@AmericaSpeakOut1 "The Sun stopped warming in 2003 (ACRIM, SORCE)" yet we had record warming in 2005 and again in 2010 both in a solar minimum period!
"There has been no global warming since 2005 (NOAA)" See: Global warming since 1995 'now significant' BBC News 10th June 2011 "Climate warming since 1995 is now statistically significant, according to Phil Jones" Next.
@m1laws "The Holocene was warmer than now"- Though some temperatures during that period were in the same range as today, they were confined to the northern hemisphere and the summer months.
In addition, the cause is understood (orbital forcing similar to what controlled the Ice Ages), just as today's cause is understood (CO2 emissions), and these causes are very different. See: Greenland Ice Sheet Surface Air Temperature Variability: 1840–2007. J. Climate, 22, 4029–4049.
Global warming 'confirmed' by independent study 21 October 2011 BBC
"The Berkeley Earth Project has used new methods and some new data, but finds the same warming trend seen by groups such as the UK Met Office and Nasa.
The project received funds from sources that back organisations lobbying against action on climate change".
wats his point about china? just cos their pumping in alot of CO into the atmosphere that means that everyone should do it too? thats like saying 'well i saw that guy punch someone in the face...i no its wrong but hey if he can do it...so can i' y not show china that a super power can become more environmental.
Bjorn Lomborg who was interviewed by Beck above now admits that "We actually have only one option: we all need to start seriously focusing, right now, on the most effective ways to fix global warming." This video is out of date
I love it when people say "scientists say...", without citing who said it, where it was published and what the evidence was for that result. The vast majority of scientists are not arrogant, we make conjectures, hypothesis and theories based on EVIDENCE. These results are then reviewed and studied by our peers BEFORE being published. It's a very thorough system, unlike the FOX method, just pump out as much BS as you can and hope people believe you.
Scientific community tossed their integrity under a bus to support Al Gore's movie based on political and socialist views. If the science community HAD ANY integrity they would correct many errors in Gore's movie but instead they together and gave him a noble prize. Until you can direct me to a site of scientists willing to correct gross errors in Gore's move then you are without a leg to stand on and there is no such peer review and honestly here but simply more garbage like climate gate emails
@Albertkallal Again you're generalising a bit here. Which scientists are you talking about? Who supports it? Who hasn't corrected the errors in it? The word "scientist" on it's own is a very general term. My subject is mathematics and there are literally thousands of people researching it, and we study a HUGE range of different subjects and topics. When you say "scientists" you're talking about 10's of thousands of people, most of whom probably don't research global warming.
The science community reviewed and supported Gore's move. Science community gave him the support for the Nobel prize. Gore claims that he has full support of the science community for his movie and they give him that support. Every educational institution where climate research occurs continues to show that Gore's movie and they continue to invite him to speak. You can't stand here with a straight face and tell me that Gore is not enjoying full fledged support of the science community.
@Albertkallal ...Science community supports him for a reason. If you think it somehow more right to believe politicians over scientists, be my guest. Just know you are at the wrong end of the spectrum.
Until you can direct me to the same group of scientists that signed off on his film then you are full of garbage. So trust this science community that supports Gore while they throw truth and honest science under a bus? We are now make an act of faith here and ignore errors to be politically correct? So you don't give a dam about truth and errors and there is no self correcting peer review as you claim? So accept incorrect science and look the other way? Talk about a formula for being stupid.
All you have to do is direct me to a site run by all those scientists in Gore's movie where they correct their errors and you simply cannot do that. This is not about politicians but about politicians like Gore telling us to trust them based on the SUPPORT of the science community. Why trust the science community when they will not correct their errors? How can you stand here and accept these errors without corrections? Why trust the science community when they refuse to correct their errors?
@Albertkallal A site where scientists correct their errors?....well I do believe, actually I know, that Gore cites his information. His data is borrowed from several sources, some including NASA, IPCC, NOAA, and NCISD.The majority of the scientific community does support climate change (aka global warming). If I listed every single site that would support this, I'm afraid I would be on here for hours. What errors have they made? And who even says they are errors?....You? Yeah right.
@buchedda IPCC is a political organization which refuses to share it's raw data and statistical methods. They are not practicing Science because scientists have no problem proving their theories by openly publishing their data and methods.
@Cozy4me ok, what about the other ones listed, a simple google search will reveal data and analysis. IPCC does publish their data, let's not make opinions, because the proof is googling, not that hard, you should try it.
You have to show me where that same community you are asking me to accept as an authority on this matter is correcting their errors. You cannot do that and this proves that science community is not self correcting and they do not give a dam about the truth. Simply direct me to a science site that is correcting Gore's errors else why accept that SAME community as an authority? Why do I have go to a site by Lord Monckton to find these errors? Why can't I go to a science site to find these errors?
China is doing wonderous things in the name of green, but they are not responsible for global warming, capitalist countries of the West are. Once we get get them taxed, global warming will stop. Capitalism is responsible for destroying the planet, and the fascist US of A leads the way. China is what the Us of A should be striving for since they are leading the way to a green future
"In 2010, global average temperature was 0.53°C (0.95°F) above the 1961-90 mean. This value is 0.01°C (0.02°F) above the nominal temperature in 2005, and 0.02°C (0.05°F) above 1998" WMO 2011
People cooking food with animal dung and logs are not included and they live in poverty with VERY low life expectancy (huge amounts of pollution compared to natural gas). Industries use more than double energy to produce same amount of steel as USA and do so with NO pollution controls (very dirty). Our air and water quality has been improving constant for 30+ years and China is treating their country like one big sewer. How stupid you greens are not to support trade restrictions against china.
You're assuming that emissions per capita is a reasonable means of comparison. But is it?
Suppose the USA took in millions of economic refugees, but provided them only subsistance living. Our emissions per capita would drop, so we'd look like we'd "improved". But obviously nothing concerning our emissions really changes in that hypothetical - we'd be no better or worse regarding our emissions than before we took on the refugees.
I think emissions per $ gdp is a better metric. It measures emissions given the amount of economic productivity (if comparing similar industrialization levels).
Now in terms of gdp, the US is roughly the size of the EU, and China is about 2/3 the size of the US. But the US and China are roughly equal in emissions, and the EU is much less. So the emissions per gdp scale says that the US is significantly worse than the EU, and significantly better than China, regarding our CO2 emissions.
@snakeboy144 What is the statistical source for your statement? As far as I know, China is building approximately 3 new coal burning power plants _per_week_ with next to no environmental controls. Please direct me to the source that says Americans pollute more than the Chinese. Go and find even ONE American made product on the shelf of your local super store. You can't because we don't even have the domestic industry to do it! ALLL the junk comes from China, including the resulting pollution.
I'm sorry, if you listen to beck an believe him, you are a complete moron. ...I bet the little close up on his once fox show of his teary eyes got whoever likes him, didn't it?
I guess then we are to believe your opinion on things then?
In other words you are going to decide based on your opinion whose opinion we are to trust? So you are now the self-appointed judge to tell us who we are to listen to based on your self appointed authority?
And by the way, the above video is not from fox but is from CNN.
@Albertkallal First off, I was actually talking about his show on FOX, thanks though. Umm Secondly, where in those jumble of words did I say everything was to be based off of my own opinions. Thirdly if you really feel like I am the only person besides Beck you would have to take "orders" from, which is apparent that you do because of your wording, than that is sad because there are plenty more people beside me that are better. I am obliged though that you would think such a thing.
Al Gore's climate scientists have found that CO2 emissions from the US are the sole cause for Global Warming and that carbon taxes implemented on the US, will stop Global Warming. China and India's CO2 emissions have nothing to do with it.
"In an interview with USA Weekend, Glenn Beck said that he believes global warming. "You'd be an idiot not to notice the temperature change," he said, adding there's a legitimate case that it has been caused, at least in part, by mankind. "I'm willing to do anything but use the CFLs" (compact fluorescent light bulbs)."
what ever happened to humans adapting to their environment, oh no god forbid a bit of water rising, we survived the iceage with a couple of stick, a bit of fire and one warm mammoth jacket, i think we can survive this easily, such fools people are
i agree with glenn beck 100% he is right, this global warming idea is just a total scam, "i believe doing less things and using windmills from the 1800's will slow warming" lol
It's a scam? Do you think the planet's thousands of climatologists are all in on a vast conspiracy? Or do you think they're just mistaken?
If you think it's a conspiracy of thousands, then what evidence do you have of that, what's their motivation, and how did they organize and implement this greatest scam in human history?
If you think the planet's climatologists are just in error, then I suppose you think your scientific knowledge & judgement about this is superior to theirs.
Scientists actually go out, gather data and make an informed decision on the matter at hand. They don't sit around and make things up based on what they want to believe. Becck is a complete idiot and this will be the fall of the
Beck gets it wrong again.....1970s ice age predictions were predominantly media based. The majority of peer reviewed research at the time predicted warming due to increasing CO2. A survey of peer reviewed scientific papers from 1965 to 1979 show that few papers predicted global cooling (7 in total). Significantly more papers (42 in total) predicted global warming (Peterson 2008).
Why should anyone be surprised that during a cherry picked time frame where the vast majority of years shows no cooling and you then you come here and tell me that the vast majority papers do not predict cooling? No kidding Mr. Sherlock, but exactly how stupid do you think we are? Pick a time frame in which most years show cooling and you see that science papers, the press, governments, UN, UNESCO, world leaders all were expressing concerns over reduced food production from cooling.
@Albertkallal You are the one who posted the video claiming scientists were predicting cooling in the 1970's which is incorrect!
Actually the time period of 1965-1979 showed a slight cooling trend. Despite this most papers correctly predicted warming! It was after the 1970's when warming accelerated -most likely due to AGW. Please refer to the NASA temp record for clarification.
@m1aws 1970s ice age predictions were predominantly media based which is what you looked at in the 1970's rather than read the science itself. The majority of peer reviewed research at the time predicted warming due to increasing CO2. A survey of peer reviewed scientific papers from 1965 to 1979 show that few papers predicted global cooling (7 in total). Significantly more papers (42 in total) predicted global warming (Peterson 2008).
@checkyoursources At least you admit not all peer reviewed papers are correct.However, the global warming papers are date based, since Margaret Thatcher put money on the table to prove AGW.
We have averaged +1C in 100 years with no acceleration and the past three years have seen cooling in direct argument ro certain major data sources. How average can our GW be?
@m1aws You said:"since Margaret Thatcher put money on the table to prove AGW." -no scientific theory is "proven" but AGW happens to be the most likely explanation for the majority of warming since the 1970's. "We have averaged +1C in 100 years" -there are 6 degrees of change between temps and the last ice age. Thats an average of 1 degree every 1500 years so warming of 1 degree in 100 years is significant. "past three years have seen cooling" -2010 was the warmest on record according to the WMO
@m1aws If something requires instant action and you wait for certainty in science you would wait forever! Science doesn't give us certainty or "proof" it gives us the most likely explanations for observations. AGW is a better explanation for current warming than any theory suggested so far.
"The Great Global Warming Swindle"is a terrible piece of infotainment broadcasting which is unsupported by science, check the wiki article on its misleading editing and disgruntled scientists.
When scientists, many from guys who actually are top dogs in .edu's who's primary skills are the very subject speak against it in simple plain inarguable facts, I listen. There was never any charge of "misleading". So I take is as true.
"Orbital forcing". Does not affect climate much, if seasonal, worse over 6 months. Yes, Greenland was once Green, like Antarctica.
@m1aws Science isn't about "proof" or certainty, if it were then theories would never be improved on as they would be unable to change with new contradictory evidence look up falsification/disproof which IS a scientific term. Orbital forcing is believed to be responsible for the timing of the ice age cycles so saying it doesn't have any effect on climate is an oxymoron. 1) Please name a scientific paper that disproves AGW?
2) Name a scientific academy thats disagrees with AGW?
@checkyoursources Good science finds the best answer for working engineering requirements. As things stand too many interests are hitting brick walls on bad theories.
Milankotvich cycles do exist but no matter how I play the numbers the equal and opposite in temperature come into play either a day or six months later. The reason the Arctic is smaller is merely from winds heating overland as they spiral in.
I made things I secretly never wanted in the hands of others but I made them. Go figure
@checkyoursources Only proves where the funding is decided from. Not the reality of the hypothesis.
Just been looking up Solar cycle predictions. All said (including weird theory sites) the next "high" will be a damp squib. Apart from one "edu" who's "improved computer model" says its going to be a big one. OOPS! Dated 2006. Trip, face, ar5e. come to mind.
I agree work on the small things that mount up and dont just target global warming (i dnt beleve anyway). Were all fucked anwat if china doesnt join. And this crap about scientists who dont beleive, just not beleiving because they profit from it, do you not think governments who put taxes on people (i.e emissions trading sceme) profit, do you not think Al Gore profits every time you turn on your energy saving light bulb
@1Knowledgeable CO2 causes up to 26% of the GHG effect.You need to know the difference between % in air and % contribution to the greenhouse effect, they aren't the same. The primary greenhouse gases in the Earth's atmosphere are water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and ozone.e.g. Nitrogen makes up 78% of the atmosphere but it isn't a significant GHG because it has no net change in their dipole moment when they vibrate and hence are almost totally unaffected by infrared light.
100% agree. Oxygen is 18% of air and co2 is not even 1%. Current measured % of co2 right now is 380PPM or 0.0380%. Thus current co2 is in the 1/300th of a % range. Co2 is much like a black coat of paint on a window. Each additional coat of paint does very little and we realized the effects of co2 long ago at much lower rates. This explains why we seen higher temperatures in the past with lower rates of co2. Co2 is simply not driving temperature as claimed by these tax and spend socialists.
1970s ice age predictions were predominantly media based. The majority of peer reviewed research at the time predicted warming due to increasing CO2. A survey of peer reviewed scientific papers from 1965 to 1979 show that few papers predicted global cooling (7 in total). Significantly more papers (42 in total) predicted global warming (Peterson 2008). Glenn Beck didn't "fact-check " but i'm sure he gets a "fat check" every month. What a sh#tclown he is.
But that study you quote is misleading. Why are you surprised in a study in which the vast majority of the years in that study do not show cooling then the majority of papers also do not show cooling? (no kidding Sherlock!). Try a time period with majority of years showing cooling and you find majority of the papers making the rounds will also show cooling! During these cooling periods the UN and UNESCO conferences show much worry and concerns about World Food production dropping due to cooling.
@Albertkallal The emphasis was on the words "predicted warming due to increasing CO2". p.s.1965 to 1979 showed neither significant warming or cooling. next.
je ne peux pas croire ce mec ! ce n'est pas de l'information mais de la propagande au capitalisme, a la consommation abusive, a la naïveté et a l’égoïsme et ce diffusé dans ces chères foyers américains gavés de leur cultures gâté, orgueilleuse et vindicatives. Il profite du buzz, de la vague de ne pas dire la même chose. le voila messie des martyres que se croit les privés de luxe et de décadence alors qu'il ne propose AUCUNE PREUVE contre le réchauffemen. je vous emmerdes procrastinateurs !
@Wittgensteinism "how can you save 28 billion lives when the population of the world is only 7 billion?" First you wait 120 years.. then you save the world!!
the hadley centre data, shows clearly the warming trend over 1970 to 2001 is greater than warming from both 1860 to 1880 (1.01°C per century) and 1910 to 1940 (1.56°C/century). 1975-2005 shows 1.90°C/century. Look up the Hadley data yourself.
@Albertkallal glenn beck is a mormon asking for scientific evidence, isnt that hypocracy? he is also has very little political knowledge let alone scientific, the man does not have his head screwed on correctly. over 97% of climate researchers believe that warming on the planet is human induced, now who are you going to trust, glenn beck, a loonitic doing the bidding of murdoch whos buddies in oil will lose money or logical, reasoned scientists? warming affects the 3rd world the most
97% agree on what? Phil Jones of CRU admitted current rates of warming are the same as the last two warming periods and yet we have more co2 today. Every science skeptic accepts that co2 can affect climate but there is NOT a consensus as to what rate man's co2 has. Man's co2 output is 3% compared to 97% of nature. We have not seen warming rates as predicted and claimed by IPCC models. We see temperatures on ground rising first and not in the air where co2 is supposed to trap this heat first.
You seem to think that somehow there is a contradiction between religion and science. The church rejected Galileo's teaching because it failed their scientific scrutiny and they were upholding good scientific process. Galileo's claim of planets going around the sun in circles was false and today children know the difference between a circle and ellipse by grade 3. Galileo's claim of the sun being center of the universe was also incorrect. Galileo's claims failed under good scientific scrutiny.
@Albertkallal yes but beck is a mormon, have you fucking read that shit, its fucking crazy, for him to point a finger at global warming and say thats untrue is just hypocritical, and becuase the evidence is strong, it is also irrelevent to most global warming hoax claims, becuase no matter what, humans have to stop deforistation, excessive use of finite fuels and litter these things all affect the planet, there is no argument about it
You are accepting what Al Gore says by an act of faith. You not done the science yourself and thus you are making an act of faith to accept what some person in a white lab coat or some purple smock is preaching to you. I fail to see how your position is any different than Beck making an act of faith on this matter. There is simply no evidence that man's co2 is driving current temperatures as claimed by the IPCC and thus you are making and act of faith to accept what is being told to you.
@Albertkallal im not gonna say global warming is fact, but humans still have to change dramatically. and its hypocritical og beck, no one who believes religion can logically question global warming
What change you talking about to make? Every single pollution index we have from removing lead in gasoline, dioxins from pulp mills, and virtually every lake, air quality, and even pollution index measure we have has been SUBSTANTIALLY improved in the last 40 years in North America. We do not see smog bowels in CA like they had in the 70's. Only places treating the earth like a sewer is China and others that do not care. We enjoy best food, water, air quality compared to most nations.
You are complaining about people making an act of faith and yet you're coming here and making faith based arguments. You are asking us to make an act of faith and believe in something based on someone else's witness and testimony to some experiment that you've not done. So we are to make of act of faith to accept this based on that person's testimony. I fail to see the difference as to why we should accept your testimony here as to someone else testimony of something that happened 2000 years ago
@Albertkallal no 97% of climate researchers are saying that, and also deforestation, and fuel consumption have to decrease even if global warming isnt true, heard of smog, extintion of animals, turning natural habitats into wastelands, do you want the planet to look like a massive industrial farm, if not switch to renewable or infinite energy sources, heard of the massive mass of plastic in the pacific thats the size of texas, people need to change their act and soon it will law telling you
It is ridiculous to claim that 97% of researchers agree on that man's co2 output is the reason for increased mosquitoes and malaria as claimed by the IPCC. These IPCC claims are silly and are not due to man's co2 output. What smog? As stated air quality constantly improved over last 30-40 years despite increases in USA car usage. Countries outside of North America are who treat Earth like a sewer. How stupid is it that greens do not support trade restrictions with these polluting nations.
@Albertkallal yeah north americ is perfect, are you fucking deluded, america, china , brazil these are the worst countries on the planet. plus america is the only developed one there so it is a lot harder for poorer nations to act, second do you then agree that humans have to change their act? and third a nation academy of sciences took a survey in 2010 and 97% of climate researchers agreed that warming on the planet was human induced, why the fuck should any1 listen to u, what r ur credentials
There is 30,000 signatures on the Organ petition that is full of researchers and scientists that do not agree that man's co2 is a problem. Over 700 scientists signed the congressional environment and public works report that again stated man's co2 is a not a problem. Your only scientists signing those reports are ones receiving socialist government funding and want more of that funding. Funny how when the scientist loses their socialist government funding for this position, their tune changes.
I did not say we were perfect and it unbelievably dishonest on your part to make such statements on my behalf. The issue was do we need to improve and I stated we are clearly improving since every index from water to air to food has been constantly improved in North America over the last 40+ years. It's not my fault you do not know these facts. Go talk to China if you're going to preach about increasing pollution since we are the ones leading the way and setting an example for all to follow.
@Albertkallal why would any1 listen to u over experts in this field? what qulifies you to make drastic judgements, are you the kind of person who doesnt believe in evolution
The issue is not listening to me but the fact that you come here to preach and pick as to what authority we should bow to. You become the self-appointed judge and jury as to who we are to listen to. You are the one coming here preaching and asking us to accept based on an act of your faith to accept peoples' witness to some event or some experiment that you not done. You are making an act of faith to accept these peoples as witness to these things and you accept this on faith, I do not.
As for evolution, the issue comes down to the fact that we observe motion, yet objects cannot move themselves. So how can you explain the existence of motion when objects cannot move themselves? I await your answer.
@Albertkallal right thats all i needed. lol you fucking moron. evelution is scientific fact, unless you are a supporter of creation "science". look at organisms that have evolved out of our vaccines, do ou belive in god?
So guilt by association? So we are to ignore the long attendance record of Obama to Al Sharp's church? Are you standing here and telling me that Obama views are the same as Al Sharp's then? So you mean Obama is anti Semite and is racest? In fact Obama does support black schools, black magazines, and even quotas to university based on your skin color being black. Do you have any quotes from Beck that even comes close to Obama support of Entrance to university based on your skin color?
In 2010, global average temperature was 0.53°C (0.95°F) above the 1961-90 mean. This value is 0.01°C (0.02°F) above the nominal temperature in 2005, and 0.02°C (0.05°F) above 1998.Arctic sea-ice cover in December 2010 was the lowest on record,Over the ten years from 2001 to 2010, global temperatures have averaged 0.46°C (0.83°F) above the 1961-1990 average, and are the highest ever recorded for a 10-year period since the beginning of instrumental climate records. WMO
I think I will... Keeping in mind of course that just anybody could say whatever they want about petition project or anything they don't like for the world to see...I'll get back to you
Did anyone notice he said "think your Prius is saving the planet? Think again!" and then he went on a tangent about China?? He never made a point about the Prius???
the atmosphere has been growing gradually cooler for the past three decades. The trend shows no indication of reversing. Climatological Cassandras are becoming increasingly apprehensive.
@Albertkallal O my gosh! One whole article in Time!?! (not a peer-reviewed journal). A survey of SCIENTIFIC literature of the time clearly shows an overwhelming number of scientists predicting global warming, not global cooling.
No you cannot post "1000s and 1000s of articles from that time period" showing global cooling - it is likely you've already posted most of what you could find. Those are articles in popular magazines, not peer-reviewed literature. This "cooling" scare is a total myth.
So you telling me that if we take a survey during a period where most years DO NOT show cooling, then most articles predict warming? Gee, no kidding Mr. Sherlock. How about you take a 10 or 15 year period with cooling and then quote how many articles predict or talk about cooling? So yes there is tons of articles and they become even more common during cooling periods. So we are to be surprised by a study that cherry picks articles during few years of cooling and few predict cooling? Too funny!
@Albertkallal No, that's not the case at all. Scientific research that studies climate is not dependent on whatever current, short term trends are. I don't know where you got such an idea but it is completely false.
There is also a huge difference between what is talked about in the popular media (like Time and Newsweek magazines) and what is being discovered through scientific research and experiment, which is reflected in scientific journals. Those journals are what's important.
Since the 1940s, the mean global surface temperature has fallen only about 1° F. But even this small drop has trimmed a week to ten days from the growing season in the middle latitudes that are the earth's breadbasket. Continued cooling could lead to agricultural disasters.
"Scientists disagree sharply about the cause of the earth's cooling"
Note in above quote, cooling is not debated..but only the cause!!!
@Albertkallal How many of them are peer reviewed. journalists swap stories, few write original research then have it peer reviewed.1970s ice age predictions were predominantly media based. The majority of peer reviewed research at the time predicted warming due to increasing CO2.Few scientific papers predicted global cooling (7 in total). Significantly more papers (42 in total) predicted global warming see(Peterson 2008). .
Point is there not JUST ONE article on cooling in Newsweek. Next point it is it laughable to quote a study in which the vast majority of the years quoted do not show cooling. Why would you be surprised by the results of such a study? Try different time period and you get vastly different numbers. Even the UN (UNSCO) in the early 60's was expressing concerns about cooling and food production but these papers are not included in your study which only looks at later papers with few cooling years.
Only about 5 years had significant cooling statistic wise, and DOUBLE the amount of years in that time frame did NOT SHOW cooling. The study amounts to cherry picked years. UN + UNESCO conferences occurred in the early 60's in regards to cooling. The press lagged in reporting concerns about some ice age and cooling. It was however not just one article and if you telling me popular press hyped up the scientists on cooling then I agree but they are doing the same today with global warming.
As for the cooling trend, then why did we see the same cooling trend from 1885 to about 1910? That cooling trend and cycle been around for a VERY long time. So 1910 to 1945 it warms and then it cools? So the cooling trend + cycle before that was also soot? Too funny!
@Albertkallal Climate reacts to whatever forces it to change at the time; humans are now the dominant forcing. In fact the peer-reviewed research into past climate change comes to the opposite conclusion to your view that the majority of warming since the 1970's was driven by natural forcings. No known natural forcing fits the fingerprints of observed warming except anthropogenic greenhouse gases.
Not correct at all. Phil Jones of the CRU and even the science advisors to the British Parliament ALL AGREED and stated that the RATE of warming we see today is not ANY different than the last two warming periods. Why are they the same then? Issue as always is how much of the 3% of co2 output by man compared to the 97% of nature output in one year is driving temperatures. We not seen a warmer year since 1998 and worse when you take out urban heat effects the case becomes even weaker for CAGW.
@Albertkallal From the BBC interview:Jones: "I'm 100% confident that the climate has warmed...most of the warming since the 1950s is due to human activity". To compare the periods they need to be the same length of time (which they weren't)to avoid anomaly bias, when we do so we find 0.13 ± 0.03 °C per decade in last half of 20thC, versus 0.07 °C ± 0.02 °C per decade in the first half, Humans have increased CO2 by 40%. 2010 was warmer than 1998-WMO Urban heat effect just 0.002 °C per decade!
Ah but I not talking about some stupid and silly radio interview. We talking about a written statement and request by Lord Monckton who wrote to Phil Jones and ALSO to the British Parliament. BOTH the science advisors AND ALSO Phil Jones were in agreement. You can see the question and results in my video called "Lord Monckton shows IPCC Pachauri is dishonest about global warming after being corrected"
@Albertkallal The warming trend over 1970 to 2001 is greater than warming from both 1860 to 1880 (1.01°C per century)and 1910 to 1940 (1.56°C/century). 1975-2005 shows 1.90°C/century. Look up the Hadley data yourself.
Both Phil Jones and the climate advisors to the British Parliament all agreed the rates of warming of the last 3 periods are the same rate. Now Phil Jones and the scientists to BP are lying again? So if funding comes from oil it must be wrong and socialist funding that comes from tax dollars means we also must reject that science since they are the SAME ones asking for more funding and socialist taxes to redistribute wealth. Why no tax funded government scientist correcting the IPCC then?
@Albertkallal I have no doubt your source was incorrect or carefully cherry picked with different length periods of time (which will create average bias and statistical drift). Would you care to supply your source.
My source, the hadley centre data, shows clearly the warming trend over 1970 to 2001 is greater than warming from both 1860 to 1880 (1.01°C per century) and 1910 to 1940 (1.56°C/century). 1975-2005 shows 1.90°C/century. Look up the Hadley data yourself.
And I have no doubt your source was cherry picked and you picked arbitrary end points for your case. I guess what is good for the goose is good for the gander. So now you telling me that Pill Jones and the science advisors to the British Parliament cherry picked the numbers to make incorrect conclusions? Thus they are so incompetent they fell victim to a scam in which points chosen were not acceptable? This would make them incompetent, would it not? Too funny!
@Albertkallal My source, the hadley centre data, shows clearly the warming trend over 1970 to 2001 is greater than warming from both 1860 to 1880 (1.01°C per century) and 1910 to 1940 (1.56°C/century). 1975-2005 shows 1.90°C/century. Look up the Hadley data yourself.
You seem unwilling to give a source for your comment about warming rates? Why is that?
@Albertkallal In 2010, global average temperature was 0.53°C (0.95°F) above the 1961-90 mean. This value is 0.01°C (0.02°F) above the nominal temperature in 2005, and 0.02°C (0.05°F) above 1998. Over the ten years from 2001 to 2010, global temperatures have averaged 0.46°C (0.83°F) above the 1961-1990 average, and are the highest ever recorded for a 10-year period since the beginning of instrumental climate records. WMO.
@Albertkallal And if you were to actually examine the scientific literature of the time you would find they were talking about the cycles of glaciation - and the trend towards the next ice age... thousands and thousands of years in the future. Not the effects of man-made climate change which will be affecting us within the next few hundred.
For someone who obviously enjoys looking up stuff online you might try reading some actual science for a change.
@ecfinn1 Is IB "international business" or what? Your IQ, HS, and GPA prove nothing except that smart people can be dumb as shit sometimes too. I've known many such people.
But since we're trading credentials: I have a BA in Communication Arts and have been working in the environmental field (mostly as a researcher and organizer) for over 4 years now. I deal directly with coal plants, their emissions, and how they impact and affect global warming (amongst other things).
You know what, nothing you say can change my view on politics and I'm sure you're the same way so I won't even try. I say this because I am one of 100 students (high school/college) in the nation to be accepted into Patriot Academy run by Rick Green who does a radio show with David Barton. (He's a good friend of Beck's) Also, have you ever heard of the John and Ken Show? I was on that show during the running for California governor and Jerry Brown was afraid to talk to me-pathetic
@ecfinn1 It sounds like you are doing quite well for yourself. I just need to caution you against believing the misinformation that's being generated at an alarming rate in the media and many places online.
If you want to know the truth about global warming science then look to the peer reviewed literature. You seem quite smart enough to be able to do that, and to tell the difference between actual science and propaganda/slander.
Forget the politics - I'm just talking about logic and reason.
With your talk of logic and reason, what do say to the 31,000 scientists (9,000 of which are Ph.D.'s) who all reject the idea of global warming at Petition Project? And why would John Coleman (Founder of The Weather Channel) sue Al Gore for his scam. And why would the UN Climate Panel's Chair, Rajendra Pachauri, admit that the whole thing was a hoax made up by Al Gore? And how come New York just experienced its coldest winter in recorded history last January?
@ecfinn1 The "petition project" is a sham and a scam orchestrated by politicians, namely James Inhofe. 5 minutes of research online will prove this to you. Most of those "scientists" aren't scientists - only a handful (about 15 or so if I remember correctly) are even climatologists. It is a politically motivated piece of propaganda with absolutely no scientific credibility behind it at all.
John Coleman is a charlatan. He is a journalist, not a scientist.
@ecfinn1 Being founder of "The Weather Channel" doesn't mean squat. His lawsuit is not going anywhere because it has no legs to stand on. Again, just more political posturing and nonsense.
I highly doubt Pachauri admitted "that the whole thing was a hoax made up by Al Gore." Please provide a reference for this outrageous claim. I'm sure it is a misquote, if even a quote...
@ecfinn1 Weather is not Climate. This is the most common denier myth out there. It was winter, it gets cold and snows in winter. Localized weather is completely different from global climate. Overall the earth is still warming.
@ecfinn1 When I said provide a reference I meant get me the source - not put quotes around what you're saying Pachauri said. I need to verify your source material and check the context of your quote.
Comeon, haven't you written any research papers yet? You know the drill. I need a link. You can't post it here (YouTube doesn't allow hyperlinks in comments) so you'll have to send it to me in a private message.
@Pandonodrim"It turns out that all that data from satellites and radiosondes, surface temperature readings, borehole analysis, measurements of rising sea levels, melting glaciers and permafrost, phenological data, and proxy reconstructions of paleoclimatic conditions were all fabricated out of thin air by my former friend, Al Gore. Now that I think about it, I suppose that we should have instituted some sort of peer-review process before publishing such alarming conclusions."
@ecfinn1 You didn't even give a name on who this is supposed to be - Pachauri again? As I said in my previous post I need the actual reference, not just words in quotations.
@ecfinn1 It is not an assumption. Do some actual research about that project, who is behind it and who the actual signatories of it are. There are plenty of reputable sources you can find online that cover it and debunk it. Don't take my word for it - research it yourself. That's what I did.
@ecfinn1 When names like gerri haliwell, the spice girl, are on the petition of supposed expert scientists that should make you relaise that the petition is a joke.
@ecfinn1 Sure, but to claim that the Oregon petition signatories are verifiable is a joke in itself. I prefer Doran 2009 amd anderegg 2010, both are verifiable and indictae that humans are causing the majority of recent global warming which is the position of the Academies of Science from 19 countries plus many scientific organizations that study climate science. More specifically, around 95% of active climate researchers actively publishing climate papers endorse the position.
@ecfinn1 Ahh, International Baccalaureate. Yeah, that doesn't mean shit kid. I mean, good for you and all - and you should be proud of your academic accomplishments. But you need to pull your head out of your ass.
Beck is a charlatan and a liar. You need to educate yourself more on communication theory and the art of propaganda.
You might also be well served to research the crap he talks about for yourself. It doesn't take much work or time to find out the truth.
@ecfinn1 And by that I don't mean to sound condescending in the slightest. Good for you for speaking out and taking such an involved stance on these issues while still just a teenager.
But I would caution you to remember the difference between intelligence and knowledge. Between smarts and experience. You may be quite bright, but are you wise? Always question your assumptions and always ask why you think what you think.
And how come NASA head Michael Griffin state that Global Warming wasn't a problem we should wrestle with? How did The Telegraph newspaper publish Dr. Morner's ideas about rise of sea levels being the greatest lie ever told? And why did Australian journalist Andrew Bolt call it the greatest scandal in history? Why did Britain just experience its coldest winter since 1683 last December. Scientists have proven that climate has randomly changed for years not because of us
@ecfinn1 Please provide a reference for your claim about Griffin as well as the Telegraph article, I don't know who Morner is (it's quite possible he was wrong, but that doesn't mean the consensus on AGW is at all erroneous).
I don't know who Bolt is but he probably said that because he's a charlatan (just guessing, but give me some references and I'll research it).
Again re: Britain: local weather is not the same as global climate. Scientists know very well why and how the climate changes.
Over the ten years from 2001 to 2010, global temperatures have averaged 0.46°C (0.83°F) above the 1961-1990 average, and are the highest ever recorded for a 10-year period since the beginning of instrumental climate records: WMO 2011
Arctic sea-ice cover in December 2010 was the lowest on record: WMO 2011 .
@nigelelsass Lol, thanks but seriously this is no conspiracy go and research TAP it is a Government document that provides information on the Aerosol program and go and look up Kucinich's (D) bill HR 2977 which calls for the banning of chemtrails and weather modification in which the bill claims is being used as a weapon. This bill details many programs that our Government is using and proves once and for all this is no conspiracy. (:
WHO'S A LIAR? CLIMATE CRIMINAL Exxon was caught funding a huge disinformation campaign about global warming. This is one of the reasons so many people don't understand the realities of global warming, or they are complicit or participating in the criminal disinformation scam. Read the report: Smoke, Mirrors & Hot Air: How ExxonMobil Uses Big Tobacco’s Tactics to Manufacture Uncertainty on Climate Science -- ucsusa . org/publications/catalyst/exxon-exposed . html
Koch Industries: Secretly Funding the Climate Denial Machine: greenpeace . org/usa/campaigns/global-warming-and-energy/polluterwatch/koch-industries -- Billionaire oilman David Koch and his brother Charles (Koch Industries) have quietly funneled $50 million to climate-denial front groups that are working to delay policies and regulations aimed at stopping global warming is no joking matter. WHO'S A LIAR? PROSECUTE DISINFORMATION CRIMINALS.
Lets not forget Al Gore well on his way to becoming world's first carbon billionaire. Lets not forget IPCC and corrupt UN pushing for new carbon taxes as a means to push socialism on a world wide scale. The bankers love those greens since they will make billions by trading those carbon credits. You green whack jobs pushing bio fuels to burn food in cars in place of feeding children has resulted in food riots and starving children around the world. Greens = murder of children and socialism.
Base prices in world food stuffs have gone through MASSIVE increases. World food bank stated only a small % of increases in food prices is due to energy costs and MOST of the increase in food prices around the world is due to bio fuel programs. Even Italy is converting wheat into ethanol. Commodity markets are such that burning surplus of food in cars causes HUGE increases in food prices. Yes it is a FACT that children are starving today due to the greens pushing this stupid policy.
How can you save 20 billion lives? there are 7 billion people on earth
therockyboy619 1 month ago
Reality disproves AGW Theory
The Sun stopped warming in 2003 (ACRIM, SORCE)
There has been no global warming since 2005 (NOAA)
All those theories about carbon "forcing" are demonstrably... wrong.
AmericaSpeakOut1 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@AmericaSpeakOut1 "The Sun stopped warming in 2003 (ACRIM, SORCE)" yet we had record warming in 2005 and again in 2010 both in a solar minimum period!
"There has been no global warming since 2005 (NOAA)" See: Global warming since 1995 'now significant' BBC News 10th June 2011 "Climate warming since 1995 is now statistically significant, according to Phil Jones" Next.
checkyoursources 2 months ago
@m1laws "The Holocene was warmer than now"- Though some temperatures during that period were in the same range as today, they were confined to the northern hemisphere and the summer months.
In addition, the cause is understood (orbital forcing similar to what controlled the Ice Ages), just as today's cause is understood (CO2 emissions), and these causes are very different. See: Greenland Ice Sheet Surface Air Temperature Variability: 1840–2007. J. Climate, 22, 4029–4049.
checkyoursources 2 months ago
The IPCC is a political body dedicated to an agenda of global wealth redistribution, not science.
IPCC Scientist Contributions were changed to be consistent with the 'Summary for Policymakers' rather than adjust the summary to fit the facts
warwickhughes*com/icecore/zjmar07*pdf
IPCC Official Ottmar Edenhofer: World climate summit, Cancun, is actually about distribution of the world's resources
thegwpf*org/ipcc-news/1877-ipcc-official-climate-policy-is-redistributing-the-worlds-wealth.html
AmericaSpeakOut1 2 months ago
@AmericaSpeakOut1 Your "sources" are either biased blogs or from politically motivated think tanks, try again mr hypocrite.
checkyoursources 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Global warming 'confirmed' by independent study 21 October 2011 BBC
"The Berkeley Earth Project has used new methods and some new data, but finds the same warming trend seen by groups such as the UK Met Office and Nasa.
The project received funds from sources that back organisations lobbying against action on climate change".
checkyoursources 3 months ago
wats his point about china? just cos their pumping in alot of CO into the atmosphere that means that everyone should do it too? thats like saying 'well i saw that guy punch someone in the face...i no its wrong but hey if he can do it...so can i' y not show china that a super power can become more environmental.
elfchick9 3 months ago
Bjorn Lomborg who was interviewed by Beck above now admits that "We actually have only one option: we all need to start seriously focusing, right now, on the most effective ways to fix global warming." This video is out of date
TheDisproof 4 months ago
I love it when people say "scientists say...", without citing who said it, where it was published and what the evidence was for that result. The vast majority of scientists are not arrogant, we make conjectures, hypothesis and theories based on EVIDENCE. These results are then reviewed and studied by our peers BEFORE being published. It's a very thorough system, unlike the FOX method, just pump out as much BS as you can and hope people believe you.
ninman58 4 months ago
Scientific community tossed their integrity under a bus to support Al Gore's movie based on political and socialist views. If the science community HAD ANY integrity they would correct many errors in Gore's movie but instead they together and gave him a noble prize. Until you can direct me to a site of scientists willing to correct gross errors in Gore's move then you are without a leg to stand on and there is no such peer review and honestly here but simply more garbage like climate gate emails
Albertkallal 4 months ago
@Albertkallal Again you're generalising a bit here. Which scientists are you talking about? Who supports it? Who hasn't corrected the errors in it? The word "scientist" on it's own is a very general term. My subject is mathematics and there are literally thousands of people researching it, and we study a HUGE range of different subjects and topics. When you say "scientists" you're talking about 10's of thousands of people, most of whom probably don't research global warming.
ninman58 4 months ago
The science community reviewed and supported Gore's move. Science community gave him the support for the Nobel prize. Gore claims that he has full support of the science community for his movie and they give him that support. Every educational institution where climate research occurs continues to show that Gore's movie and they continue to invite him to speak. You can't stand here with a straight face and tell me that Gore is not enjoying full fledged support of the science community.
Albertkallal 4 months ago
@Albertkallal ...Science community supports him for a reason. If you think it somehow more right to believe politicians over scientists, be my guest. Just know you are at the wrong end of the spectrum.
buchedda 4 months ago
Until you can direct me to the same group of scientists that signed off on his film then you are full of garbage. So trust this science community that supports Gore while they throw truth and honest science under a bus? We are now make an act of faith here and ignore errors to be politically correct? So you don't give a dam about truth and errors and there is no self correcting peer review as you claim? So accept incorrect science and look the other way? Talk about a formula for being stupid.
Albertkallal 4 months ago
@Albertkallal Your the one trying to be political, not me. Tell me who is more right,a scientist or a politician? Simple one word answer.
buchedda 4 months ago
All you have to do is direct me to a site run by all those scientists in Gore's movie where they correct their errors and you simply cannot do that. This is not about politicians but about politicians like Gore telling us to trust them based on the SUPPORT of the science community. Why trust the science community when they will not correct their errors? How can you stand here and accept these errors without corrections? Why trust the science community when they refuse to correct their errors?
Albertkallal 4 months ago
@Albertkallal A site where scientists correct their errors?....well I do believe, actually I know, that Gore cites his information. His data is borrowed from several sources, some including NASA, IPCC, NOAA, and NCISD.The majority of the scientific community does support climate change (aka global warming). If I listed every single site that would support this, I'm afraid I would be on here for hours. What errors have they made? And who even says they are errors?....You? Yeah right.
buchedda 4 months ago
@buchedda IPCC is a political organization which refuses to share it's raw data and statistical methods. They are not practicing Science because scientists have no problem proving their theories by openly publishing their data and methods.
Cozy4me 3 months ago
@Cozy4me ok, what about the other ones listed, a simple google search will reveal data and analysis. IPCC does publish their data, let's not make opinions, because the proof is googling, not that hard, you should try it.
buchedda 3 months ago
You have to show me where that same community you are asking me to accept as an authority on this matter is correcting their errors. You cannot do that and this proves that science community is not self correcting and they do not give a dam about the truth. Simply direct me to a science site that is correcting Gore's errors else why accept that SAME community as an authority? Why do I have go to a site by Lord Monckton to find these errors? Why can't I go to a science site to find these errors?
Albertkallal 4 months ago
Shut Up !! You teleprompter reader ! Can you speak w/o that thing ? Nah !
dave22h34 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
China is doing wonderous things in the name of green, but they are not responsible for global warming, capitalist countries of the West are. Once we get get them taxed, global warming will stop. Capitalism is responsible for destroying the planet, and the fascist US of A leads the way. China is what the Us of A should be striving for since they are leading the way to a green future
JoeJohn90 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"In 2010, global average temperature was 0.53°C (0.95°F) above the 1961-90 mean. This value is 0.01°C (0.02°F) above the nominal temperature in 2005, and 0.02°C (0.05°F) above 1998" WMO 2011
checkyoursources 6 months ago
funny, china pollutes about the same as us, but they have many times the population we have
if your smarter than glenn beck, do the math, an individual in the US pollutes more, on average than an individual in china
snakeboy144 6 months ago
People cooking food with animal dung and logs are not included and they live in poverty with VERY low life expectancy (huge amounts of pollution compared to natural gas). Industries use more than double energy to produce same amount of steel as USA and do so with NO pollution controls (very dirty). Our air and water quality has been improving constant for 30+ years and China is treating their country like one big sewer. How stupid you greens are not to support trade restrictions against china.
Albertkallal 6 months ago
@snakeboy144
You're assuming that emissions per capita is a reasonable means of comparison. But is it?
Suppose the USA took in millions of economic refugees, but provided them only subsistance living. Our emissions per capita would drop, so we'd look like we'd "improved". But obviously nothing concerning our emissions really changes in that hypothetical - we'd be no better or worse regarding our emissions than before we took on the refugees.
VeryEvilPettingZoo 6 months ago
Comment removed
VeryEvilPettingZoo 6 months ago
Comment removed
VeryEvilPettingZoo 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
(cont)
I think emissions per $ gdp is a better metric. It measures emissions given the amount of economic productivity (if comparing similar industrialization levels).
Now in terms of gdp, the US is roughly the size of the EU, and China is about 2/3 the size of the US. But the US and China are roughly equal in emissions, and the EU is much less. So the emissions per gdp scale says that the US is significantly worse than the EU, and significantly better than China, regarding our CO2 emissions.
VeryEvilPettingZoo 6 months ago
@snakeboy144 fag who cares who pollutes more
Agordon060 5 months ago
@snakeboy144 What is the statistical source for your statement? As far as I know, China is building approximately 3 new coal burning power plants _per_week_ with next to no environmental controls. Please direct me to the source that says Americans pollute more than the Chinese. Go and find even ONE American made product on the shelf of your local super store. You can't because we don't even have the domestic industry to do it! ALLL the junk comes from China, including the resulting pollution.
manosmodularsystems 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
watch?v=HbH05-JC9II Check it out.. Co2 pollution measurement done in pounds and in laymen terms. Easy to understand.
Ravalat 6 months ago
I'm sorry, if you listen to beck an believe him, you are a complete moron. ...I bet the little close up on his once fox show of his teary eyes got whoever likes him, didn't it?
buchedda 6 months ago
@buchedda
I guess then we are to believe your opinion on things then?
In other words you are going to decide based on your opinion whose opinion we are to trust? So you are now the self-appointed judge to tell us who we are to listen to based on your self appointed authority?
And by the way, the above video is not from fox but is from CNN.
Albertkallal 6 months ago
@Albertkallal First off, I was actually talking about his show on FOX, thanks though. Umm Secondly, where in those jumble of words did I say everything was to be based off of my own opinions. Thirdly if you really feel like I am the only person besides Beck you would have to take "orders" from, which is apparent that you do because of your wording, than that is sad because there are plenty more people beside me that are better. I am obliged though that you would think such a thing.
buchedda 6 months ago
Al Gore's climate scientists have found that CO2 emissions from the US are the sole cause for Global Warming and that carbon taxes implemented on the US, will stop Global Warming. China and India's CO2 emissions have nothing to do with it.
JoeJohn90 6 months ago
@JoeJohn90 Strawman. Read a book.
percy8ferry 6 months ago
"In an interview with USA Weekend, Glenn Beck said that he believes global warming. "You'd be an idiot not to notice the temperature change," he said, adding there's a legitimate case that it has been caused, at least in part, by mankind. "I'm willing to do anything but use the CFLs" (compact fluorescent light bulbs)."
terminalcommand 7 months ago
what ever happened to humans adapting to their environment, oh no god forbid a bit of water rising, we survived the iceage with a couple of stick, a bit of fire and one warm mammoth jacket, i think we can survive this easily, such fools people are
elements4561 7 months ago
i agree with glenn beck 100% he is right, this global warming idea is just a total scam, "i believe doing less things and using windmills from the 1800's will slow warming" lol
elements4561 7 months ago
@elements4561
It's a scam? Do you think the planet's thousands of climatologists are all in on a vast conspiracy? Or do you think they're just mistaken?
If you think it's a conspiracy of thousands, then what evidence do you have of that, what's their motivation, and how did they organize and implement this greatest scam in human history?
If you think the planet's climatologists are just in error, then I suppose you think your scientific knowledge & judgement about this is superior to theirs.
VeryEvilPettingZoo 7 months ago
Scientists actually go out, gather data and make an informed decision on the matter at hand. They don't sit around and make things up based on what they want to believe. Becck is a complete idiot and this will be the fall of the
Republican Party.
SoulSurvivor3989 7 months ago
Beck gets it wrong again.....1970s ice age predictions were predominantly media based. The majority of peer reviewed research at the time predicted warming due to increasing CO2. A survey of peer reviewed scientific papers from 1965 to 1979 show that few papers predicted global cooling (7 in total). Significantly more papers (42 in total) predicted global warming (Peterson 2008).
checkyoursources 8 months ago 5
Why should anyone be surprised that during a cherry picked time frame where the vast majority of years shows no cooling and you then you come here and tell me that the vast majority papers do not predict cooling? No kidding Mr. Sherlock, but exactly how stupid do you think we are? Pick a time frame in which most years show cooling and you see that science papers, the press, governments, UN, UNESCO, world leaders all were expressing concerns over reduced food production from cooling.
Albertkallal 8 months ago
@Albertkallal You are the one who posted the video claiming scientists were predicting cooling in the 1970's which is incorrect!
Actually the time period of 1965-1979 showed a slight cooling trend. Despite this most papers correctly predicted warming! It was after the 1970's when warming accelerated -most likely due to AGW. Please refer to the NASA temp record for clarification.
checkyoursources 8 months ago
@checkyoursources Bollox! I was there in those days of supposed global cooling.
m1aws 2 months ago
@m1aws 1970s ice age predictions were predominantly media based which is what you looked at in the 1970's rather than read the science itself. The majority of peer reviewed research at the time predicted warming due to increasing CO2. A survey of peer reviewed scientific papers from 1965 to 1979 show that few papers predicted global cooling (7 in total). Significantly more papers (42 in total) predicted global warming (Peterson 2008).
checkyoursources 2 months ago
@checkyoursources At least you admit not all peer reviewed papers are correct.However, the global warming papers are date based, since Margaret Thatcher put money on the table to prove AGW.
We have averaged +1C in 100 years with no acceleration and the past three years have seen cooling in direct argument ro certain major data sources. How average can our GW be?
m1aws 2 months ago
@m1aws You said:"since Margaret Thatcher put money on the table to prove AGW." -no scientific theory is "proven" but AGW happens to be the most likely explanation for the majority of warming since the 1970's. "We have averaged +1C in 100 years" -there are 6 degrees of change between temps and the last ice age. Thats an average of 1 degree every 1500 years so warming of 1 degree in 100 years is significant. "past three years have seen cooling" -2010 was the warmest on record according to the WMO
checkyoursources 2 months ago
@checkyoursources The word "likely" does not imply fact.
The WMO has no neutrality. Besides, temperature does not prove AGW. There is no factual records or proof to support it. I'm going in circles here.
The Holocene was warmer than now. We have barely hit the warm period of the middle ages! Must be all those farting horses.
Maggie T. Yes, please go see the video. "The Great Global Warming Swindle".
m1aws 2 months ago
@m1aws If something requires instant action and you wait for certainty in science you would wait forever! Science doesn't give us certainty or "proof" it gives us the most likely explanations for observations. AGW is a better explanation for current warming than any theory suggested so far.
"The Great Global Warming Swindle"is a terrible piece of infotainment broadcasting which is unsupported by science, check the wiki article on its misleading editing and disgruntled scientists.
checkyoursources 2 months ago
@checkyoursources No proof then only a basket of offerings.
When scientists, many from guys who actually are top dogs in .edu's who's primary skills are the very subject speak against it in simple plain inarguable facts, I listen. There was never any charge of "misleading". So I take is as true.
"Orbital forcing". Does not affect climate much, if seasonal, worse over 6 months. Yes, Greenland was once Green, like Antarctica.
m1aws 2 months ago
@m1aws Science isn't about "proof" or certainty, if it were then theories would never be improved on as they would be unable to change with new contradictory evidence look up falsification/disproof which IS a scientific term. Orbital forcing is believed to be responsible for the timing of the ice age cycles so saying it doesn't have any effect on climate is an oxymoron. 1) Please name a scientific paper that disproves AGW?
2) Name a scientific academy thats disagrees with AGW?
checkyoursources 2 months ago
@checkyoursources Good science finds the best answer for working engineering requirements. As things stand too many interests are hitting brick walls on bad theories.
Milankotvich cycles do exist but no matter how I play the numbers the equal and opposite in temperature come into play either a day or six months later. The reason the Arctic is smaller is merely from winds heating overland as they spiral in.
I made things I secretly never wanted in the hands of others but I made them. Go figure
m1aws 2 months ago
@m1aws 1) Please name a scientific paper that disproves AGW?
2) Name a scientific academy thats disagrees with AGW?
checkyoursources 2 months ago
@checkyoursources Only proves where the funding is decided from. Not the reality of the hypothesis.
Just been looking up Solar cycle predictions. All said (including weird theory sites) the next "high" will be a damp squib. Apart from one "edu" who's "improved computer model" says its going to be a big one. OOPS! Dated 2006. Trip, face, ar5e. come to mind.
m1aws 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@m1aws 1) Please name a scientific paper that disproves AGW?
2) Name a scientific academy thats disagrees with AGW?
checkyoursources 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The last decade was the hottest on modern record. - WMO
The benefits of a price on carbon outweigh the costs several times over. -Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change
The warming trend over 1970 to 2001 is greater than warming from both 1860 to 1880 and 1910 to 1940. GISS/ NOAA
checkyoursources 8 months ago
I agree work on the small things that mount up and dont just target global warming (i dnt beleve anyway). Were all fucked anwat if china doesnt join. And this crap about scientists who dont beleive, just not beleiving because they profit from it, do you not think governments who put taxes on people (i.e emissions trading sceme) profit, do you not think Al Gore profits every time you turn on your energy saving light bulb
missfranzfan 8 months ago
How can c02 be a warming factor? It comprises lees than 2% of the earths atmosphere.
Also, I thought than burning coal produced carbon monoxide not C02??
1Knowledgeable 8 months ago
@1Knowledgeable CO2 causes up to 26% of the GHG effect.You need to know the difference between % in air and % contribution to the greenhouse effect, they aren't the same. The primary greenhouse gases in the Earth's atmosphere are water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and ozone.e.g. Nitrogen makes up 78% of the atmosphere but it isn't a significant GHG because it has no net change in their dipole moment when they vibrate and hence are almost totally unaffected by infrared light.
TheDisproof 8 months ago
100% agree. Oxygen is 18% of air and co2 is not even 1%. Current measured % of co2 right now is 380PPM or 0.0380%. Thus current co2 is in the 1/300th of a % range. Co2 is much like a black coat of paint on a window. Each additional coat of paint does very little and we realized the effects of co2 long ago at much lower rates. This explains why we seen higher temperatures in the past with lower rates of co2. Co2 is simply not driving temperature as claimed by these tax and spend socialists.
Albertkallal 8 months ago
1970s ice age predictions were predominantly media based. The majority of peer reviewed research at the time predicted warming due to increasing CO2. A survey of peer reviewed scientific papers from 1965 to 1979 show that few papers predicted global cooling (7 in total). Significantly more papers (42 in total) predicted global warming (Peterson 2008). Glenn Beck didn't "fact-check " but i'm sure he gets a "fat check" every month. What a sh#tclown he is.
TheDisproof 8 months ago
But that study you quote is misleading. Why are you surprised in a study in which the vast majority of the years in that study do not show cooling then the majority of papers also do not show cooling? (no kidding Sherlock!). Try a time period with majority of years showing cooling and you find majority of the papers making the rounds will also show cooling! During these cooling periods the UN and UNESCO conferences show much worry and concerns about World Food production dropping due to cooling.
Albertkallal 8 months ago
@Albertkallal The emphasis was on the words "predicted warming due to increasing CO2". p.s.1965 to 1979 showed neither significant warming or cooling. next.
TheDisproof 8 months ago
je ne peux pas croire ce mec ! ce n'est pas de l'information mais de la propagande au capitalisme, a la consommation abusive, a la naïveté et a l’égoïsme et ce diffusé dans ces chères foyers américains gavés de leur cultures gâté, orgueilleuse et vindicatives. Il profite du buzz, de la vague de ne pas dire la même chose. le voila messie des martyres que se croit les privés de luxe et de décadence alors qu'il ne propose AUCUNE PREUVE contre le réchauffemen. je vous emmerdes procrastinateurs !
logoximer 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The last decade was the hottest on modern record. - WMO
The benefits of a price on carbon outweigh the costs several times over. -Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change
The warming trend over 1970 to 2001 is greater than warming from both 1860 to 1880 and 1910 to 1940. GISS/ NOAA
checkyoursources 8 months ago
how can you save 28 billion lives when the population of the world is only 7 billion?
Wittgensteinism 9 months ago 7
@Wittgensteinism "how can you save 28 billion lives when the population of the world is only 7 billion?" First you wait 120 years.. then you save the world!!
Ravalat 6 months ago
@Ravalat the Bible Some predictions says some thing about a famine
Also- in the same sentence (vs.) it says about some floods…
Wouldn’t it be easier to Obey God, that is the hard part in life
And it will be worth it… at least be moral, for the press and the media
adrianmolm715 6 months ago
@Wittgensteinism Are you kidding, or are you just that stupid?
gjaddajg 4 months ago 2
@gjaddajg Did you not hear the "skeptic" say at 6:00 that we can save 28 billions lives? Or are you deaf?
Wittgensteinism 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Wittgensteinism OK, you are just that stupid. *facepalm*
gjaddajg 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
the hadley centre data, shows clearly the warming trend over 1970 to 2001 is greater than warming from both 1860 to 1880 (1.01°C per century) and 1910 to 1940 (1.56°C/century). 1975-2005 shows 1.90°C/century. Look up the Hadley data yourself.
checkyoursources 9 months ago
Of course Glen, diversity of opinion is helpful and healthy. A vast array of retarded opinions however, is neither.
finchy633 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
If anyone here wants to learn about climate change check out Potholer54's series starting with this one
watch?v=52KLGqDSAjo
Drkstrong:
watch?v=NX6OnGEEphw&feature=channel_video_title
And Greenman3610:
watch?v=l0JsdSDa_bM&feature=channel_video_title
Richard482 9 months ago
this guy i a fool
brianhar100 9 months ago
And exactly what is it you disagreed with in the CNN video?
Albertkallal 9 months ago
@Albertkallal glenn beck is a mormon asking for scientific evidence, isnt that hypocracy? he is also has very little political knowledge let alone scientific, the man does not have his head screwed on correctly. over 97% of climate researchers believe that warming on the planet is human induced, now who are you going to trust, glenn beck, a loonitic doing the bidding of murdoch whos buddies in oil will lose money or logical, reasoned scientists? warming affects the 3rd world the most
FightTh3P0wer 8 months ago
97% agree on what? Phil Jones of CRU admitted current rates of warming are the same as the last two warming periods and yet we have more co2 today. Every science skeptic accepts that co2 can affect climate but there is NOT a consensus as to what rate man's co2 has. Man's co2 output is 3% compared to 97% of nature. We have not seen warming rates as predicted and claimed by IPCC models. We see temperatures on ground rising first and not in the air where co2 is supposed to trap this heat first.
Albertkallal 8 months ago
You seem to think that somehow there is a contradiction between religion and science. The church rejected Galileo's teaching because it failed their scientific scrutiny and they were upholding good scientific process. Galileo's claim of planets going around the sun in circles was false and today children know the difference between a circle and ellipse by grade 3. Galileo's claim of the sun being center of the universe was also incorrect. Galileo's claims failed under good scientific scrutiny.
Albertkallal 8 months ago
@Albertkallal yes but beck is a mormon, have you fucking read that shit, its fucking crazy, for him to point a finger at global warming and say thats untrue is just hypocritical, and becuase the evidence is strong, it is also irrelevent to most global warming hoax claims, becuase no matter what, humans have to stop deforistation, excessive use of finite fuels and litter these things all affect the planet, there is no argument about it
FightTh3P0wer 8 months ago
You are accepting what Al Gore says by an act of faith. You not done the science yourself and thus you are making an act of faith to accept what some person in a white lab coat or some purple smock is preaching to you. I fail to see how your position is any different than Beck making an act of faith on this matter. There is simply no evidence that man's co2 is driving current temperatures as claimed by the IPCC and thus you are making and act of faith to accept what is being told to you.
Albertkallal 8 months ago
@Albertkallal im not gonna say global warming is fact, but humans still have to change dramatically. and its hypocritical og beck, no one who believes religion can logically question global warming
FightTh3P0wer 8 months ago
What change you talking about to make? Every single pollution index we have from removing lead in gasoline, dioxins from pulp mills, and virtually every lake, air quality, and even pollution index measure we have has been SUBSTANTIALLY improved in the last 40 years in North America. We do not see smog bowels in CA like they had in the 70's. Only places treating the earth like a sewer is China and others that do not care. We enjoy best food, water, air quality compared to most nations.
Albertkallal 8 months ago
You are complaining about people making an act of faith and yet you're coming here and making faith based arguments. You are asking us to make an act of faith and believe in something based on someone else's witness and testimony to some experiment that you've not done. So we are to make of act of faith to accept this based on that person's testimony. I fail to see the difference as to why we should accept your testimony here as to someone else testimony of something that happened 2000 years ago
Albertkallal 8 months ago
@Albertkallal no 97% of climate researchers are saying that, and also deforestation, and fuel consumption have to decrease even if global warming isnt true, heard of smog, extintion of animals, turning natural habitats into wastelands, do you want the planet to look like a massive industrial farm, if not switch to renewable or infinite energy sources, heard of the massive mass of plastic in the pacific thats the size of texas, people need to change their act and soon it will law telling you
FightTh3P0wer 8 months ago
It is ridiculous to claim that 97% of researchers agree on that man's co2 output is the reason for increased mosquitoes and malaria as claimed by the IPCC. These IPCC claims are silly and are not due to man's co2 output. What smog? As stated air quality constantly improved over last 30-40 years despite increases in USA car usage. Countries outside of North America are who treat Earth like a sewer. How stupid is it that greens do not support trade restrictions with these polluting nations.
Albertkallal 8 months ago
@Albertkallal yeah north americ is perfect, are you fucking deluded, america, china , brazil these are the worst countries on the planet. plus america is the only developed one there so it is a lot harder for poorer nations to act, second do you then agree that humans have to change their act? and third a nation academy of sciences took a survey in 2010 and 97% of climate researchers agreed that warming on the planet was human induced, why the fuck should any1 listen to u, what r ur credentials
FightTh3P0wer 8 months ago
There is 30,000 signatures on the Organ petition that is full of researchers and scientists that do not agree that man's co2 is a problem. Over 700 scientists signed the congressional environment and public works report that again stated man's co2 is a not a problem. Your only scientists signing those reports are ones receiving socialist government funding and want more of that funding. Funny how when the scientist loses their socialist government funding for this position, their tune changes.
Albertkallal 8 months ago
I did not say we were perfect and it unbelievably dishonest on your part to make such statements on my behalf. The issue was do we need to improve and I stated we are clearly improving since every index from water to air to food has been constantly improved in North America over the last 40+ years. It's not my fault you do not know these facts. Go talk to China if you're going to preach about increasing pollution since we are the ones leading the way and setting an example for all to follow.
Albertkallal 8 months ago
@Albertkallal why would any1 listen to u over experts in this field? what qulifies you to make drastic judgements, are you the kind of person who doesnt believe in evolution
FightTh3P0wer 8 months ago
The issue is not listening to me but the fact that you come here to preach and pick as to what authority we should bow to. You become the self-appointed judge and jury as to who we are to listen to. You are the one coming here preaching and asking us to accept based on an act of your faith to accept peoples' witness to some event or some experiment that you not done. You are making an act of faith to accept these peoples as witness to these things and you accept this on faith, I do not.
Albertkallal 8 months ago
As for evolution, the issue comes down to the fact that we observe motion, yet objects cannot move themselves. So how can you explain the existence of motion when objects cannot move themselves? I await your answer.
Albertkallal 8 months ago
@Albertkallal right thats all i needed. lol you fucking moron. evelution is scientific fact, unless you are a supporter of creation "science". look at organisms that have evolved out of our vaccines, do ou belive in god?
FightTh3P0wer 8 months ago
glen beck is so right-wing that he's like Mussolini with his left leg blown off
looausgdhw85678 10 months ago
Beck's mormon church was officially racist until 1978.
beradification 10 months ago
So guilt by association? So we are to ignore the long attendance record of Obama to Al Sharp's church? Are you standing here and telling me that Obama views are the same as Al Sharp's then? So you mean Obama is anti Semite and is racest? In fact Obama does support black schools, black magazines, and even quotas to university based on your skin color being black. Do you have any quotes from Beck that even comes close to Obama support of Entrance to university based on your skin color?
Albertkallal 10 months ago
In 2010, global average temperature was 0.53°C (0.95°F) above the 1961-90 mean. This value is 0.01°C (0.02°F) above the nominal temperature in 2005, and 0.02°C (0.05°F) above 1998.Arctic sea-ice cover in December 2010 was the lowest on record,Over the ten years from 2001 to 2010, global temperatures have averaged 0.46°C (0.83°F) above the 1961-1990 average, and are the highest ever recorded for a 10-year period since the beginning of instrumental climate records. WMO
checkyoursources 10 months ago
@checkyoursources
I couldn't even find that name on the website
ecfinn1 10 months ago
@pandonodrim
I think I will... Keeping in mind of course that just anybody could say whatever they want about petition project or anything they don't like for the world to see...I'll get back to you
ecfinn1 10 months ago
Did anyone notice he said "think your Prius is saving the planet? Think again!" and then he went on a tangent about China?? He never made a point about the Prius???
MarkVondrasek 10 months ago
O my gosh! One whole article in Newsweek!?! (not a peer-reviewed journal).
Anyone who listens to this astronomically stupid moron needs to have their head examined.
Pandonodrim 10 months ago
Time magazine, Jun. 24, 1974
Article title: Another Ice Age?
the atmosphere has been growing gradually cooler for the past three decades. The trend shows no indication of reversing. Climatological Cassandras are becoming increasingly apprehensive.
Albertkallal 10 months ago
@Albertkallal O my gosh! One whole article in Time!?! (not a peer-reviewed journal). A survey of SCIENTIFIC literature of the time clearly shows an overwhelming number of scientists predicting global warming, not global cooling.
No you cannot post "1000s and 1000s of articles from that time period" showing global cooling - it is likely you've already posted most of what you could find. Those are articles in popular magazines, not peer-reviewed literature. This "cooling" scare is a total myth.
Pandonodrim 10 months ago
So you telling me that if we take a survey during a period where most years DO NOT show cooling, then most articles predict warming? Gee, no kidding Mr. Sherlock. How about you take a 10 or 15 year period with cooling and then quote how many articles predict or talk about cooling? So yes there is tons of articles and they become even more common during cooling periods. So we are to be surprised by a study that cherry picks articles during few years of cooling and few predict cooling? Too funny!
Albertkallal 10 months ago
@Albertkallal No, that's not the case at all. Scientific research that studies climate is not dependent on whatever current, short term trends are. I don't know where you got such an idea but it is completely false.
There is also a huge difference between what is talked about in the popular media (like Time and Newsweek magazines) and what is being discovered through scientific research and experiment, which is reflected in scientific journals. Those journals are what's important.
Pandonodrim 10 months ago
WEATHER CHANGE: POORER HARVESTS
Time Magazine, Monday, Nov. 11, 1974
Since the 1940s, the mean global surface temperature has fallen only about 1° F. But even this small drop has trimmed a week to ten days from the growing season in the middle latitudes that are the earth's breadbasket. Continued cooling could lead to agricultural disasters.
"Scientists disagree sharply about the cause of the earth's cooling"
Note in above quote, cooling is not debated..but only the cause!!!
Albertkallal 10 months ago
“The Earth’s Cooling Climate,” Science News, November 15, 1969.
“Colder Winters Held Dawn of New Ice Age,” Washington Post, January 11, 1970.
“Science: Another Ice Age?” Time Magazine, June 24, 1974.
“The Ice Age Cometh!” Science News, March 1, 1975.
“The Cooling World,” Newsweek, April 28, 1975.
“Scientists Ask Why World Climate is Changing; Major Cooling May Be Ahead,” New York Times, May 21, 1975.
"In the Grip of a New Ice Age?” International Wildlife July-August, 1975
Albertkallal 10 months ago
@Albertkallal How many of them are peer reviewed. journalists swap stories, few write original research then have it peer reviewed.1970s ice age predictions were predominantly media based. The majority of peer reviewed research at the time predicted warming due to increasing CO2.Few scientific papers predicted global cooling (7 in total). Significantly more papers (42 in total) predicted global warming see(Peterson 2008). .
checkyoursources 10 months ago
Point is there not JUST ONE article on cooling in Newsweek. Next point it is it laughable to quote a study in which the vast majority of the years quoted do not show cooling. Why would you be surprised by the results of such a study? Try different time period and you get vastly different numbers. Even the UN (UNSCO) in the early 60's was expressing concerns about cooling and food production but these papers are not included in your study which only looks at later papers with few cooling years.
Albertkallal 10 months ago
@Albertkallal 1) Say which years in the 1960's/1970's showed warming? The survey was from 1965-1979.
2) You are aware that 1940-1960 was a time with very high particulate levels (partly from fossil fuels) reducing temps globally.
I suggest you actually read Peterson 2008 first.
checkyoursources 10 months ago
Only about 5 years had significant cooling statistic wise, and DOUBLE the amount of years in that time frame did NOT SHOW cooling. The study amounts to cherry picked years. UN + UNESCO conferences occurred in the early 60's in regards to cooling. The press lagged in reporting concerns about some ice age and cooling. It was however not just one article and if you telling me popular press hyped up the scientists on cooling then I agree but they are doing the same today with global warming.
Albertkallal 10 months ago
As for the cooling trend, then why did we see the same cooling trend from 1885 to about 1910? That cooling trend and cycle been around for a VERY long time. So 1910 to 1945 it warms and then it cools? So the cooling trend + cycle before that was also soot? Too funny!
Albertkallal 10 months ago
@Albertkallal Climate reacts to whatever forces it to change at the time; humans are now the dominant forcing. In fact the peer-reviewed research into past climate change comes to the opposite conclusion to your view that the majority of warming since the 1970's was driven by natural forcings. No known natural forcing fits the fingerprints of observed warming except anthropogenic greenhouse gases.
checkyoursources 10 months ago
Not correct at all. Phil Jones of the CRU and even the science advisors to the British Parliament ALL AGREED and stated that the RATE of warming we see today is not ANY different than the last two warming periods. Why are they the same then? Issue as always is how much of the 3% of co2 output by man compared to the 97% of nature output in one year is driving temperatures. We not seen a warmer year since 1998 and worse when you take out urban heat effects the case becomes even weaker for CAGW.
Albertkallal 10 months ago
@Albertkallal From the BBC interview:Jones: "I'm 100% confident that the climate has warmed...most of the warming since the 1950s is due to human activity". To compare the periods they need to be the same length of time (which they weren't)to avoid anomaly bias, when we do so we find 0.13 ± 0.03 °C per decade in last half of 20thC, versus 0.07 °C ± 0.02 °C per decade in the first half, Humans have increased CO2 by 40%. 2010 was warmer than 1998-WMO Urban heat effect just 0.002 °C per decade!
checkyoursources 10 months ago
Ah but I not talking about some stupid and silly radio interview. We talking about a written statement and request by Lord Monckton who wrote to Phil Jones and ALSO to the British Parliament. BOTH the science advisors AND ALSO Phil Jones were in agreement. You can see the question and results in my video called "Lord Monckton shows IPCC Pachauri is dishonest about global warming after being corrected"
Albertkallal 10 months ago
@Albertkallal The warming trend over 1970 to 2001 is greater than warming from both 1860 to 1880 (1.01°C per century)and 1910 to 1940 (1.56°C/century). 1975-2005 shows 1.90°C/century. Look up the Hadley data yourself.
checkyoursources 10 months ago
Both Phil Jones and the climate advisors to the British Parliament all agreed the rates of warming of the last 3 periods are the same rate. Now Phil Jones and the scientists to BP are lying again? So if funding comes from oil it must be wrong and socialist funding that comes from tax dollars means we also must reject that science since they are the SAME ones asking for more funding and socialist taxes to redistribute wealth. Why no tax funded government scientist correcting the IPCC then?
Albertkallal 10 months ago
@Albertkallal I have no doubt your source was incorrect or carefully cherry picked with different length periods of time (which will create average bias and statistical drift). Would you care to supply your source.
My source, the hadley centre data, shows clearly the warming trend over 1970 to 2001 is greater than warming from both 1860 to 1880 (1.01°C per century) and 1910 to 1940 (1.56°C/century). 1975-2005 shows 1.90°C/century. Look up the Hadley data yourself.
checkyoursources 10 months ago
And I have no doubt your source was cherry picked and you picked arbitrary end points for your case. I guess what is good for the goose is good for the gander. So now you telling me that Pill Jones and the science advisors to the British Parliament cherry picked the numbers to make incorrect conclusions? Thus they are so incompetent they fell victim to a scam in which points chosen were not acceptable? This would make them incompetent, would it not? Too funny!
Albertkallal 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Albertkallal My source, the hadley centre data, shows clearly the warming trend over 1970 to 2001 is greater than warming from both 1860 to 1880 (1.01°C per century) and 1910 to 1940 (1.56°C/century). 1975-2005 shows 1.90°C/century. Look up the Hadley data yourself.
You seem unwilling to give a source for your comment about warming rates? Why is that?
checkyoursources 10 months ago
@Albertkallal Please source the monckton letter to jones/parliament so we can judge for ourselves.
p.s. look up Monckton myths skeptical science
checkyoursources 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Albertkallal In 2010, global average temperature was 0.53°C (0.95°F) above the 1961-90 mean. This value is 0.01°C (0.02°F) above the nominal temperature in 2005, and 0.02°C (0.05°F) above 1998. Over the ten years from 2001 to 2010, global temperatures have averaged 0.46°C (0.83°F) above the 1961-1990 average, and are the highest ever recorded for a 10-year period since the beginning of instrumental climate records. WMO.
checkyoursources 10 months ago
I can post 1000s and 1000s of articles from that time period. Only one article? You are funny and silly person.
Albertkallal 10 months ago
@Albertkallal And if you were to actually examine the scientific literature of the time you would find they were talking about the cycles of glaciation - and the trend towards the next ice age... thousands and thousands of years in the future. Not the effects of man-made climate change which will be affecting us within the next few hundred.
For someone who obviously enjoys looking up stuff online you might try reading some actual science for a change.
Pandonodrim 10 months ago
@Pandonodrim
Glenn Beck is awesome....And I am a IB student with a 4.0 GPA at one of the best high schools in the country so why don't you get your head examined.
ecfinn1 10 months ago
@ecfinn1 Is IB "international business" or what? Your IQ, HS, and GPA prove nothing except that smart people can be dumb as shit sometimes too. I've known many such people.
But since we're trading credentials: I have a BA in Communication Arts and have been working in the environmental field (mostly as a researcher and organizer) for over 4 years now. I deal directly with coal plants, their emissions, and how they impact and affect global warming (amongst other things).
Beck is a fraud.
Pandonodrim 10 months ago
@Pandonodrim
You know what, nothing you say can change my view on politics and I'm sure you're the same way so I won't even try. I say this because I am one of 100 students (high school/college) in the nation to be accepted into Patriot Academy run by Rick Green who does a radio show with David Barton. (He's a good friend of Beck's) Also, have you ever heard of the John and Ken Show? I was on that show during the running for California governor and Jerry Brown was afraid to talk to me-pathetic
ecfinn1 10 months ago
@ecfinn1 It sounds like you are doing quite well for yourself. I just need to caution you against believing the misinformation that's being generated at an alarming rate in the media and many places online.
If you want to know the truth about global warming science then look to the peer reviewed literature. You seem quite smart enough to be able to do that, and to tell the difference between actual science and propaganda/slander.
Forget the politics - I'm just talking about logic and reason.
Pandonodrim 10 months ago
@Pandonodrim
With your talk of logic and reason, what do say to the 31,000 scientists (9,000 of which are Ph.D.'s) who all reject the idea of global warming at Petition Project? And why would John Coleman (Founder of The Weather Channel) sue Al Gore for his scam. And why would the UN Climate Panel's Chair, Rajendra Pachauri, admit that the whole thing was a hoax made up by Al Gore? And how come New York just experienced its coldest winter in recorded history last January?
ecfinn1 10 months ago
@ecfinn1 The "petition project" is a sham and a scam orchestrated by politicians, namely James Inhofe. 5 minutes of research online will prove this to you. Most of those "scientists" aren't scientists - only a handful (about 15 or so if I remember correctly) are even climatologists. It is a politically motivated piece of propaganda with absolutely no scientific credibility behind it at all.
John Coleman is a charlatan. He is a journalist, not a scientist.
Pandonodrim 10 months ago
@ecfinn1 Being founder of "The Weather Channel" doesn't mean squat. His lawsuit is not going anywhere because it has no legs to stand on. Again, just more political posturing and nonsense.
I highly doubt Pachauri admitted "that the whole thing was a hoax made up by Al Gore." Please provide a reference for this outrageous claim. I'm sure it is a misquote, if even a quote...
Pandonodrim 10 months ago
@ecfinn1 Weather is not Climate. This is the most common denier myth out there. It was winter, it gets cold and snows in winter. Localized weather is completely different from global climate. Overall the earth is still warming.
Pandonodrim 10 months ago
@Pandonodrim "I am deeply ashamed for having unwittingly perpetuated such a massive fraud on the governments of the world," said Mr. Pachauri.
ecfinn1 10 months ago
@ecfinn1 When I said provide a reference I meant get me the source - not put quotes around what you're saying Pachauri said. I need to verify your source material and check the context of your quote.
Comeon, haven't you written any research papers yet? You know the drill. I need a link. You can't post it here (YouTube doesn't allow hyperlinks in comments) so you'll have to send it to me in a private message.
Pandonodrim 10 months ago
@Pandonodrim"It turns out that all that data from satellites and radiosondes, surface temperature readings, borehole analysis, measurements of rising sea levels, melting glaciers and permafrost, phenological data, and proxy reconstructions of paleoclimatic conditions were all fabricated out of thin air by my former friend, Al Gore. Now that I think about it, I suppose that we should have instituted some sort of peer-review process before publishing such alarming conclusions."
ecfinn1 10 months ago
@ecfinn1 You didn't even give a name on who this is supposed to be - Pachauri again? As I said in my previous post I need the actual reference, not just words in quotations.
Pandonodrim 10 months ago
@Pandonodrim
Who told you that Petition Project is a scam? Left wing media? Or is that your assumption?
ecfinn1 10 months ago
@ecfinn1 It is not an assumption. Do some actual research about that project, who is behind it and who the actual signatories of it are. There are plenty of reputable sources you can find online that cover it and debunk it. Don't take my word for it - research it yourself. That's what I did.
Pandonodrim 10 months ago
@ecfinn1 When names like gerri haliwell, the spice girl, are on the petition of supposed expert scientists that should make you relaise that the petition is a joke.
checkyoursources 10 months ago
@checkyoursources
Can't a scientist have a sense of humor?
ecfinn1 10 months ago
@ecfinn1 Sure, but to claim that the Oregon petition signatories are verifiable is a joke in itself. I prefer Doran 2009 amd anderegg 2010, both are verifiable and indictae that humans are causing the majority of recent global warming which is the position of the Academies of Science from 19 countries plus many scientific organizations that study climate science. More specifically, around 95% of active climate researchers actively publishing climate papers endorse the position.
checkyoursources 10 months ago
@ecfinn1 Ahh, International Baccalaureate. Yeah, that doesn't mean shit kid. I mean, good for you and all - and you should be proud of your academic accomplishments. But you need to pull your head out of your ass.
Beck is a charlatan and a liar. You need to educate yourself more on communication theory and the art of propaganda.
You might also be well served to research the crap he talks about for yourself. It doesn't take much work or time to find out the truth.
Pandonodrim 10 months ago
@Pandonodrim
Whatever...at least you have the nads to confront a 15 year old unlike moron moonbeam. Kudos to you.
ecfinn1 10 months ago
@ecfinn1 You're only 15?
Pandonodrim 10 months ago
@ecfinn1 And by that I don't mean to sound condescending in the slightest. Good for you for speaking out and taking such an involved stance on these issues while still just a teenager.
But I would caution you to remember the difference between intelligence and knowledge. Between smarts and experience. You may be quite bright, but are you wise? Always question your assumptions and always ask why you think what you think.
Pandonodrim 10 months ago
@Pandonodrim
And how come NASA head Michael Griffin state that Global Warming wasn't a problem we should wrestle with? How did The Telegraph newspaper publish Dr. Morner's ideas about rise of sea levels being the greatest lie ever told? And why did Australian journalist Andrew Bolt call it the greatest scandal in history? Why did Britain just experience its coldest winter since 1683 last December. Scientists have proven that climate has randomly changed for years not because of us
ecfinn1 10 months ago
@ecfinn1 Please provide a reference for your claim about Griffin as well as the Telegraph article, I don't know who Morner is (it's quite possible he was wrong, but that doesn't mean the consensus on AGW is at all erroneous).
I don't know who Bolt is but he probably said that because he's a charlatan (just guessing, but give me some references and I'll research it).
Again re: Britain: local weather is not the same as global climate. Scientists know very well why and how the climate changes.
Pandonodrim 10 months ago
Over the ten years from 2001 to 2010, global temperatures have averaged 0.46°C (0.83°F) above the 1961-1990 average, and are the highest ever recorded for a 10-year period since the beginning of instrumental climate records: WMO 2011
Arctic sea-ice cover in December 2010 was the lowest on record: WMO 2011 .
checkyoursources 10 months ago
search Roy Sproule on YOUTuBE to see some great aRTwork
fsfs9521 10 months ago
Dylan Rattigan has challenged Beck to a debate on the global climate issues, but Beck for some reason has not met this challenge. COWARD=Beck
lisabob22 11 months ago
@lisabob22 Global warming is a scam and they are spraying our skies and diverting weather to make it appear as if global warming exists.
QUEENBEACHA 11 months ago
@QUEENBEACHA
And the #1 price for US conspiracy theories goes to....: QUEENBEACHA !!!
nigelelsass 11 months ago
@nigelelsass Lol, thanks but seriously this is no conspiracy go and research TAP it is a Government document that provides information on the Aerosol program and go and look up Kucinich's (D) bill HR 2977 which calls for the banning of chemtrails and weather modification in which the bill claims is being used as a weapon. This bill details many programs that our Government is using and proves once and for all this is no conspiracy. (:
QUEENBEACHA 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
you quit copying Alex Jones and be a real reporter
jimmyjam7021 11 months ago
TG4GB
1pt21jigawatt 11 months ago
glenn beck talks to guys from scandinavian countries? is glenn beck a socialist? just asking questions...
MrZippy88 11 months ago
Honestly, I cant even watch the news anymore, its so hard to tell truth from fiction in a world where everyone just wants to make money at no cost.
rooroo4105 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
WHO'S A LIAR? CLIMATE CRIMINAL Exxon was caught funding a huge disinformation campaign about global warming. This is one of the reasons so many people don't understand the realities of global warming, or they are complicit or participating in the criminal disinformation scam. Read the report: Smoke, Mirrors & Hot Air: How ExxonMobil Uses Big Tobacco’s Tactics to Manufacture Uncertainty on Climate Science -- ucsusa . org/publications/catalyst/exxon-exposed . html
gregjalbert 11 months ago
Koch Industries: Secretly Funding the Climate Denial Machine: greenpeace . org/usa/campaigns/global-warming-and-energy/polluterwatch/koch-industries -- Billionaire oilman David Koch and his brother Charles (Koch Industries) have quietly funneled $50 million to climate-denial front groups that are working to delay policies and regulations aimed at stopping global warming is no joking matter. WHO'S A LIAR? PROSECUTE DISINFORMATION CRIMINALS.
gregjalbert 11 months ago
Lets not forget Al Gore well on his way to becoming world's first carbon billionaire. Lets not forget IPCC and corrupt UN pushing for new carbon taxes as a means to push socialism on a world wide scale. The bankers love those greens since they will make billions by trading those carbon credits. You green whack jobs pushing bio fuels to burn food in cars in place of feeding children has resulted in food riots and starving children around the world. Greens = murder of children and socialism.
Albertkallal 11 months ago
@Albertkallal : WHAT A BULLSHIT !!!
CHILDREN ARE DYING BECAUSE DUMB GREEDY AMERICANS BURN 1/6th of the worldwide CORN IN LESS THAN 25 MPG CARS instead of adopting 60 MPG cars
AMERICANS ARE SO DUMB AND GREEDY, THEY DO NOT GIVE A SHIT ABOUT THE EFFICIENT USE OF RESOURCES which is a question of survival for people.
I mostly use public transportation - and as a backup have a TDI car with 60MPG (that is if I need to drive) - what about you hypocrit-in-chief ????
nigelelsass 11 months ago
Base prices in world food stuffs have gone through MASSIVE increases. World food bank stated only a small % of increases in food prices is due to energy costs and MOST of the increase in food prices around the world is due to bio fuel programs. Even Italy is converting wheat into ethanol. Commodity markets are such that burning surplus of food in cars causes HUGE increases in food prices. Yes it is a FACT that children are starving today due to the greens pushing this stupid policy.
Albertkallal 11 months ago