you as you obviously do not listen to facts and the opinions of the top climate experts.
TheSnoopy1750 11 months ago
@TheSnoopy1750
No zealot. You're the loser. And your religion is clearly not based in science. It's a pseudo science. I think a better name for you is Miss Cleo. You can see the future Miss cleo?! Tell me Miss Cleo! What does my future hold? Well, unless you change the infinitesimal effect that CO2 has on your ecosystem right now, you will have GLOBAL WARMING! lol! Why don't you go find buddha or something...it'll serve you better than this nonsense.
seanthemedicjudoman 11 months ago
just one of many "interests"
seanthemedicjudoman 11 months ago
You're all blind...and stupid. The latest research from australia shows that antarctica's eastern shelf is cooling 4x faster than the western shelf is melting. Watching these monkeys call names and hurl poo at each other is like watching a bunch of retards hump a door handle. Get a clue. It's a debate. Read both sides. You can't just speculate on how horrible life will be if the earth warms...if it's even warming. We don't know everything...every earth cycle. So chill. ;)
seanthemedicjudoman 11 months ago
@seanthemedicjudoman I guess you have better complete data and more scientific expertise than the world's top climatologists and NASA.
You are right, GW is a debate: all of the top experts agree and non-experts disagree. Gee, who is more likely to be right?
TheSnoopy1750 11 months ago
@TheSnoopy1750
So you're calling the climatologists in Australia non-experts? If you think you know everything you will never learn anything. You're like blind zealots following a religion. I suppose you don't remember the 60's when they tried to make everyone shit their pants saying the earth was headed for another ice age. They're earth cycles and 20 year solar cycles. Wake up dude.
seanthemedicjudoman 11 months ago
@seanthemedicjudoman The Ice Age myth is untrue. Yes, some media publications were saying an ice age was coming in the 70's, but more scientific papers were arguing for warming, not cooling. You should not confuse the media with the scientific community.
Google:
Skeptical Science Did scientists predict an impending ice age in the 1970s?
97% of top climatologists now say GW is happening. Do you really want to side with 3%? In addition, NASA says GW is real - are you smarter than NASA?
TheSnoopy1750 11 months ago
@TheSnoopy1750
apparently.
seanthemedicjudoman 11 months ago
@seanthemedicjudoman "They're earth cycles and 20 year solar cycles. Wake up dude. "
So you are telling me that NASA and top climatologists do not know that there are natural cycles, and that they do not account for these? Wow, you are delusional. Either that or you think NASA is filled with a bunch of morons.
I love how you possess no expertise in GW, yet question the conclusions of those that do. Priceless!
TheSnoopy1750 11 months ago
Two German environmental scientists, Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch conducted a survey. Bray is a research scientist at the GKSS Institute of Coastal Research in Geesthacht, Germany. Von Storch is a climatology professor at the University of Hamburg and director of the Institute of Coastal Research. More than 530 climate scientists from 27 different countries provided numerical answers. All responses were anonymous.
seanthemedicjudoman 11 months ago
“do you agree or disagree that climate change is mostly
the result of anthropogenic (man made) causes?” Slightly more than half (55.8 percent) of climate scientists surveyed agreed, 14.2 percent were unsure, and 30 percent disagreed.
Again, zealot, maybe you shouldn't believe everything you hear from people who have a financial incentive to "convert" you.
seanthemedicjudoman 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@seanthemedicjudoman "Slightly more than half (55.8 percent) of climate scientists surveyed agreed, 14.2 percent were unsure, and 30 percent disagreed."
So the majority agree that AGW is happening even in your survey?
Also, the most comprehensive study among the top-recognized and published climatologists is that 97% say GW is happening.
Google: global warming 97% climatologists cnn
Please point me to your "anonymous" survey.
TheSnoopy1750 11 months ago
@seanthemedicjudoman "Slightly more than half (55.8%) of climate scientists surveyed agreed, 14.2 percent were unsure, and 30 percent disagreed."
So even in your B.S. "anonymous" survey, the majority agree with me?
The most relevant survey is the one with the most respected climatologists with the most research and peer-reviewed papers. That survey says 97% believe in GW.
Google: global warming 97% climatologists cnn
Direct me to your "anonymous" survey. Was the survey peer-reviewed?
TheSnoopy1750 11 months ago
@seanthemedicjudoman I love how even the biggest B.S. "anonymous" survey you could find says the majority of climatologists say GW is happening.
I can see that the sample size is huge - I am quite sure that at least 100 of these "anonymous" climatologists are not well-respected within the scientific community.
Please provide a link to the coverage of this survey in any prestigious scientific journal. If no top journal will run it, the survey is likely not credible.
TheSnoopy1750 11 months ago
@TheSnoopy1750
no, it just reflects the growing change of "consensus" in the "scientific" community. Btw, over the next several years as we enter another cooling phase, if your small brain has enough space in it to remember this "GW" bullshit, maybe then you'll wake up and realize how geo-politics play a role in "science."
seanthemedicjudoman 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@seanthemedicjudoman "And your religion is clearly not based in science."
Nice try comparing my arguments to religion. It is the exact opposite. I am using the conclusions of the top climatologists and NASA, which have been confirmed by the two most credible scientific organizations - NAS and Royal Society.
Did you come up with proof of the systematic "conspiracy" yet?
So who is more of an expert on climate than the world's top climatologists and NASA? Please tell me.
TheSnoopy1750 11 months ago
@seanthemedicjudoman "maybe then you'll wake up and realize how geo-politics play a role in "science.""
I still await your proof of this systematic corruption of top climatologists, NASA etc.
It is easy to know when people have no argument - they start claiming conspiracy! Guess who believes in conspiracies? Losers like you.
TheSnoopy1750 11 months ago
@seanthemedicjudoman Even your B.S. "anonymous" survey said the majority of climatologists believe in GW. Why would they lie?
Try using facts instead of imagination to make your argument. People may take you more seriously.
Still waiting for your conspiracy proof.
TheSnoopy1750 11 months ago
@seanthemedicjudoman "if your small brain has enough space in it to remember this "GW" bullshit...".
The other way you know a person has no real argument is when they attack the other person rather than focusing on facts. You score 2 for 2.
TheSnoopy1750 11 months ago
@seanthemedicjudoman The support for GW is the agreement of the following parties:
1) 97% of the top climatologists (the foremost experts in climate and GW)
2) NASA and NOAA
3) Nat'l Academy of Sciences, Royal Society, AAAS and every other top credible scientific organization
Your arguments:
1) Quotes from a bunch of non-experts and second-tier climatologists
2) There must be a "conspiracy", of which there is no proof
Gee, it's tough to judge the relative merits of the two sides. lol
TheSnoopy1750 11 months ago
@seanthemedicjudoman Wow, 2 sceintists?
How many peer-reviewed papers have they published in climate journals? ANONYMOUS researchers that give the answers? How convenient.
Gee, I can cherry pick anything I want too! The key is the scientific consensus among the vast majority of climatologists is that AGW is happening.
Furthermore, NASA, the National Academy of Sciences, Royal Society, NOAA, AAAS etc. all have vetted these studies and have agreed.
TheSnoopy1750 11 months ago
@TheSnoopy1750
Antonino Zichichi,Pubs emeritus professor of nuclear physics at the University of Bologna and president of the World Federation of Scientists : "models used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) are incoherent and invalid from a scientific point of view".[9] He has also said, "It is not possible to exclude that the observed phenomena may have natural causes. It may be that man has little or nothing to do with it"
seanthemedicjudoman 11 months ago
Khabibullo Abdusamatov, mathematician and astronomer at Pulkovo Observatory of the Russian Academy of Sciences: "Global warming results not from the emission of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, but from an unusually high level of solar radiation and a lengthy – almost throughout the last century – growth in its intensity...Ascribing 'greenhouse' effect properties to the Earth's atmosphere is not scientifically substantiated...Heated greenhouse gases, which become lighter as a result of
seanthemedicjudoman 11 months ago
expansion, ascend to the atmosphere only to give the absorbed heat away."
seanthemedicjudoman 11 months ago
@seanthemedicjudoman Once again, using random deniers.
How come NASA and 97% of top climatologists believe GW?
Much more importantly, the National Academy of Sciences and Royal Society have MUCH more credibility than the organizations you mentioned.
Even your B.S. anonymous climatology survey said the majority of climatologists believe GW. Did you find any reputable journal that covered that B.S. survey yet? I am still waiting.
TheSnoopy1750 11 months ago
Ian Clark,Pubs hydrogeologist, professor, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa: "That portion of the scientific community that attributes climate warming to CO2 relies on the hypothesis that increasing CO2, which is in fact a minor greenhouse gas, triggers a much larger water vapour response to warm the atmosphere. This mechanism has never been tested scientifically beyond the mathematical models that predict extensive warming,
seanthemedicjudoman 11 months ago
and are confounded by the complexity of cloud formation – which has a cooling effect. ... We know that [the sun] was responsible for climate change in the past, and so is clearly going to play the lead role in present and future climate change. And interestingly... solar activity has recently begun a downward cycle."
seanthemedicjudoman 11 months ago
So again, you can gain all of the "consensuses" that you want to, but science is now and has always been about who supplies your general funds. The truth lies in those that are objective, or, are the most objective...and those people realize that the positive anthropological effect on climate change is without certainty.
seanthemedicjudoman 11 months ago
@seanthemedicjudoman "science is now and has always been about who supplies your general funds. "
So your entire argument lies on the assumption that climatologists, NASA, NOAA are lying to keep their funding. Furthermore, other non-gov't scientists that are members of the National Academy and Royal Society are in on this conspiracy also.
Please provide prove of this widespread conspiracy. Just saying it does not make it true.
I await your proof.
TheSnoopy1750 11 months ago
William M. Gray, Professor Emeritus and head of The Tropical Meteorology Project, Department of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University: "This small warming is likely a result of the natural alterations in global ocean currents which are driven by ocean salinity variations. Ocean circulation variations are as yet little understood. Human kind has little or nothing to do with the recent temperature changes. We are not that influential."
seanthemedicjudoman 11 months ago
"I am of the opinion that [global warming] is one of the greatest hoaxes ever perpetrated on the American people."[21] "So many people have a vested interest in this global-warming thing—all these big labs and research and stuff. The idea is to frighten the public, to get money to study it more."
seanthemedicjudoman 11 months ago
Tad Murty, oceanographer; adjunct professor, Departments of Civil Engineering and Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa: global warming "is the biggest scientific hoax being perpetrated on humanity. There is no global warming due to human anthropogenic activities. The atmosphere hasn’t changed much in 280 million years, and there have always been cycles of warming and cooling. The Cretaceous period was the warmest on earth. You could have grown tomatoes at the North Pole"
seanthemedicjudoman 11 months ago
@seanthemedicjudoman "Tad Murty, oceanographer; adjunct professor, Departments of Civil Engineering and Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa"
Are you kidding me? He is not even a climatologist!
You can keep on quoting non-experts and second-tier climatologists all you want.
Where is the proof that NASA, NOAA and the world's top climatologists are in a big-money conspiracy? I am waiting.
TheSnoopy1750 11 months ago
Comment removed
TheSnoopy1750 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@seanthemedicjudoman
I hope that your next post includes your proof that top climatologists, NASA and NOAA are lying to keep their funding. These second-tier "experts" you have mentioned are pathetic.
Furthermore, make sure you show the conspiracy link with other non-gov't scientists that are members of the National Academy and Royal Society.
TheSnoopy1750 11 months ago
@seanthemedicjudoman "And your religion is clearly not based in science."
Nice try comparing my arguments to religion. It is the exact opposite. I am using the conclusions of the top climatologists and NASA, which have been confirmed by the two most credible scientific organizations - NAS and Royal Society.
Did you come up with proof of the systematic "conspiracy" yet?
So who is more of an expert on climate than the world's top climatologists and NASA? Please tell me.
TheSnoopy1750 11 months ago
Comment removed
TheSnoopy1750 11 months ago
@seanthemedicjudoman "William M. Gray, Professor Emeritus and head of The Tropical Meteorology Project, "This small warming is likely a result of the natural alterations in global ocean currents which are driven by ocean salinity variations. Ocean circulation variations are as yet little understood."
So he thinks GW is likely due to something neither he nor anyone else fully understands? Brilliant!!!
So he has ZERO proof of this source of GW, just a guess? lol
You're sinking to new lows.
TheSnoopy1750 11 months ago
Don Easterbrook,Pubs emeritus professor of geology, Western Washington University: "global warming since 1900 could well have happened without any effect of CO2. If the cycles continue as in the past, the current warm cycle should end soon and global temperatures should cool slightly until about 2035"
seanthemedicjudoman 11 months ago
@seanthemedicjudoman "Don Easterbrook,Pubs emeritus professor of geology, Western Washington University"
Are you kidding me? - you are going to use a geologist to counter the consensus of the top climatologists on the subject of climate? lol
BTW, I still look forward to your proof of the widespread conspiracy among top climatologists, NASA, NOAA and members of NAS and Royal Society.
TheSnoopy1750 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Feb 4, 2011 ... Temperatures fell below 9 degrees Fahrenheit, the lowest recorded since 1951...CIUDAD JUAREZ, Mexico...... OYEA AND SNOW
mike1111qq 44 seconds ago
mike1111qq 11 months ago
it' all about the $ i went to look at a dodge challenger the other day and low and behold guess what 1000$ of the cost was global warming tax. wake up idiots!!
fenderjagmeister 1 year ago
@fenderjagmeister that's a market-based policy to help deal with problems, it's common. did it make you not want to buy it? If so, you know how it works. taxes on cigarettes? taxes and caps on pollution stopped rivers from catching on fire and (acid) rain from "melting" the paint off cars.
jakeawaythe16th 11 months ago
The only proof of GW they have is the "everybody agrees it does exist" crap.
So many real scientists do'n't agree, yet these people who know nothing about science know better cuz they all agree....
How stupid can people really be?
ronintje 1 year ago
@ronintje What "real scientists" say GW is not happening? The most relevant scientists on GW are climatologists. 98% of top climatologists who have done the most research say it's real.
Furthermore, the most credible science organizations have looked at all the evidence and say GW is real. So I guess NASA, NOAA, National Academy of Sciences and Royal Society are wrong?
Yes, many "real scientists" disagree, but these are petro engineers, meteorologists, chemists etc. with no expertise in GW.
TheSnoopy1750 1 year ago
@TheSnoopy1750 Guess you were sleeping when the climategate happened with all the real scientists and their emails which showed those who didn't choose to be ignorant that they were just fixing data and spreading lies.
Real scientists destroy data when other scientists want to check the data, right?
I guess you like most GW hoaxers consider the scientist that support their idea are real and the ones that don't follow the leader are frauds.
Thats not science, thats religion.
ronintje 11 months ago
@ronintje 98% of the world's top climatologists say GW is happening. And your expert is?
TheSnoopy1750 11 months ago
@TheSnoopy1750 I don't need to invent numbers like the 98% you just invented to try and prove your point and i neither intend to stop climatechange that has been happening on this planet for millions of years, nor do i think anything people do CAN prevent that change that has been going on for millions of years.
How about you, you think you are god??
ronintje 11 months ago
@ronintje CNN 1/20/09
Two questions were key: Have mean global temperatures risen compared to pre-1800s levels, and has human activity been a significant factor?
About 90% of the scientists agreed with the first question and 82% the second.
The strongest consensus on the causes of global warming came from climatologists who are active in climate research, with 97% agreeing humans play a role.
Petroleum geologists and meteorologists were among the biggest doubters, with only 47% and 64%.
TheSnoopy1750 11 months ago
@ronintje Sorry - it was 97%.
97% of climatologists that have done the most comprehensive research say GW is real and man made.
You can get the study if you click on the first paragraph of the site below - google:
scienceblogs 97% of active climatologists agree that human activity is causing global warming
Basically, 57% of the general public believes GW is real while that % goes up the more expert one is in climatology.
I will listen to the world's top experts, 97% of which say GW is real.
TheSnoopy1750 11 months ago
I hate Bill Maher's bullshit shows, giving undeserved airtime to conservatives.
But, at least he is smart on global warming and atheism.
Funny how he says 3 years ago, GW Bush and the Republicans were forced to eat their own shit and admit the proven fact of anthropogenic global warming (AGW). So these Republicrats today, in December 2010, KNOW they are wrong and just spew shit.
deskset24 1 year ago
Oh yeah I now am too a scientist my whole life is stuck on always trying this. I can't live on science alone. You can't live on science alone green was cool but it's now governments new unit seance you find what is hip, we will market it. we will find the trends us the purveyors then we'll sell your ideas back to you the consumers. update of American degeneration. People they just really wanted to get this theory to hump and get down. Popularity for tortured scientist for sale
brianstark02 1 year ago
the earth has natual cycles yus and what people are now calling global warming or climte change or wtever the hell they call it is a natural part of that cycle. however humans pollute the earth and cut down to many trees that either cant grow back (rain forrest) or we dont plant trees and so many other things that hurt the invoment we should look after the plant not because the sky is falling (climtechange) but because the plant gives us what we need (nautaral resouces)
sxcboy4u 1 year ago
@sxcboy4u
Uhm... cutting those trees, getting rid of carbon sinks as well as increasing carbon levels causes global warming.
The sky IS falling, ever heard of the permian extinction?.
bluesrockfan36 1 year ago
WTF maher is twisting the word of scintists, over 30,000 have sued al gore for fraud, his documentary was proved to be forged - global warming IS happening but its a natural process of earth-ageing, this has to do with the sun solar activity and cosmic ray. Man produce ONLY 0.028% of green house gases!!! There is difference between acidic gases (pollutants) and natural occuring gases like C02!!
PLEASE EDUCATE YOURSELVES: go to "what really happened" website and click on "climategate"
0Justice911 1 year ago
I used to like Maher, just like I used to like Dennis Miller, until I watched the mutual ass-kissing on O'Reilly. He only has people on his show that are willing to kiss his ass and bow to the mainstream BS. Do these people EVER check their numbers? I don't know ANYBODY who watches him. I suppose one would need to attend a tractor-pull show or go bowling to meet his caliber of viewing audience. Man-up Maher and have a real debate instead of having your goons run them off you coward.
llaazzyy88 1 year ago
@llaazzyy88
with all the crap they have been saying for around 80years, shouldnt Manhattan be under water by now, well it's not, they ARE ALL FULL OF SHIT, ESPECIALLY MAHER THE WORLDS BIGGEST ASSHOLE.
btwall60 1 year ago
@llaazzyy88 Richard Dawkins didn't kiss O'Reilly's ass. :)
jakeawaythe16th 11 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Global Warming and Evolution= 2 Biggest Frauds in Human History.
SuperBallashotcalla 1 year ago
Sorry, but why do you Americans still not get it?
We have clear data, there thousands of books, but your Christian freaks don't like evolution since it is not in the Bible and your Capitalist freaks don't want Global warming because they like their economic advantage over Europe, where strong regulations are alreardy in place
AustrianAtheist 1 year ago
@AustrianAtheist
Hi, christian freak here: I think we are evolving. Every time an ice cube melts in a high-ball in nyc, the oceans go up an inch. Look, if it is happending, please go down to the shore and drown yourself. NOW THAT would prove ti me. and I can have some fun with it. and take Maher. with you. cheers mate.
btwall60 1 year ago
must say that last guy was defiantly a creationist, I hope global warming i bad, so people can see that animals EVOLVE. Seriously though a "little change" in temp would just cause the species to change
EnchancedHuman 1 year ago
@EnchancedHuman Right, because species immediately evolve when temperatures rise or fall drastically, and the climate becomes a hectic mess. No, sorry, they don't, some do evolve, over copious amounts of time, however most of them just die. Sorry, this isn't Pokemon. But of course, let us just lazily toss the mess onto the next generation. They can have fun with the excessive amount of insects, drought, loss of arable land, flooding, disease, natural/man-made disasters, overpopulation, and death
boboangry 1 year ago
@boboangry One generation is all it takes, its proven, obviously you are no scientist, at least not in the field I'm educated in. Species can evolve remarkably faster then we have previously thought, it might not be Pokemon, and some species may die, but many species will survive as they have during this period in earths cycle many times before. It is not the first time the Polar bears and other creatures have adapted to this "warming".
EnchancedHuman 1 year ago
bill maher is a fucking idiot
jezzetv 1 year ago
@jezzetv
I agree.
Romansteel13 1 year ago
One scenario:
CO2
---> global warming: temperatures rise
---> polar ice melts
---> less sunlight is reflected
---> water = dark : takes more warmth from sunlight
---> icecap meltdown accelarates
Cycle continues, speed goes up more and more
---> inevitable, but exhaust fumes surely increase speed
ABrushwoodTale 1 year ago
notice michael steele can't defend himself
hpofficejet6310 1 year ago
Bill Fail
adapaevolved 1 year ago
something no one mentions, 7 billion people on the surface of Earth, all at almost 100 Fahrenheit, even at night, must be heating up the atmosphere somewhat. We are almost always in air that is cooler than we are, we are machines that create heat, so we all are adding heat to the air everday and night.
7 billion people times approx 180 lbs each = 1.2 TRILLION pounds of 100 degree flesh walking around.
mjimih 1 year ago
Global Warming is complete hogwash!!!! Do the math yourself. Take the average world temperature from 1800 on. IT'S THE SAME TODAY AS IT WAS THEN!!!! Ask yourself, Who stands to make money off of this?
violatione 1 year ago
@violatione It has changed and is changing but this Al Gore and other media hype is bull shit, we cannot ignore that a very slow, not drastic change is taking place but it is not something we can do anything about and it is not something that will effect our generation, basically the problem is it like people saying the war in the middle east it WW3.
EnchancedHuman 1 year ago
I see this clip is nearly 2.5 years old. I remember in 2006 when the IPCC came out with their latest report, and even the subhuman trash conservative Republicrats were finally forced by reason & logic to admit that the scientists were right that GW is real & serious & caused by humans. I thought that was the end of it. But, nope: they are lying self-contradictory hypocritical bastards even today.
duck24x 1 year ago 12
@duck24x "hey are lying self-contradictory hypocritical bastards even today." Tell us how you REALLY feel! hahah (thumbs up!)
sinistar99 9 months ago
"its definately man made" lol dildos
imthenoid69 1 year ago
global whining.... every prediction that has ever been made about the end of the world has been wrong, from paul ehrlich to the crazies back in the 1980s saying the sun would be blocked by pollution. where is supreme chief meteorologist algore's study of the sun? null hypothesis? scientific method? democrat scientists say it's true, others say it's BS. mister gore, next legacy please. there are enough new, uneducated voters in the system, try to resurrect the acid rain scam.
ab9957 1 year ago
This is sounding more like religion everyday -
In science we're told to question everything...
but don't you dare question global warming???
CartervonRiedel 1 year ago
Scientists question all the time, but denialists deny. Global Warming denialists live disconnected from facts and reality. To me, that sounds more like a religion than scientists who spend decades doing rigorous research that they publish in peer reviwed journals. 97% of active climatology researchers & around 80% of scientists in all fields from around the world support anthropogenic global warming. Should I trust those who are ignorant or should I trust the experts?
MarmaladeINFP 1 year ago
@CartervonRiedel 36qdr
Whats the point? It's like questioning evolution. Global warming is happing, at this point 67jjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjj,m/.
applefrog111 1 year ago
@CartervonRiedel 36qdr
Whats the point? It's like questioning evolution. It is happing we shouldn't waste time rechecking the science a 9000th time.
applefrog111 1 year ago 20
This has been flagged as spam show
@applefrog111 knowledge of nature's pattern's can give you great power over the masses. just like the king who told his people to do as he say's or he will make the sun disappear. no one is saying the earth isn't getting hot. the earth had crazy weather before, even without cars.
JoeEsus 9 months ago
@CartervonRiedel yep...and there we have it folks...more stuff that political groups shove down our throats....but when alls said and done, humans in general are arrogant...its this arrogance and makes people actually think we can save the planet...as george carlin used to say, the planet is fine, its we who are fucked.
axl409v 1 year ago
@CartervonRiedel you make a good point, it is fact that the earth is getting warmer, but it is absolute bull shit that it is going to be devastating, its no end of the world scenario, it is just change and it is not guna kill us. They are taking a small fact and making it a huge story. It is all about the money, but people should not rebel completely because it is true, just not near as hyped up as you see on T.V
EnchancedHuman 1 year ago
Bill Maher is a total boob!
samspade1957 1 year ago
Craig Ferguson is waaay dumber than I thought. I know Bill Maher's a meathead. He's smarmy and self congratulatory. Moron. The facts on global warming being anthropomorphic are not resolved in any way. Ridiculous. I know what this woman is saying, yeah it's better to be on the safe side what's the cost? The cost of distracting from more serious environmental emergencies and being taxed into the stone age seems like a very big cost to me. The cost to the third world even bigger. For what?
surfmcgoogler 1 year ago
Science is never resolved and scientists never claim science to be resolved. Anyone who talks about science in these times doesn't understand science.
Most scientists in general support Anthropogenic Global Warming. If you consider climatologists, the support is higher than among scientists in general. And if you consider climatologists who are active researchers, the support is the highest (97%).
MarmaladeINFP 1 year ago
well said, @Marmalade. I am disappointed that @surfmc is so far behind on his homework that he can't acknowledge these facts.
sTevefor3 1 year ago
I am a scientist.
That's what I do for a living.
Listening to people chortle on and on about things they hear on Faux News or hear someone shout in a sports bar is often times very annoying. Like this thread.
The level of discourse for serious discussions of clathrate displacement over time or albedo balance against greenhouse gas is never present. This is due to a flaw in the United State's educational system. Not much can be done at this point to re-educate teevee zombies......
Getsen42 1 year ago 12
Oh shut up! If you were really a scientist, you wouldn't be wasting your time here in redneck land. Clathrate displacement?! What the hell is that?
Oh damn, I guess you're right. We are lost. Oh well at least we have our Big Macs and Lady GaGa. That's really all that matters right?
yuxiaobi 1 year ago
I was not trying to say we are "lost", I was simply upset at the rudimentary level at which people treat such a sophisticated, and important topic.
We have more time than alarmists allow, and this while there most certainly is global climatic shift due to anthropogenic causes which the people on talk radio constantly show their ignorance of. Had I not worked for NOAA or perhaps never have been introduced to Roger Revelle (a good guy) in the 80s before his death....I could become a TV zombie.
Getsen42 1 year ago
I'm not a scientist, but neither am I a teevee zombie. I'm just someone who tries to understand the world by using reason and by researching the facts. To deny climate change is to literally disconnect your mind from reality. It doesn't take a scientist to understand this.
My problem is if you're not a scientist and don't understand science please don't deny the consensus of scientists & the conclusions of science. I respect experts who dedicate their lives to understanding a specific field.
MarmaladeINFP 1 year ago
@Getsen42 Because you are a scientist, can you point to any instance in the Earth's History where an increase in CO2 has caused temperature to rise?
PainTrain87 1 year ago
@PainTrain87, 1998.
GH gases keep the Earth comfortably warm, this cannot be challenged. Increasing atmospheric CO2 produces rising temps at ground level. Overall CO2 rise is from below 280 ppm (pre-industrial ) to present values above 360 ppm, an increase factor of 1.3. The log of 1.3 is 0.11, and of 2 is 0.30. We are more than 1/3 of the way to doubling CO2, on a log scale. If 2X CO2 produces a temp rise of 1.5-5 C (using climate models), we should see a warming of between 0.5 and 1.7C.
Getsen42 1 year ago
@Getsen42: You can't use the present as an example, as the present time period is what is being investigated. I'm talking about throughout the entire Earth's history, can you point to any instance in which a rise in CO2 has caused a rise in temperature?
PainTrain87 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@PainTrain87, your question was "can you point to any instance in the Earth's History where an increase in CO2 has caused temperature to rise?"
The present isn't "being investigated", the data is present and logged.
1998 is not the present.
You seem to wish to frame the debate with yourself, so draw your own conclusions. What do you need a scientist for, the facts aren't necessary they would only get in the way.
Getsen42 1 year ago
@PainTrain87
So you are basicly saying greenhouse gasses are myths? Because you ask to any example where the world got warmer, and you might think the name 'greenhouse'-gas would give you a clue, they didn't name it like that because it just happened to have a nice ring to it...
If u have no idea about climate or biology, then keep your nose out of it
SSTTEEAALLTTHH 1 year ago
@SSTTEEAALLTTHH You never stated any instance in earth's history where a temperature rise was caused by a rise in the CO2. Why not? Do YOU NOT KNOW the science behind it? Please, just point to any instance in earth's history. Any response not giving a time period is your admission to your lack of knowledge on this topic.
PainTrain87 1 year ago
@PainTrain87
You are the one denying global warming, so i would say you lack knowledge. Care to start whining about to NWO too?
Paleocene and Eocene.
SSTTEEAALLTTHH 1 year ago
@SSTTEEAALLTTHH That is a bad argument. You can't say because I deny it, that I lack knowledge. There are over 31000 scientists that are against the global warming theory. Over 6000 of them have PhDs. Do they lack knowledge on the issue? Authors of the IPCC reports, which are not the gold standard by any means on specific climate science, have come out against the theory and have asked for their names to be removed from the reports. Bad argument; not logical.
PainTrain87 1 year ago
@PainTrain87
and this very moment CO2 is going hand in hand with rising temperature
SSTTEEAALLTTHH 1 year ago
@SSTTEEAALLTTHH This very moment? What is your time frame on moment? FYI, you can't use the present as an example, if the science about the present is under question.
PainTrain87 1 year ago
@Getsen42 So, it's been 3 days now since I last asked you to produce a time period in earth's history, excluding the present (because the present is in the time period in which the global warming theory uses), in which a rise in CO2 has caused a rise in temperature. Considering you are a scientist, do you care to produce the time for me?
PainTrain87 1 year ago
@PainTrain87
Yes, we can involve the present, it is absurd to discuss global warming under men made conditions and not include our very own time period. if you will look at the statistics, you will see that we have reached the same concentration-gradients of CO2 in decades that it took nature to reach in 1000's of years before great climate changes.
SSTTEEAALLTTHH 1 year ago
@SSTTEEAALLTTHH You can bring the present into the question, only when you have understood the past. Do you understand the past? Im not sure yet, because it's already been four comments and you have yet to provide me a time in the past, excluding today (because the present is in the time period in which the global warming theory uses), in which a rise in CO2 has caused a rise in temperatures. Any response not answering the question is your admission of lack of knowledge on the issue.
PainTrain87 1 year ago
@PainTrain87
I already replied Paleocene and Eocene. Now, simply denieing that someone answered instead of bringing up counterarguements, that's an admission of lack of knowledge. Do you even know what you are talking aabout. Since you didn't counter-argued my statement about CO2 concertration gradients (not that it can be counter-argued, seeing it is a solid fact)
SSTTEEAALLTTHH 1 year ago
@SSTTEEAALLTTHH First off, when you reply to someone on youtube, they get an email. I never got any email about replying. So, you obviously never replied to me. Second, NEVER in the earth's history has a rise in CO2 caused an increase in warming. A rise in temperature has always come first, by 800-1000 years. We see this in the ice core records. I'm not saying that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas. What I am saying, is that it is not a major temperature driver as it has been made out to be.
PainTrain87 1 year ago
@PainTrain87
If you would be able to scroll down, you will see i have replied. furthermore, when yutube sends you a mail of one replier who repeatedly aswers you , they all end up in the same mail-folder. So is this due to your lack of knowledge of scrolling or just email?
Again, Eocene and Paleocene. Unless you can come up with an alternate explanation, which makes more sense then those of paeontologists and climatologists, which i'm already sure you can't. You don't seem much of a scientist
SSTTEEAALLTTHH 1 year ago
@SSTTEEAALLTTHH I never got an email. I don't have an email folder that is filled with more than 20 things. I would have seen something if you had replied, and I NEVER got anything. That is fact. Temperature rose before CO2. I have said this. If CO2 did cause such an incredible effect, as the global warming theory claims, then the CO2 response from the increased temperature, should have produced more warming. However, we don't see this reaction in the reconstructed temperature records, do we?
PainTrain87 1 year ago
@PainTrain87 I love this logic.
"I never got an email so you must never have replied".
Hit 'refresh' Einstein, maybe the unthinkable happened and the server didn't send you the notice of is reply immediately? Wow....can that happen? Duhhh
Getsen42 1 year ago
@PainTrain87 , no, what you are saying is that YOU are completely ignorant of the data in the archives and the most recent paleo-clomatic models. You are also most likely one of the ignorant mass members who feel that Stanford professor Stephen Schneider is part of a conspiracy because he did work on the reciprocal climatic shifts years ago and was taken out of context. So he's the bad guy right. None of his lectures can be trusted, although he is a tenured professor you're smarter right?
Getsen42 1 year ago
@PainTrain87 I hate to rain on your parade, but you are showing why most people don't comment on youtube threads. The intelligence and exposure level of those on here frustrates the wish to have salient discourse.
NOAA's website is up all year long to answer this and any other questions you have on global warming.
I'll cut and paste two paragraphs from their site (your tax dollars pay for) so you can see the undisputed correlation, ok?
Getsen42 1 year ago
@PainTrain87 Human activity has been increasing the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere (mostly carbon dioxide from combustion of coal, oil, and gas; plus a few other trace gases). There is no scientific debate on this point. Pre-industrial levels of carbon dioxide (prior to the start of the Industrial Revolution) were about 280 parts per million by volume (ppmv), and current levels are greater than 380 ppmv and increasing at a rate of 1.9 ppm yr-1 since 2000.
Getsen42 1 year ago
@PainTrain87 Global surface temperatures have increased about 0.74°C (plus or minus 0.18°C) since the late-19th century, and the linear trend for the past 50 years of 0.13°C (plus or minus 0.03°C) per decade is nearly twice that for the past 100 years.
Getsen42 1 year ago
@Getsen42 so instead of commenting with your own knowledge, that you claim you have with being a scientist, you copy and paste specific paragraphs from a government influenced program. The IPCC is a government influenced program as well, and look how much of their final reports are pure science.
PainTrain87 1 year ago
@PainTrain87 Have you ever read one of their reports?
Do you even know what they do?
How dare you imply their reports are not pure science.
So then, you have proof the government is behind global warming huh?
Prove it? Have any sane or rational theories for your ramblings?
Getsen42 1 year ago
@Getsen42 I have read their reports. In fact, it appears that every new report that they do, has to correct data from a previous report. They still do not know the exact sensitivity of the climate. Furthermore, three times during the publishing process, government agents look through, edit, and correct statements made. The final report ends up being something that the scientists did not write, or meant to say. Scientists have come out and admitted this.
PainTrain87 1 year ago
@PainTrain87 NO they didn't, that is something you heard watching too much T.V.
They could actually make money suing if the urban myth you just passed along were the truth. Look LameTrain, I have submitted to the IPCC, just as every other business that emits chemical processing beyond limits for local ordinances must, and that data remains in tact. It is verifiable and I have verified.
Go back to Glenn Beck and cry together with him on his shoulder, o.k.?
Getsen42 1 year ago
@Getsen42 Actually, they did. Only after threatening to sue, did the IPCC remove their names from the author list. Are you going to comment on whether or not the IPCC is a government influenced body, and not a purely science practicing body. I have read the reports. I have seen the process of how they publish the reports. Go look it up if you don't believe me. In fact, go look up everything I have said if you don't believe me. It is all verifiable.
PainTrain87 1 year ago
@PainTrain87
I don't even know where you would get such a number as 31000, but ,ot every scientist is a good one. I will go for the most accredited ones, who's reviews have been publicized numerous times over some college-boy who wants to get immediate fame and claims he has found global warming to be a hoax.
SSTTEEAALLTTHH 1 year ago
@SSTTEEAALLTTHH Oregon Petition. I would hope you have heard of it. You are right that not every scientist is a good one. But, it seems to me that you dismiss any scientists whose findings are not in line with your beliefs. It is fact that the theory of global warming is the more accepted side. The majority of the scientific community believes in it. It's no wonder that they would publicize papers that are in favor of the theory, over papers that are not.
PainTrain87 1 year ago