All David needs to do is ask most Americans if they think climate change is happening. They'll say,"No, it's a baseless idea. We're Americans-God's favorite people next to the Israelis, and as such, we're expected to drive huge SUVs and consume the planet's God-given infinite resources like locusts. We can do anything because God said He wouldn't destroy the planet ever again until...well...Jesus does upon his return. Yeah, that makes sense."
@Slave2PaperWithInkOn You have to watch some clips of certain American politicos talking. The concept is that because it will be a divine battle that destroys the world, God won't let the world be destroyed by man. Free will doesn't extend to destruction of the planet. So go ahead, consume, consume, consume. It's a playground made just for us.
To anyone who thinks man induced global warming is not real, just watch other one of these rants, called "burden of proof" /watch?v=SI5ulKiZAoE&feature=relmfu
while i believe in climate change, i don't believe in human induced global warming. the earth's temperature was very high in the middle ages too, what was causing global warming back then? all the horse drawn carriages?
@BassLiberators and is woth noing that was merely a european thing, theres no data to suggestthat jump in temperatures happened elsewhere other than europe.
@soundslave .. if you cared to look at what i was replying to, youd notice i was referring to the phenomena of the medieval warm period. the key is the word medieval.
im not too sure why it occured since i havent the expertise, nor is it really somethoing id rather spend ,my time on, id rather concern myself with the actuall events OF the medieval periods i.e vikings, crusades, seiges, knights and longbowmen... etc
@BassLiberators "i don't believe in human induced global warming" because you're a moron. i'm sorry, i really am. but if you haven't got it by now, you're either a troll, or just fucking stupid.
@disqotube Human induced global warming does occur, but not nearly at the levels people believe. Most of the statistics and facts are exaggerated, or even completely made up. There is a good reason this is the case, and it comes down to politics. It sounds a lot better for a politician to say: "The world is going to BURN and I can fix it" than "The world might get slightly warmer over the next few hundred years, but don't worry, I can supply you with a giant ice pack".
@disqotube Human induced global warming does occur, but not nearly at the levels people believe. Most of the statistics and facts are exaggerated, or even completely made up. There is a good reason this is the case, and it comes down to politics. It sounds a lot better for a politician to say: "The world is going to BURN and I can fix it" than "The world might get slightly warmer over the next few hundred years, but don't worry, I can supply you with a giant ice pack".
@disqotube Human induced global warming does occur, but not nearly at the levels people believe. Most of the statistics and facts are exaggerated, or even completely made up. There is a good reason this is the case, and it comes down to politics. It sounds a lot better for a politician to say: "The world is going to burn and only I can fix it" than "The world might get slightly warmer over the next few hundred years, but don't worry, I can supply you with a giant ice pack".
man made climate change is bullshit. Whatever facts he's referring are so flawed (such bad data, almost useless) They tell us to open our eyes, yet they remain blinded by their own agenda -support proper science, not 'the next big thing' god sake look at swine flu or and other shit that the media and politicians blow out of proportion.
it just seems like pissing into the wind; rinsing out baked bean tins when other countries can do what they want. Its all about money, not saving the planet and i want no part of it until that changes
@MrRay523 its worth pointing out that the fact chlimate change affects the whole planet. its a useful vehicle to make people address OTHER environmental issues thatscientists have been increasingly apprehensive about, like the clearing of forestry areas , the fact rivers are losing their water, losses of coastal mangrives which have alot more benefit than would imagine a smelly swamp would.
The reason there are so many Climate Change "sceptics" is because of all the idiots trying to treat this chore as joyous. That sets off people's bullshit-alarms and they resist it.
In a way they are like religious folk who insist chastity and banning fun foods is great, only their god is probably not real, and climate change probably is.
He's right. Fossil fuels are fantastic in terms of actual use: fill up a big plane with high-octane jet fuel, and you can fly 300 people halfway around the planet. It's a goddamn shame we're running into such annoying consequences. Since the facts are what they are, we need to invent better technology, without the same problems, so we can keep doing bloody fun stuff like driving fast.
@MurrayHerts Scientists around the world all or at least a great portion (we are talking about 95%+) that say there IS climate change. the question is where it is ONE HUNDRED PERCENT our fault or not. thats the problem. i cant prove 100% that smoking is bad for you or causes cancer but it is widely believed anyways. to think that we cant legally prove it with such a fucked justice system should come as to no surprise.
@MurrayHerts that true but at the same time we cant depend on fossil fuels forever, and we cant keep cutting down forests or dumping loads of toxic chemicals into the rivers and etc...we need to find a more sustainable way to live. climate change is real and it is happening. the question is can we stop it? if not then what do we need to do to adapt?
Ugh, we're having a climate debate here, of all places? I just went to the comments looking for something important, namely if anyone heard what he said after the last 'stroke'. Now I have to go and look it up.
And just like David Mitchell, while watching world-wide havoc, I want to be well fed and watered, dry, not cold or hot and sit around not really givig a shit. Or at least appear to be academically detached, like some Buda in a red shirt. A nice soft comfy flannel red shirt. While pretending to care, at the same time as I abandon hope. No, it really is the fault of James Watt. Now was he English or Scottish? The Welsh are the only innocents in the once great britain. They'll inherit the earth.
Nothing, on a global scale, is, has ever been or forever in the future will be, SIMPLE. Someone famous, or someone who should be famous and recognised as such, said that... I SAID IT. Yes me, myself and I know that rising CO2 is an existential threat to civilisation. Just as endless growth on this finite Earth is, given enough time, which is running out. I only hope to live long enough to see a good billion of other people die of the various maladies - drought, disease, war, lust for power.
@mikeswbr I agree. Though I'd actually call it serious humour/comedy. And no wonder people complained about the red shirt. I once bought a red shirt, and I even wore it for one day. After work I tried to catch a taxi and up untill that day had no trouble. I soon realised it was the red shirt. So I walked to the train station. I wonder what happened to that red shirt? Well I know it never keft by taxi.
The worst predictions of climate scientists are a few degrees over a hundred years. Compared to habitat destruction, species extinction and REAL POLLUTION, global warming is a joke and a dangerously side-tracking one at that. People talk about ocean levels rising, don't you know its a guess? If the air is warmer then it absorbs more water. It was significantly warmer in medieval times and we weren't all drowned by the ocean, learn some history.
@Hashishin13 A few degrees rising and falling in your local area might be nothing really, but a few degrees globally is a big deal, especially in merely a few hundred years. It messes with the weather extremes, the ocean currents and many other things that need to be in a finely tuned balance. It might not seem a lot, but in the big picture it's a significant figure. I think that's a problem with climate change, people can't seem to wrap their heads around the scale of the thing.
@TheBanile The scale is 3 goddamn degrees, its nothing. Where I live we have temperature changes of over 70 degrees in a year. Also go look at the medieval warm period, it was warmer then today. Climate change is fueled primarily by government and the scientists on it's payroll. The story and effects keep changing but the end result stays the same, more power to government. In the 70's everyone was scared about a new ice age and global cooling! Then warming and now change, oOo scary.
@Hashishin13 Like I said, it may be 'only' 3 degrees or so, but those three degrees globally and over a relatively shorter period of time can have a major effect on various weather systems, oceanic currents etc that can produce a a sort of snowball effect, tipping it off-balance to the global-climate we are used to.
Changes in the name and the terms, and it's effects, are due to more extensive scientific research, particularly over the recent years and thus a better understanding.
@TheBanile Within recorded history the world has been both warmer and colder then it is now, by much more then 3 degrees. There was no catastrophe whatsoever. You are fearing the predictions of doom from the same people that can't predict tomorrow's weather.
@Hashishin13 It's not going to be an earth-shattering catastrophe I agree, but the world is certainly going to change and it's going to change rather more quickly than we'd like or we'd be able to deal with. Yes, the world has been colder and warmer, but just because it didn't cause an end to the world didn't mean it wasn't a significant point. The main problem is not that we predict it changing but that it's going to continue to change rather than reaching a careful equilibrium.
@TheBanile Change how and to what extent? Changing all the way up to 3 degrees in a hundred years is laughable as a concern. Blame tsunamis and other natural disasters on 3 degrees change is just fooling yourself, the weather has been both hotter and colder IN WRITTEN HISTORY and there was nothing written about horrible natural disasters.
Carbon emissions are a red herring that will give the government more control over us while distracting us from real environmental issues.
@Hashishin13 "The scale is 3 goddamn degrees, its nothing." I believe the difference in average global temperature between now and the last ice age is about 4 degrees. If 4 degrees less leads to icecaps over Europe then 3 degrees more sounds a little less trivial? And yes I know ice ages are caused by changes in the earths orbit not co2 but the effect is the same.
@benwalpole95 I don't know that there is "climate change" since the definition keeps changing. If there is I doubt it is man made. Even if it is man-made I doubt that the affects are even remotely like what people tell us they will be. Lastly the way politicians propose we should "try to limit the greenhouse effect" is by taxing our main method of providing energy, burning fossil fuels which will conveniently be putting money into those same politicians hands and then pockets.
There is obvious conflict of interest when people like Al Gore propose forcing carbon credits on all mankind while being heavily invested in a new carbon ratings company.
Even if that weren't the case by taxing industry in the name of preventing some vague theoretical problem in the future we will be destroying our standard of living and economy in the present.
The fear mongers try to make this a pressing danger but there's nothing solid at all.
@benwalpole95 Okay since you so clearly understand it then tell me what they have settled on, bearing in mind that in the 70s it was global cooling and a new ice age, in the 90s it was global warming, and now its climate change. So what does climate change mean? What is the evidence that suddenly gives credibility to the people who were predicting the exact opposite 30 years ago, the same people who can't predict tomorrows weather? These are meteorologists after all.
@Hashishin13 The effect of CO2 on the atmosphere is not something you can debate. Clearly we are having a negative affect on our environment, to deny that would be ignorant. I'm not saying we should all panic, as it is certainly possible that this recent rise is just a random fluctuation, but since we understand we are harming our environment, why sit back and do nothing? You're obsessed with the political side of things.
@benwalpole95 "The effect of CO2 on the atmosphere is not something you can debate."
I can debate whatever I want. I see no causal link between co2 and "climate change". There are many people claiming conflicting things. The temperature has been both significantly warmer and colder in recorded history and so all the fear seems entirely unjustified.
CO2 isn't some toxin or pollution, it's an entirely natural gas that has been prominent throughout the history of all life.
@Hashishin13 greenhouse gases absorb IR radiation, changing the electromagnetic energy into kinetic energy, passing it onto to neighbouring molecules by convection and heating up the atmosphere. This property of these gases is scientifically proven, not debatable. You can carry out experiments to show it, scientists have not just guessed this from the fact that temperatures are rising. I am not saying that this is the sole reason for rising temperatures, but it has an effect that we cant ignore.
@benwalpole95 There are literally hundreds of different types of natural sources of CO2 emissions which are found all over the globe. We are also floating on a thin crust of rock covering a vast reserve of liquid rock known as magma which makes up a huge portion of the Earth's mass, and space. On top of that we are bombarded by a star which is millions of times the size of earth and by definition is one vast nuclear reaction. Yet it's car exhaust that is warming the earth?
@Hashishin13 Yes, there are many more natural sources of co2, but they are balanced out by nature in the carbon cycle. The natural sources of co2 emit it, but they also absorb it, and there is a rough balance. About 40% of human emissions are absorbed, but the rest stays in the atmosphere. This upset the balance. The carbon cycle cannot absorb all this new, man-made co2.
@benwalpole95 It is balanced? Yea all those ice ages then warm periods really seem like a balance to me. There is no way to say conclusively that any warming is man made. AS I told the other guy, there are recorded periods within the last 1000 years that were both warmer and cooler then the current temperature.
@Hashishin13 Deforestation continues, which means the total amount of carbon being trapped is decreasing, while CO2 still increases. Also, there is a level of CO2 concentration where plants actually start to die off.
You don't know very much about science, do you? That is what scientists say when they are talking to non-scientists, and they're simplifying from a number like 41.23464532245674%. Or if they're otherwise simplifying their results so you can get your head around it.
@Hashishin13 Ignoring anything else, the overwhelming majority of the scientific community believes in man-made climate change. And arguing it is similar to arguing that you can create infinite energy using some magnet method that nobody has ever thought of before.
Of course if you don't believe that (and I won't press further) you can do what Mitchell says in another Soapbox. "Why chance it?" You lose little by reducing and recycling etc why not try it.
@plukerpluck "And arguing it is similar to arguing that you can create infinite energy using some magnet method that nobody has ever thought of before."
Arguing a lack of evidence for grandiose and far reaching claims is the exact polar opposite of arguing that you have evidence for grandiose and far reaching claims. The climate change people are far more like the zero point energy people then I am.
"You lose little by reducing and recycling etc why not try it."
Taxing all energy production would vastly lower quality of life and add massively to governmental bureaucracy which already strangles business and the economy and will only do it more with "carbon taxes". It isn't trivial at all. You know why we emit so much more CO2 then developing nations? They have no industry or economy to speak of, going to where they are will strangle ours.
Don't you find it just a tiny bit strange that you are this super sceptical about science when it comes to global warming(which there happens to be alot of money in denyig), even though the consensus is bigger than in most other fields. Yet you blindly belive in science regarding everything else?
NASA says global warming is true, then I suppose you also don't belive anything NASA says about our solar system? Or else you are not a sceptic, just a hypocrite.
@TheSaltyAdmiral NASA is a governmental agency, I trust their photos of other planets as they are clear as day. Their claims about the climate in 100 years time are far less clear, and what does a space agency have to do with meteorology?
The climate scientists are the same people who can't predict TOMORROWS WEATHER why would you trust them for a 100 year prediction? Physicists make lazers and guns, biologists medicine. Climatologists? Erroneous predictions.
If you are this ignorant about how climate science works I can understand your doubt. However, the reality is diffrent. Climate science is one of the broadest fields of science, drawing upon the knowledge of many sciences. So if you don't belive it, you really doubt science in general.
Also, do you REALLY belive meteorolgist cant predict tomorros weather? Tell that to those who RELY on them every single day.
Science is as good as it is because of the scientific method.
@TheSaltyAdmiral "Also, do you REALLY belive meteorolgist cant predict tomorros weather? Tell that to those who RELY on them every single day."
Go ask the people who rely on them every day, they will tell you how unreliable they are.
"Science is as good as it is because of the scientific method."
The scientific method relies on controlled experiments and repeatable, with making reliable predictions as proof of it's accuracy. The meteorologists can't make em.
And the best, most trustworthy source for science is the peer reviewed science journals, like Nature.
Try using your so called scepticism on the "sceptics" too, like Monckton ect, and you will see they crumble like a tower of sand.
This might help: /watch?v=eUB4j0n2UDU
Also, for all your sceptic arguments, this site has gathered in debt explanations on what the science REALLY says: Google "sceptical science myths" and see the first link.
@TheSaltyAdmiral I don't give a shit about monckton, science isn't about disproving individuals its about providing convincing evidence. Everyone acknowledges that the globe has been both warmer and colder then it is now, WITHIN RECORDED HISTORY. So how can they possibly claim that the NEW CO2 emissions are causing it? How can they get away with doomsday predictions that they use to justify draconian new regulations when we went through warm periods without a scratch?
@Hashishin13 "There is no way to say conclusively that any warming is man made."
Did I not just explain to you how that is not true? The properties of greenhouse gases that result in them trapping heat have been scientifically proven.
@benwalpole95 Yes greenhouse gases hold heat, I know. A brick holds heat too, does taking one from inside my warm house and putting it out into the cold winter warm the earth or cool the brick? Two facts don't make a theory. As I have said before the earth has been both warmer and colder then it is now, we recorded it and it was long before any noticeable emissions, where do climate changers address this?
@Hashishin13 I understand that the Earth has been warmer and colder, and it is possible that the effect of greenhouse gases is so tiny compared to natural fluctuations in temperature that they will never make any significant difference. But if there's even a chance that the current temp. raise is our fault, do you not want to make sure we don't destroy our environment? I don't think the attitude of "It's probly not our fault, everything will work out hopefully" is an intelligent one.
@benwalpole95 I can agree with your logic however the option the govements take to push voters they are doing something is to over tax fuel, cars ect and lower taxes on say bikes. In reality many places need cars and making the price to have one go up only places undue strain on the little guy. What would be better is for governments to fund alternative projects to substitute what we use now.
@TheOneSeer to an extent I agree, though in many places there is public transport and other options. "strain on the little guy" doesnt really balance out with potentially making our planet uninhabitable.
@benwalpole95 "do you not want to make sure we don't destroy our environment?"
If it was as simple and painless as you make it sound then I would be all for it, unfortunately it isn't just pressing a button, the politicians propose taxing all industry and energy and creating more bureaucracy and regulations which will hurt entrepreneurs and thus the economy. Betting thousands or millions of jobs and billions or trillions of dollars on these questionable claims would be insane.
"Clearly we are having a negative affect on our environment, to deny that would be ignorant."
Yes we are, extinctions caused by man, habitat loss and pollution are all serious threats to the natural world, the globe raising 3 degrees centigrade isn't serious and yet t it's SUPPOSED cause is distracting all attention away from the important issues.
The global temperature has actually decreased 0.2 degrees over the last century. Yes, some climate stations report increasing temperatures, but those are near cities and affected by what's called an urban heat island. Yes, the ice caps are melting, but they're also growing steadily thicker - and, if you'll remember, they weren't always there.
If you want to take care of the planet, do it because you want to. Not because you're being led to believe that your very livelihood depends on it.
@sydneybb2 for someone who has likely suffered from a concussion, or series of concussions given your horrible spelling and punctuation, I find it quite interesting that you enjoy to watch these injuries happen. And they do go up hill, it's called effort. Move your legs and they move as well, as if the boots were strapped to your very feet. And why replace F1, just eliminate it along with Americans and we'll be fine.
It's strange how people who accuse the government of massive incompetence and stupidity on the one hand can on the other hand believe the government somehow has the ability to pull off a vast and intricate conspiracy of manipulating data and thousands of scientists to make global warming appear to be a hoax.
@Tardisgirl98 Videos of people falling & coming to grief, children included is FUNNY. I call on these candid camera programmes & You-Tube videos to show us the actual injuries sustained. Now that would be even funnier. I like to see children serverely injured & teen age boys break legs. Concussion is my favourite, but these videos don't have the time it takes for a consussion to set in & shown. Broken necks are more instant. But they don't ever tell us if the neck actually broke. Its a cover-up!
@Tardisgirl98 I haven't seen Tobuscus but I can imagine. I think that's enough & I can rest my case (argument). The only problem I have with whelys & in-line skates etc is they don't go up hill. Yes it's fun going down hill. But if they could go up hill it would make putting out the garbage bin every week, a lot more fun. And little old ladies would go shopping every day. Weeeeeee! With fusion powered Wheelys! Only $99.99. Batteries not included.
David Mitcell is funny. But I think someone should demonstrate the effects of CO2 & water vapour via an experiment. Imagine a large room, like in the movie The Day After Tomorrow where New York is hit by stratospheric super-cooled air & the air is at the door! Only there is no fire available! FACT: At night outer space is stary & even colder! How many blanets does the atmospher equal? How many blankets does CO2 provide? And soon, too may blanets. But CO2 blankets can not be thrown from the bed!
@Tardisgirl98 Ah! So that's what they call children's shoes with wheels. Fun? Yes I can see a 5 year old faving fun with a wheely. But there are a few FACTS. Well, apart from looking dangerous, especially in shopping centres with retirees about, after pubity they become childish! Except maybe these days children never grow up because they watch too many vampire & super-hero movies. I realised I was not Superman when I fell of a balcony. But kids these days don't grow up but are funny falling.
The real item of concern in the global warming debate isn't whether it's been conclusively proven by all real legitimate authentic scientists-- it hasn't, and that's not how authentic science works-- it's the nascent fascist movement using climate science to construct a crisis that they can "save" human civilization from, by forcing everyone into a "low-energy lifestyle". If these people were honest, they would be entirely in favor of nuclear energy. But they're not.
Less and less snow falls every year on the Himalaya's, for Northern India which receives their water from the run off and who are already using 98% of the available water this means millions of people dying from thirst and dysentery. Water shortage and over population is the biggest problems we face not running out of oil, if anything that would solve these problems... though a lot of people would still die, since there is no power to run machines.
The day I sit next to the fire and start blaming my own farts for the change in my body temperature, I'll join the "climate change"/"global warming" lobby. Until then I maintain my position based on evidence that global temperature change matches closely solar activity and not at all closely man-made carbon emissions. There's no money to be made in "trading" sunlight whereas there is a lot of money to be made in "trading" carbon with poor developing countries. That is the truth of the matter.
@alanpgoodwin All of the supposed money to be made in carbon trading pales in comparison with the money already being made by oil/coal/gas, but this doesn't seem to enter into it. Don't you understand that more solar activity is only amplified by more solar heat reflected (via greenhouse gasses)? Saying it's just the sun's fault doesn't address the science behind AGW theory at all. Please explain how CO2/methane has no affect on climate temperature.
@jimbills CO2 and Methane do have an impact. A very small one. Water vapour is more "greenhouse" than CO2, for instance. No money in water trading either. The money from oil/coal/gas is drying up. Peak production is past and fossil fuels are a finite resource. Follow the money and answers present themselves.
@alanpgoodwin While I agree we're currently at peak oil, we're several decades away from peak coal and at least a decade away from peak gas. Peak production means we're roughly halfway finished with the resource. The other half remains, and this is the BEST time for the fossil fuel industry. A dwindling supply means prices skyrocket up. Oil companies are reporting record profits every quarter, and it will only increase. I am following the money....
@alanpgoodwin ....This is really a matter of whose kool-aid to drink. The scientists tell us that CO2 levels have risen significantly higher than any time in the past 1/2 million years (and rising more every year), and that climate temperatures will rise more with increasing gg. Virtually every scientist agrees that the Earth has warmed the past century. Or you can choose to drink the kool-aid from the fossil fuel industry, which says that global warming is some big liberal scam to make money.
What people with MrWheel008's attitude will simply never accept until after it is too late (and frankly, probably not even then) is that the "economy" is a wholly owned subsidiary of the environment. Trash the former, and you inevitably trash the latter.
@alanthacker2000 It's a difficult concept to accept that we are no different than bacteria in a petri dish. We can choose to expand exponentially forever and fill the petri dish (while trashing the dish with waste products and completely consuming its resources) - but this has one inevitable conclusion. Economic theory wholly fails to account for the simple reality of our predicament. The Earth is our true economy - money is just money.
Climbing trees is actually really fun. Have you ever been chased by a wild boar? There are many fun things to do in a forest. I find the city comparatively boring. You have to pay for everything there..
@kakaze for everything except rent. I live in the city atm and probably 95% of my money goes to rent. If I didn't have to pay rent I'd never have to work again..
@Cognoscentiable And I suppose you'll be telling us that we should demolish civilisation and live in mud huts wearing leaves and eating only what we find lying on the ground. The economy is a much more important issue than so called "Climate Change."
@MrWheel008 What you don't understand is that the economy is dependent on the ecosystem, think about all the resources we gobble up, where do you think they come from? Consumption rates are getting so high supply of valuable resources and commodities is starting to struggle to keep up with demand ...we also have a duty of care to future generations, its not all about your own personal gratification, we don't want to fuck their lives up too much do we?
I guess one is convinced by who they get their facts from. And the spin that is put on those facts. The eagerness of certain powerful elements to saddle western countries with taxes, and financial disincentives while China opens up a new coal-fired power plant every week makes the whole thing seem to have non-environmental motives. If saving the environment is genuinely important then where is the effort to prevent the next Fukushima?
well, its not so much that the atmosphere is "finely calibrated", but that we are finely tuned to the atmosphere. In reality, a change of 2 or 3 degrees wouldnt particularly matter as far as the entire planet is concerned, no doubt some species would die out, and others would flourish. The problem is, (in the case of 3), the ice caps would melt every winter, which is quite bad for several major cities.
@NachtCrus A rise of 2-3 degrees would benefit the human race and many of the ice caps are freezing over in places. Environmentalists just focus on the melting ones to give politicians something to make election promises about.
@MrWheel008 a rise of 3 degrees on average (planetary) (mind you we are nowhere near this) would occur in a situation in which the polar caps melt every summer, then refreeze every winter. This would result in a 50~ ft tide every winter. I highly doubt cities like los angeles, sydney, etc.etc. would benefit from this. nothing to do with agenda, thats just what happens. (note again, we are nowhere near even 1 degree average change).
also, for comparison, the last ice age was only 6 global down
@MrWheel008 yeah, benefit unless you Don't want to have to deal hundreds of millions of people having to move from low-lying cities to higher ground, the loss of vast swathes of fertile soil, and radically changing weather patterns just about all over. The planet isn't under threat, but the nice cosy niche that we humans occupy certainly is.
@Ocker3 All I'm saying is that people would benefit from that sort of temperature rise. Hundreds of thousands more people die from cold than heat. Climate change happens. I know this because the dinosaurs aren't here anymore, but it's not my fault and we need to stop assuming and get on with our lives.
@MrWheel008 Assumptions nothing, the science is rock solid, global temperatures will rise, the polar caps will shrink, ocean levels will rise (more next to land, as the shallower water will heat up and rise more than the deeper cold water), islands and low-lying cities will be threatened, changing weather patterns will ruin huge swathes of fertile land, and people will be displaced in the millions. That's millions More than are Already displaced by war and famine.
@Ocker3 I view sea rise as a longer term threat. What's likely to be much more impactful in the short-term is water shortages due to rising temperatures, the population boom, and agricultural practices (which feeds the population). Billions of people rely on water run off from mountain ranges - and places like India will feel an inconceivable pinch from the loss of the glaciers. If one is an American, read up on the predictions for Lake Powell and Lake Mead and what that means.
"pumping the atmosphere full of CO2" eh? 0.039%.... thats hardly a very large portion. Is the climate changing? yes of course it is; it is ever changing and has been since the formation of the planet. Did humans do anything to cause or accelerate it? no we did not, and claims otherwise are bollox made either by those who dont know better (read: "ideological" youth) or those who want to profit from people believing it (read: al gore and his like). Sadly my "characters remaining" count has run out
@GroovingPict Average mass of the atmosphere is roughly 5 quadrillion tons. 0.039% of 5 quadrillion is 1,950,000,000,000 tons. Not much you say? According to the Global Carbon Project, 31.8 gigatons of (fossil fuel-related) carbon dioxide was released into the atmosphere in 2009. That number is 31,800,000,000. Clearly the numbers we're releasing are significant. We don't fully understand how finely calibrated the atmosphere is, and to release enormous quantities of it is senseless.
@GroovingPict The only people who "promote" global warming are politicians. Most scientists, (real scientists, not fake TV scientists) do not believe in global warming. They even had to change its name to climate change. Some people just make mountains out of molehills. I'm just going to hold my breath for a minute to stop releasing carbon into the atmosphere and do my bit in the fight against global climate warming change.
@MrWheel008 Actually the consensus of opinion among the majority of scientists is that man-made climate change is real, if you knew a little bit more about the issue you'd be aware of that fact, you're just drowning in your own ignorance.
@tdavies456 'consensus of opinion'? Now THAT is science isn't it. Here we sit, each of us 15 minutes away from annihilation via MIRVED ICBMs, calm and cool that the scientists that created such gems were blith that such marvels of science will not end up at the control of some madman of a 'leader' who is quite willing to employ such. My bet is that the madman will beat out any excess of CO2 first. Oh, yes, don't forget seven billion and counting. Have a nice day.
The problem is David EVERYTHING has been tried. And as things get more and more desperate MORE AND MORE HAS TO GO! It has now got to a point that people are so stupid and reflective and the problem so desperate that the scientists can no longer tell the truth lest the bat shit crazy right wingers start threatening the lives and families of the people TRYING TO SAVE CIVILISATION! Stand there all smug and superior if you like but you have NO idea how dirty the debate has become!
What I hate about the globalwarmingzists, is that they try to scare people into doing what they want. It's like terrorism, some wanker on the tv telling me that I should do something like make a windmill or a waterplant in my yard or else the world is going to die and it will be all my fault.
If you really want to do something to use less fossil fuel, then nuclear power is the only real alternative. What are we going to do, power our cars like the Flintstones?
@RL36D The problem is that politicians already are defining the market. They always have - and there's no escaping that. There is NO such thing as the "free market". It's a total illusion. If we had a truly free market, we'd have slavery, child labor, no limits on work hours or pay, no trade protectionism, no tax breaks for big corporations, etc. It's all a matter of HOW the market is regulated. And big biz is excellent at manipulating public opinion via all forms of media - hence, the politics.
thanks jim, guess I was too busy with all these multiple replies to spell check.
I wish we would all just get along. I love the planet too. And I really hope you're right, and reducing carbon dioxide will turn everything around, because obviously it has become the sole environmental concern for many, draining funds from all other causes. So I really hope that reducing carbon dioxide is the answer for all our environmental woes, as we won't be able to afford any other problems.
@RL36D Well, the issue is deeply complex. But the main problem is that fossil fuels, which were insanely cheap and powerful, are finite, increasingly difficult to extract, and pollutant. I just wish that we were more open to alternative energies while we still have the resources to maximize them and before we screw up the planet more than is inevitable. But even that is not optimal - we've been spoiled since the Drake Well in Pennsylvania, Eventually, we'll understand that.
jimbills- Peak oil scares me- reeks of 'disaster capitalism'. I agree new technology should be encouraged, but when it becomes mandated it leads to absurd conclusions (rare earth batteries/ mercury CFLs)
How many people will just throw CFLs in landfill?
Heard of MSUs wave disk generator engine? 90% less CO2, 3.5x more efficient than hybrid, 5x more than conventional. Peak oil expects all other factors to remain constant. Soon LED will replace CFL- by being better, not by mandate, not by dictate
@RL36D Yes, I've researched peak oil theory fairly thoroughly. I've tried to poke holes in it, and I cant. I think it's all but certain and imminent (if not already happening). How bad it will be is guesswork, though.
On capitalism, despite its many benefits (higher standard of living, increased efficiency, etc.), I don't view it as a very strong at adapting in advance of a changing environment. As long as there is money to be made (demand), things will remain as they are....
@RL36D ....which makes avoiding issues like economic chaos from peak oil and climate change largely unavoidable without governmental action. And I think that's REALLY why some people fight AGW theory so vigorously. I won't argue that government mandate can be harmful and often counter-productive (ethanol being an excellent example). It can. But, as it is now, our government subsidizes oil/coal/gas far more than solar/wind/biofuel - despite record profits in fossil fuel companies....
@RL36D ....We aren't allowing a 'free market' - we have an active hand in making the market friendlier for fossil fuels (because they are the campaign contributors) than alternatives. Doing so for a finite resource that is pollutant, increasingly expensive to find and produce, and highly questionable in terms of energy security and foreign policy seems more than a little crazy to me. It's a crash waiting to happen.
@RL36D You're listed as living in Bolivia, but your English is excellent, so I don't know if you're a North American or a European living abroad. Anyway, I'm writing from a U.S.-centric position (and that can be annoying to non-U.S. citizens). But another major problem with oil (unlike coal and gas right now) is trade deficits. We've been slowing selling the country away since the 1970s because we've had to import more and more oil. It's self-destructive economically (and environmentally).
@jimbills- I was trying to figure out why you and mech are being such fierce gate-keepers on this page, now I realize- you two are the 'el dude brothers'!
No Mark, I am not from Bolivia.
Gee Mark, what's wrong with world government, can I answer that in two letters? E-U. The entire experiment may crumble under a Greek default.
Thanks for pointing out AGW is about world govt- hand over your sovereignty, then gee, we came up with a cheap electric car, crisis averted- but you lost your freedom
@RL36D You may have noticed the Euro is doing well against the dollar. The problems in the US economy are far more serious than that of Greece.
As for "freedom", small-government capitalism challenges this far more than anything else in the modern world. Free-marketeers attempt to replace the democratically mandated public sector with an unaccountable, unelectable private sector, creaming value off the top of the economy. Where is the freedom in that?
@Mechness- the euro is doing well? jeremy you are misinformed. have you followed the latest on Germany having to put up 1.7trillion to monetize failing countries' debt, and if it doesn't work they all go down?
no, I suppose that's fine.
jeremy, when did you become someone 'of any importance'? what a laugh.
@RL36D Well Bertram, I see you don't understand what "against the dollar" means. 10 years ago a euro was worth $0.90. Now it's worth $1.42. It's been climbing in value for the past year throughout the "debt crisis".
You may want to look at the US's own debt crisis. The US economy is 40 times that of Greece. If it goes down, bad things will happen. If Greece defaults... well it'll be bad for Greece, but everyone else will get by one way or another.
@RL36D ? My name is Jim, and I live in Texas. I've posted my own videos, so this is easily verified. I have no opinion about world government. If it happens - it's a long, long way off. I was posting, again, in the hopes that we were getting somewhere constructively. But I see that isn't the case. Okey doke. Again, best wishes to you.
@RL36D I don't have a problem with CFLs. The mercury content is tiny. Far less than the fluorescent tubes of yesteryear which have been in production for over half a century. Less even than the burning of the additional coal needed to power incandescent bulbs.
CLFs are also not stipulated by legislation anywhere in the world as far as I am aware. Neither have LEDs been able to match them in efficiency up until now, and LEDs are still a lot more expensive.
@Mechness- Sorry Jeremy, I don't have the exact quote, don't have climategate chapter and verse, that's why I put it in one quote instead of two. No Jeremy, sorry, I won't reread them all to satisfy you.
No Jeremy, this isn't a scientific debate, this is a regular debate. If either of us were scientists we'd have something better to be doing with our time. I hope Jones and Mann don't troll youtube posts.
Yes the emails reek, but I won't be condensing them in 500 char, people should read them
I read those e-mails, that was a brilliant piece of cointel ops (Unsure which government was behind the hack) and the world news corporations pumped it out as if they were newsworthy as their wealthy masters told em to. Theirs no stopping the global ponzi scheme orchestrators and fossil fuel industry just happens to be one of those arms of it, good luck and take care during the upcomming ecological and civilization catastophy.
If you wish to question climate science you need to address the science. I don't need to be a scientist to debate the science, so neither do you. If you have a scientific argument use it. If you only have rhetoric you will persuade no one of any importance.
I have read the emails. I don't see anything that challenges climate science.
@Mechness They never really do address is the science. If they do, it's all about natural cycles as opposed to the actual physics of greenhouse gasses. As I wrote before, I think it's all really about protecting "free market" principles instead of science.
On "Climategate", doesn't anyone else find the timing a bit suspicious? It was right before Copenhagen. Aren't those who believe it's a "smoking gun" even slightly concerned that they are the ones being manipulated?
I read those e-mails, that was a brilliant piece of cointel ops (Unsure which government was behind the hack) and the world news corporations pumped it out as if they were newsworthy as their wealthy masters told em to. Theirs no stopping the global ponzi scheme orchestrators and fossil fuel industry just happens to be one of those arms of it, good luck and take care during the upcomming ecological and civilization catastrophy.
@Gantzer1 it's a rorschach test. I see jones and mann discussing what journals are to be counted as peer-review based on a single dissenting article, I see them sitting on each other's review panels and giving each other grants and awards and saying who will and won't be in the club, I see jones admit there's been no statistically significant warming since '98 but he won't reveal that because people the critics would have a field day, and I see a pile of crap. you see it and think it fine.
There is a quick simple solution to global warming and climate change. It is called Muon Catalysed Fusion. As worked on Star Scientific. NO CO2. NO Greenhouse Gases. NO Carbon Tax. NO Toxic Waste. The source is dueterium from the World's Oceans - virtually limitless. It is cheap to produce. WE NEED IT NOW. See the website "Star Scientific Limited", Blog "The Big Picture by Andrew Horvath", Youtube video - "In the Footsteps of Fusion".
Hey deniers, how was your week? Cool? Cool. Because climate doesn't care that much about short trends, But you do, of course, silly humans.
Not convinced yet? Wait ten years. Do fuck all, laugh at the concept of climate change, wait ten years, if you can, and evaluate the whole concept ten years from now. If you can wait that long.
@myfeelingforyou I think you need to be more discerning about who you classify as "alarmists". btw, our banks were on the brink of collapse; that's why taxpayers (in the US and UK, at least) paid billions to prevent this happening.
@OldishTim Alarmists are people who derive attention from pointing out doom and gloom, have no solid proof, proof that cannot be undeniable, who are educated with the help of either rich parents or the Government themselves then advise the goverenments for which they actually work for that if they don't listen the world will end, funny that the earth has been around for millions of years but in our liftime it will end in 50 years or so,really?? oh and who pays alarmists wages? taxpayers do.
with the gfc the ceo's sent out emails to their managers telling them to sell "loans" they did this all too well, even to people who couldn't afford them but in the meantime the ceo's reaped millions in bonuses, cashed up and some left, others stayed on and those who stayed on payed themselves handsomely when the US gov and UK gov rescued the banks, so in the scheme of things who do you think benifited from the gfc, not the man in the streets as some ended up homeless, women included.
the gfc wasn't prevented, if it didn't happen then why did the governments assist with a bail out fund?
also has it ever passed your mind as to why the swine flu and the gfc were happening at the same time? without sounding like an alarmist it's because it's a way to get the governments worldwide to spend big to prop up private enterprise, if you think it's not true then ask why ceo's earn more now than they ever did in history and why shareholders are less involved, capitalism come communism
This is brilliant! Thanks...
fourcornersmedia1 5 days ago
It would be nice if everybody could just treat everybody like adults and just get on with it.
RPSM101 6 days ago in playlist Series 2
All David needs to do is ask most Americans if they think climate change is happening. They'll say,"No, it's a baseless idea. We're Americans-God's favorite people next to the Israelis, and as such, we're expected to drive huge SUVs and consume the planet's God-given infinite resources like locusts. We can do anything because God said He wouldn't destroy the planet ever again until...well...Jesus does upon his return. Yeah, that makes sense."
ChipArgyle 3 weeks ago
@ChipArgyle Spot on except the loophole - God said HE wouldn't flood the world. Free will on the other hand...?
Slave2PaperWithInkOn 1 week ago
@Slave2PaperWithInkOn You have to watch some clips of certain American politicos talking. The concept is that because it will be a divine battle that destroys the world, God won't let the world be destroyed by man. Free will doesn't extend to destruction of the planet. So go ahead, consume, consume, consume. It's a playground made just for us.
ChipArgyle 1 week ago
To anyone who thinks man induced global warming is not real, just watch other one of these rants, called "burden of proof" /watch?v=SI5ulKiZAoE&feature=relmfu
Nzgrym 3 weeks ago
while i believe in climate change, i don't believe in human induced global warming. the earth's temperature was very high in the middle ages too, what was causing global warming back then? all the horse drawn carriages?
BassLiberators 1 month ago
@BassLiberators Not nearly as hot as it was now. The change is minor compared to the change each year, if you look up data you'll understand.
LusoAustralian 1 month ago
@BassLiberators and is woth noing that was merely a european thing, theres no data to suggestthat jump in temperatures happened elsewhere other than europe.
elgostine 3 weeks ago
@elgostine did you just say temperatures are only changing in Europe? Not sure if you're trolling.
soundslave 2 weeks ago
@soundslave .. if you cared to look at what i was replying to, youd notice i was referring to the phenomena of the medieval warm period. the key is the word medieval.
im not too sure why it occured since i havent the expertise, nor is it really somethoing id rather spend ,my time on, id rather concern myself with the actuall events OF the medieval periods i.e vikings, crusades, seiges, knights and longbowmen... etc
elgostine 2 weeks ago
@BassLiberators "i don't believe in human induced global warming" because you're a moron. i'm sorry, i really am. but if you haven't got it by now, you're either a troll, or just fucking stupid.
disqotube 2 weeks ago
@disqotube Human induced global warming does occur, but not nearly at the levels people believe. Most of the statistics and facts are exaggerated, or even completely made up. There is a good reason this is the case, and it comes down to politics. It sounds a lot better for a politician to say: "The world is going to BURN and I can fix it" than "The world might get slightly warmer over the next few hundred years, but don't worry, I can supply you with a giant ice pack".
Hoeloe42 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@disqotube Human induced global warming does occur, but not nearly at the levels people believe. Most of the statistics and facts are exaggerated, or even completely made up. There is a good reason this is the case, and it comes down to politics. It sounds a lot better for a politician to say: "The world is going to BURN and I can fix it" than "The world might get slightly warmer over the next few hundred years, but don't worry, I can supply you with a giant ice pack".
Hoeloe42 2 weeks ago
@disqotube Human induced global warming does occur, but not nearly at the levels people believe. Most of the statistics and facts are exaggerated, or even completely made up. There is a good reason this is the case, and it comes down to politics. It sounds a lot better for a politician to say: "The world is going to burn and only I can fix it" than "The world might get slightly warmer over the next few hundred years, but don't worry, I can supply you with a giant ice pack".
Hoeloe42 2 weeks ago
@disqotube "either a troll" DING DING DING WE HAVE A WINNER
mcgorgomagan 1 week ago
man made climate change is bullshit. Whatever facts he's referring are so flawed (such bad data, almost useless) They tell us to open our eyes, yet they remain blinded by their own agenda -support proper science, not 'the next big thing' god sake look at swine flu or and other shit that the media and politicians blow out of proportion.
MrSamosayoe 1 month ago
@MrSamosayoe Said the person who has personally peer-reviewed and re-did studies concerning climate change.
Exfenestracide 4 weeks ago in playlist Series 2 | David Mitchell's Soapbox | ChannelFlip
@Exfenestracide what ?
MrSamosayoe 3 weeks ago
Informative + funny = the holy grail.
TheNation6 1 month ago
it just seems like pissing into the wind; rinsing out baked bean tins when other countries can do what they want. Its all about money, not saving the planet and i want no part of it until that changes
MrRay523 1 month ago
@MrRay523 its worth pointing out that the fact chlimate change affects the whole planet. its a useful vehicle to make people address OTHER environmental issues thatscientists have been increasingly apprehensive about, like the clearing of forestry areas , the fact rivers are losing their water, losses of coastal mangrives which have alot more benefit than would imagine a smelly swamp would.
elgostine 3 weeks ago
Brilliant observation:
The reason there are so many Climate Change "sceptics" is because of all the idiots trying to treat this chore as joyous. That sets off people's bullshit-alarms and they resist it.
In a way they are like religious folk who insist chastity and banning fun foods is great, only their god is probably not real, and climate change probably is.
Treblaine 1 month ago
He's right. Fossil fuels are fantastic in terms of actual use: fill up a big plane with high-octane jet fuel, and you can fly 300 people halfway around the planet. It's a goddamn shame we're running into such annoying consequences. Since the facts are what they are, we need to invent better technology, without the same problems, so we can keep doing bloody fun stuff like driving fast.
Cabochon1360 1 month ago
There is no proof of climate change David, you're wrong sir.
MurrayHerts 1 month ago
@MurrayHerts Scientists around the world all or at least a great portion (we are talking about 95%+) that say there IS climate change. the question is where it is ONE HUNDRED PERCENT our fault or not. thats the problem. i cant prove 100% that smoking is bad for you or causes cancer but it is widely believed anyways. to think that we cant legally prove it with such a fucked justice system should come as to no surprise.
eidius1989 1 month ago
@eidius1989 sorry I should of said man made climate change** I think man made climate change it used to try and force political agendas.
MurrayHerts 1 month ago
@MurrayHerts that true but at the same time we cant depend on fossil fuels forever, and we cant keep cutting down forests or dumping loads of toxic chemicals into the rivers and etc...we need to find a more sustainable way to live. climate change is real and it is happening. the question is can we stop it? if not then what do we need to do to adapt?
eidius1989 1 month ago
Ugh, we're having a climate debate here, of all places? I just went to the comments looking for something important, namely if anyone heard what he said after the last 'stroke'. Now I have to go and look it up.
DnDRULZ 1 month ago
@DnDRULZ Maldives. ;)
corneliusfingers 1 month ago
This video went viral on Jakarta
darinsargent25 1 month ago
@darinsargent25 jakarta is a city not an island you moron
travissokol 1 month ago
@travissokol
maybe he means Java? lol idk..
310BPM 1 month ago
Witty? Certainly. Right? Don't think so.
gerontodon 2 months ago
0:35 Well we did warn you, David.
HeWhoKnocks 2 months ago
Astrology is great to divert blame. Fault is not in myself, but in my stars.
styxman09 2 months ago
Green plants have metabolised all the additional carbon dioxide to form new life on earth
JonThm 2 months ago
And just like David Mitchell, while watching world-wide havoc, I want to be well fed and watered, dry, not cold or hot and sit around not really givig a shit. Or at least appear to be academically detached, like some Buda in a red shirt. A nice soft comfy flannel red shirt. While pretending to care, at the same time as I abandon hope. No, it really is the fault of James Watt. Now was he English or Scottish? The Welsh are the only innocents in the once great britain. They'll inherit the earth.
sydneybb2 3 months ago
Nothing, on a global scale, is, has ever been or forever in the future will be, SIMPLE. Someone famous, or someone who should be famous and recognised as such, said that... I SAID IT. Yes me, myself and I know that rising CO2 is an existential threat to civilisation. Just as endless growth on this finite Earth is, given enough time, which is running out. I only hope to live long enough to see a good billion of other people die of the various maladies - drought, disease, war, lust for power.
sydneybb2 3 months ago
@sydneybb2 this video is intended as comedy. get over yourself and try to have a laugh.
mikeswbr 2 months ago
@mikeswbr I agree. Though I'd actually call it serious humour/comedy. And no wonder people complained about the red shirt. I once bought a red shirt, and I even wore it for one day. After work I tried to catch a taxi and up untill that day had no trouble. I soon realised it was the red shirt. So I walked to the train station. I wonder what happened to that red shirt? Well I know it never keft by taxi.
listen2meokidoki 2 months ago
Why is the Earth backwards at the very beginning?
mysticclaw 3 months ago
@mysticclaw climate change, obviously
londonthistle 3 months ago
The worst predictions of climate scientists are a few degrees over a hundred years. Compared to habitat destruction, species extinction and REAL POLLUTION, global warming is a joke and a dangerously side-tracking one at that. People talk about ocean levels rising, don't you know its a guess? If the air is warmer then it absorbs more water. It was significantly warmer in medieval times and we weren't all drowned by the ocean, learn some history.
Hashishin13 3 months ago
@Hashishin13 A few degrees rising and falling in your local area might be nothing really, but a few degrees globally is a big deal, especially in merely a few hundred years. It messes with the weather extremes, the ocean currents and many other things that need to be in a finely tuned balance. It might not seem a lot, but in the big picture it's a significant figure. I think that's a problem with climate change, people can't seem to wrap their heads around the scale of the thing.
TheBanile 2 months ago
@TheBanile The scale is 3 goddamn degrees, its nothing. Where I live we have temperature changes of over 70 degrees in a year. Also go look at the medieval warm period, it was warmer then today. Climate change is fueled primarily by government and the scientists on it's payroll. The story and effects keep changing but the end result stays the same, more power to government. In the 70's everyone was scared about a new ice age and global cooling! Then warming and now change, oOo scary.
Hashishin13 2 months ago
@Hashishin13 Like I said, it may be 'only' 3 degrees or so, but those three degrees globally and over a relatively shorter period of time can have a major effect on various weather systems, oceanic currents etc that can produce a a sort of snowball effect, tipping it off-balance to the global-climate we are used to.
Changes in the name and the terms, and it's effects, are due to more extensive scientific research, particularly over the recent years and thus a better understanding.
TheBanile 2 months ago
@TheBanile Within recorded history the world has been both warmer and colder then it is now, by much more then 3 degrees. There was no catastrophe whatsoever. You are fearing the predictions of doom from the same people that can't predict tomorrow's weather.
Hashishin13 1 month ago
@Hashishin13 It's not going to be an earth-shattering catastrophe I agree, but the world is certainly going to change and it's going to change rather more quickly than we'd like or we'd be able to deal with. Yes, the world has been colder and warmer, but just because it didn't cause an end to the world didn't mean it wasn't a significant point. The main problem is not that we predict it changing but that it's going to continue to change rather than reaching a careful equilibrium.
TheBanile 1 month ago
@TheBanile Change how and to what extent? Changing all the way up to 3 degrees in a hundred years is laughable as a concern. Blame tsunamis and other natural disasters on 3 degrees change is just fooling yourself, the weather has been both hotter and colder IN WRITTEN HISTORY and there was nothing written about horrible natural disasters.
Carbon emissions are a red herring that will give the government more control over us while distracting us from real environmental issues.
Hashishin13 1 month ago
@Hashishin13 "The scale is 3 goddamn degrees, its nothing." I believe the difference in average global temperature between now and the last ice age is about 4 degrees. If 4 degrees less leads to icecaps over Europe then 3 degrees more sounds a little less trivial? And yes I know ice ages are caused by changes in the earths orbit not co2 but the effect is the same.
WhichDoctor1 1 month ago
@Hashishin13 but you're not denying man-made climate change? Yet you still think it's pointless to try to limit the greenhouse effect?
benwalpole95 1 month ago
@benwalpole95 I don't know that there is "climate change" since the definition keeps changing. If there is I doubt it is man made. Even if it is man-made I doubt that the affects are even remotely like what people tell us they will be. Lastly the way politicians propose we should "try to limit the greenhouse effect" is by taxing our main method of providing energy, burning fossil fuels which will conveniently be putting money into those same politicians hands and then pockets.
Hashishin13 1 month ago
@benwalpole95 part 2
There is obvious conflict of interest when people like Al Gore propose forcing carbon credits on all mankind while being heavily invested in a new carbon ratings company.
Even if that weren't the case by taxing industry in the name of preventing some vague theoretical problem in the future we will be destroying our standard of living and economy in the present.
The fear mongers try to make this a pressing danger but there's nothing solid at all.
Hashishin13 1 month ago
@Hashishin13 you clearly don't understand it if you think it's a vague theoretical problem.
benwalpole95 1 month ago
@benwalpole95 Okay since you so clearly understand it then tell me what they have settled on, bearing in mind that in the 70s it was global cooling and a new ice age, in the 90s it was global warming, and now its climate change. So what does climate change mean? What is the evidence that suddenly gives credibility to the people who were predicting the exact opposite 30 years ago, the same people who can't predict tomorrows weather? These are meteorologists after all.
Hashishin13 1 month ago
@Hashishin13 The effect of CO2 on the atmosphere is not something you can debate. Clearly we are having a negative affect on our environment, to deny that would be ignorant. I'm not saying we should all panic, as it is certainly possible that this recent rise is just a random fluctuation, but since we understand we are harming our environment, why sit back and do nothing? You're obsessed with the political side of things.
benwalpole95 1 month ago
@benwalpole95 "The effect of CO2 on the atmosphere is not something you can debate."
I can debate whatever I want. I see no causal link between co2 and "climate change". There are many people claiming conflicting things. The temperature has been both significantly warmer and colder in recorded history and so all the fear seems entirely unjustified.
CO2 isn't some toxin or pollution, it's an entirely natural gas that has been prominent throughout the history of all life.
Hashishin13 1 month ago
@Hashishin13 greenhouse gases absorb IR radiation, changing the electromagnetic energy into kinetic energy, passing it onto to neighbouring molecules by convection and heating up the atmosphere. This property of these gases is scientifically proven, not debatable. You can carry out experiments to show it, scientists have not just guessed this from the fact that temperatures are rising. I am not saying that this is the sole reason for rising temperatures, but it has an effect that we cant ignore.
benwalpole95 1 month ago
@benwalpole95 There are literally hundreds of different types of natural sources of CO2 emissions which are found all over the globe. We are also floating on a thin crust of rock covering a vast reserve of liquid rock known as magma which makes up a huge portion of the Earth's mass, and space. On top of that we are bombarded by a star which is millions of times the size of earth and by definition is one vast nuclear reaction. Yet it's car exhaust that is warming the earth?
Hashishin13 1 month ago
@Hashishin13 Yes, there are many more natural sources of co2, but they are balanced out by nature in the carbon cycle. The natural sources of co2 emit it, but they also absorb it, and there is a rough balance. About 40% of human emissions are absorbed, but the rest stays in the atmosphere. This upset the balance. The carbon cycle cannot absorb all this new, man-made co2.
benwalpole95 1 month ago
@benwalpole95 It is balanced? Yea all those ice ages then warm periods really seem like a balance to me. There is no way to say conclusively that any warming is man made. AS I told the other guy, there are recorded periods within the last 1000 years that were both warmer and cooler then the current temperature.
"About 40% of human emissions are absorbed"
Sounds like a guess.
Hashishin13 1 month ago
@Hashishin13 Deforestation continues, which means the total amount of carbon being trapped is decreasing, while CO2 still increases. Also, there is a level of CO2 concentration where plants actually start to die off.
You don't know very much about science, do you? That is what scientists say when they are talking to non-scientists, and they're simplifying from a number like 41.23464532245674%. Or if they're otherwise simplifying their results so you can get your head around it.
botanygriffin87 1 month ago
@botanygriffin87 "Also, there is a level of CO2 concentration where plants actually start to die off."
Which is long after we die off and much higher then the world has ever seen.
"Deforestation continues, which means the total amount of carbon being trapped is decreasing"
The ocean is the biggest carbon sink in the world, not forests.
Hashishin13 1 month ago
@Hashishin13 Ignoring anything else, the overwhelming majority of the scientific community believes in man-made climate change. And arguing it is similar to arguing that you can create infinite energy using some magnet method that nobody has ever thought of before.
Of course if you don't believe that (and I won't press further) you can do what Mitchell says in another Soapbox. "Why chance it?" You lose little by reducing and recycling etc why not try it.
plukerpluck 1 month ago
@plukerpluck "And arguing it is similar to arguing that you can create infinite energy using some magnet method that nobody has ever thought of before."
Arguing a lack of evidence for grandiose and far reaching claims is the exact polar opposite of arguing that you have evidence for grandiose and far reaching claims. The climate change people are far more like the zero point energy people then I am.
Hashishin13 1 month ago
@plukerpluck part 2
"You lose little by reducing and recycling etc why not try it."
Taxing all energy production would vastly lower quality of life and add massively to governmental bureaucracy which already strangles business and the economy and will only do it more with "carbon taxes". It isn't trivial at all. You know why we emit so much more CO2 then developing nations? They have no industry or economy to speak of, going to where they are will strangle ours.
Hashishin13 1 month ago
@Hashishin13
Don't you find it just a tiny bit strange that you are this super sceptical about science when it comes to global warming(which there happens to be alot of money in denyig), even though the consensus is bigger than in most other fields. Yet you blindly belive in science regarding everything else?
NASA says global warming is true, then I suppose you also don't belive anything NASA says about our solar system? Or else you are not a sceptic, just a hypocrite.
TheSaltyAdmiral 1 month ago
@TheSaltyAdmiral NASA is a governmental agency, I trust their photos of other planets as they are clear as day. Their claims about the climate in 100 years time are far less clear, and what does a space agency have to do with meteorology?
The climate scientists are the same people who can't predict TOMORROWS WEATHER why would you trust them for a 100 year prediction? Physicists make lazers and guns, biologists medicine. Climatologists? Erroneous predictions.
Hashishin13 1 month ago
@Hashishin13 1/2
If you are this ignorant about how climate science works I can understand your doubt. However, the reality is diffrent. Climate science is one of the broadest fields of science, drawing upon the knowledge of many sciences. So if you don't belive it, you really doubt science in general.
Also, do you REALLY belive meteorolgist cant predict tomorros weather? Tell that to those who RELY on them every single day.
Science is as good as it is because of the scientific method.
TheSaltyAdmiral 1 month ago
@TheSaltyAdmiral "Also, do you REALLY belive meteorolgist cant predict tomorros weather? Tell that to those who RELY on them every single day."
Go ask the people who rely on them every day, they will tell you how unreliable they are.
"Science is as good as it is because of the scientific method."
The scientific method relies on controlled experiments and repeatable, with making reliable predictions as proof of it's accuracy. The meteorologists can't make em.
Hashishin13 1 month ago
@Hashishin13 2/2
And the best, most trustworthy source for science is the peer reviewed science journals, like Nature.
Try using your so called scepticism on the "sceptics" too, like Monckton ect, and you will see they crumble like a tower of sand.
This might help: /watch?v=eUB4j0n2UDU
Also, for all your sceptic arguments, this site has gathered in debt explanations on what the science REALLY says: Google "sceptical science myths" and see the first link.
TheSaltyAdmiral 1 month ago
@TheSaltyAdmiral I don't give a shit about monckton, science isn't about disproving individuals its about providing convincing evidence. Everyone acknowledges that the globe has been both warmer and colder then it is now, WITHIN RECORDED HISTORY. So how can they possibly claim that the NEW CO2 emissions are causing it? How can they get away with doomsday predictions that they use to justify draconian new regulations when we went through warm periods without a scratch?
Hashishin13 1 month ago
@Hashishin13 "There is no way to say conclusively that any warming is man made."
Did I not just explain to you how that is not true? The properties of greenhouse gases that result in them trapping heat have been scientifically proven.
benwalpole95 1 month ago
@benwalpole95 Yes greenhouse gases hold heat, I know. A brick holds heat too, does taking one from inside my warm house and putting it out into the cold winter warm the earth or cool the brick? Two facts don't make a theory. As I have said before the earth has been both warmer and colder then it is now, we recorded it and it was long before any noticeable emissions, where do climate changers address this?
Hashishin13 1 month ago
@Hashishin13 I understand that the Earth has been warmer and colder, and it is possible that the effect of greenhouse gases is so tiny compared to natural fluctuations in temperature that they will never make any significant difference. But if there's even a chance that the current temp. raise is our fault, do you not want to make sure we don't destroy our environment? I don't think the attitude of "It's probly not our fault, everything will work out hopefully" is an intelligent one.
benwalpole95 1 month ago
@benwalpole95 I can agree with your logic however the option the govements take to push voters they are doing something is to over tax fuel, cars ect and lower taxes on say bikes. In reality many places need cars and making the price to have one go up only places undue strain on the little guy. What would be better is for governments to fund alternative projects to substitute what we use now.
TheOneSeer 1 month ago
@TheOneSeer to an extent I agree, though in many places there is public transport and other options. "strain on the little guy" doesnt really balance out with potentially making our planet uninhabitable.
benwalpole95 1 month ago
@benwalpole95 "do you not want to make sure we don't destroy our environment?"
If it was as simple and painless as you make it sound then I would be all for it, unfortunately it isn't just pressing a button, the politicians propose taxing all industry and energy and creating more bureaucracy and regulations which will hurt entrepreneurs and thus the economy. Betting thousands or millions of jobs and billions or trillions of dollars on these questionable claims would be insane.
Hashishin13 1 month ago
@benwalpole95 part 2
"Clearly we are having a negative affect on our environment, to deny that would be ignorant."
Yes we are, extinctions caused by man, habitat loss and pollution are all serious threats to the natural world, the globe raising 3 degrees centigrade isn't serious and yet t it's SUPPOSED cause is distracting all attention away from the important issues.
Hashishin13 1 month ago
The global temperature has actually decreased 0.2 degrees over the last century. Yes, some climate stations report increasing temperatures, but those are near cities and affected by what's called an urban heat island. Yes, the ice caps are melting, but they're also growing steadily thicker - and, if you'll remember, they weren't always there.
If you want to take care of the planet, do it because you want to. Not because you're being led to believe that your very livelihood depends on it.
chinadollsyndrome 3 months ago in playlist Series 2
@sydneybb2 for someone who has likely suffered from a concussion, or series of concussions given your horrible spelling and punctuation, I find it quite interesting that you enjoy to watch these injuries happen. And they do go up hill, it's called effort. Move your legs and they move as well, as if the boots were strapped to your very feet. And why replace F1, just eliminate it along with Americans and we'll be fine.
eminemkixassjones44 4 months ago
It's strange how people who accuse the government of massive incompetence and stupidity on the one hand can on the other hand believe the government somehow has the ability to pull off a vast and intricate conspiracy of manipulating data and thousands of scientists to make global warming appear to be a hoax.
squamish4244 4 months ago
@Tardisgirl98 Videos of people falling & coming to grief, children included is FUNNY. I call on these candid camera programmes & You-Tube videos to show us the actual injuries sustained. Now that would be even funnier. I like to see children serverely injured & teen age boys break legs. Concussion is my favourite, but these videos don't have the time it takes for a consussion to set in & shown. Broken necks are more instant. But they don't ever tell us if the neck actually broke. Its a cover-up!
sydneybb2 4 months ago
@Tardisgirl98 I haven't seen Tobuscus but I can imagine. I think that's enough & I can rest my case (argument). The only problem I have with whelys & in-line skates etc is they don't go up hill. Yes it's fun going down hill. But if they could go up hill it would make putting out the garbage bin every week, a lot more fun. And little old ladies would go shopping every day. Weeeeeee! With fusion powered Wheelys! Only $99.99. Batteries not included.
sydneybb2 4 months ago
David Mitcell is funny. But I think someone should demonstrate the effects of CO2 & water vapour via an experiment. Imagine a large room, like in the movie The Day After Tomorrow where New York is hit by stratospheric super-cooled air & the air is at the door! Only there is no fire available! FACT: At night outer space is stary & even colder! How many blanets does the atmospher equal? How many blankets does CO2 provide? And soon, too may blanets. But CO2 blankets can not be thrown from the bed!
sydneybb2 4 months ago 2
@Tardisgirl98 Ah! So that's what they call children's shoes with wheels. Fun? Yes I can see a 5 year old faving fun with a wheely. But there are a few FACTS. Well, apart from looking dangerous, especially in shopping centres with retirees about, after pubity they become childish! Except maybe these days children never grow up because they watch too many vampire & super-hero movies. I realised I was not Superman when I fell of a balcony. But kids these days don't grow up but are funny falling.
sydneybb2 4 months ago
Mitchell is a pompous twat!
bubbleheid 4 months ago
@bubbleheid and that's why we love him
SaracottaPie 4 months ago
The real item of concern in the global warming debate isn't whether it's been conclusively proven by all real legitimate authentic scientists-- it hasn't, and that's not how authentic science works-- it's the nascent fascist movement using climate science to construct a crisis that they can "save" human civilization from, by forcing everyone into a "low-energy lifestyle". If these people were honest, they would be entirely in favor of nuclear energy. But they're not.
BeefotronX 4 months ago
Less and less snow falls every year on the Himalaya's, for Northern India which receives their water from the run off and who are already using 98% of the available water this means millions of people dying from thirst and dysentery. Water shortage and over population is the biggest problems we face not running out of oil, if anything that would solve these problems... though a lot of people would still die, since there is no power to run machines.
sgfig 5 months ago
The day I sit next to the fire and start blaming my own farts for the change in my body temperature, I'll join the "climate change"/"global warming" lobby. Until then I maintain my position based on evidence that global temperature change matches closely solar activity and not at all closely man-made carbon emissions. There's no money to be made in "trading" sunlight whereas there is a lot of money to be made in "trading" carbon with poor developing countries. That is the truth of the matter.
alanpgoodwin 5 months ago
@alanpgoodwin All of the supposed money to be made in carbon trading pales in comparison with the money already being made by oil/coal/gas, but this doesn't seem to enter into it. Don't you understand that more solar activity is only amplified by more solar heat reflected (via greenhouse gasses)? Saying it's just the sun's fault doesn't address the science behind AGW theory at all. Please explain how CO2/methane has no affect on climate temperature.
jimbills 5 months ago
@jimbills CO2 and Methane do have an impact. A very small one. Water vapour is more "greenhouse" than CO2, for instance. No money in water trading either. The money from oil/coal/gas is drying up. Peak production is past and fossil fuels are a finite resource. Follow the money and answers present themselves.
alanpgoodwin 5 months ago
@alanpgoodwin While I agree we're currently at peak oil, we're several decades away from peak coal and at least a decade away from peak gas. Peak production means we're roughly halfway finished with the resource. The other half remains, and this is the BEST time for the fossil fuel industry. A dwindling supply means prices skyrocket up. Oil companies are reporting record profits every quarter, and it will only increase. I am following the money....
jimbills 5 months ago
@alanpgoodwin ....This is really a matter of whose kool-aid to drink. The scientists tell us that CO2 levels have risen significantly higher than any time in the past 1/2 million years (and rising more every year), and that climate temperatures will rise more with increasing gg. Virtually every scientist agrees that the Earth has warmed the past century. Or you can choose to drink the kool-aid from the fossil fuel industry, which says that global warming is some big liberal scam to make money.
jimbills 5 months ago
@jimbills Us British people don't have kool aid.
debluemonkey 5 months ago
What people with MrWheel008's attitude will simply never accept until after it is too late (and frankly, probably not even then) is that the "economy" is a wholly owned subsidiary of the environment. Trash the former, and you inevitably trash the latter.
alanthacker2000 6 months ago 3
@alanthacker2000 yep, good point, unfortunately very few people seem to understand that
tdavies456 6 months ago
@alanthacker2000 It's a difficult concept to accept that we are no different than bacteria in a petri dish. We can choose to expand exponentially forever and fill the petri dish (while trashing the dish with waste products and completely consuming its resources) - but this has one inevitable conclusion. Economic theory wholly fails to account for the simple reality of our predicament. The Earth is our true economy - money is just money.
jimbills 5 months ago
Climbing trees is actually really fun. Have you ever been chased by a wild boar? There are many fun things to do in a forest. I find the city comparatively boring. You have to pay for everything there..
powpanda 6 months ago 23
@powpanda Climbing trees is pretty awesome, but climbing a tree to reach a roof of a school so you can run about on it at night is even more so.
Another fun and free thing to do in the city brought to you by Olivia. Thanks for reading :)
sgfig 5 months ago
@powpanda you have to pay more for everything in the country
kakaze 5 months ago
@kakaze for everything except rent. I live in the city atm and probably 95% of my money goes to rent. If I didn't have to pay rent I'd never have to work again..
powpanda 5 months ago
@Cognoscentiable And I suppose you'll be telling us that we should demolish civilisation and live in mud huts wearing leaves and eating only what we find lying on the ground. The economy is a much more important issue than so called "Climate Change."
MrWheel008 6 months ago
@MrWheel008 Difficult to have an economy when the planet's atmosphere kills any organism.
mirkwoodian 6 months ago
@MrWheel008 What you don't understand is that the economy is dependent on the ecosystem, think about all the resources we gobble up, where do you think they come from? Consumption rates are getting so high supply of valuable resources and commodities is starting to struggle to keep up with demand ...we also have a duty of care to future generations, its not all about your own personal gratification, we don't want to fuck their lives up too much do we?
tdavies456 6 months ago
The planet isn't under threat, the planet's fine - it's just us we have to worry about.
londonthistle 6 months ago
I guess one is convinced by who they get their facts from. And the spin that is put on those facts. The eagerness of certain powerful elements to saddle western countries with taxes, and financial disincentives while China opens up a new coal-fired power plant every week makes the whole thing seem to have non-environmental motives. If saving the environment is genuinely important then where is the effort to prevent the next Fukushima?
SpinifexPeople 6 months ago
Pudding/Maldives/normal weather just about anywhere
Ocker3 6 months ago
well, its not so much that the atmosphere is "finely calibrated", but that we are finely tuned to the atmosphere. In reality, a change of 2 or 3 degrees wouldnt particularly matter as far as the entire planet is concerned, no doubt some species would die out, and others would flourish. The problem is, (in the case of 3), the ice caps would melt every winter, which is quite bad for several major cities.
NachtCrus 6 months ago
@NachtCrus A rise of 2-3 degrees would benefit the human race and many of the ice caps are freezing over in places. Environmentalists just focus on the melting ones to give politicians something to make election promises about.
MrWheel008 6 months ago
@MrWheel008 a rise of 3 degrees on average (planetary) (mind you we are nowhere near this) would occur in a situation in which the polar caps melt every summer, then refreeze every winter. This would result in a 50~ ft tide every winter. I highly doubt cities like los angeles, sydney, etc.etc. would benefit from this. nothing to do with agenda, thats just what happens. (note again, we are nowhere near even 1 degree average change).
also, for comparison, the last ice age was only 6 global down
NachtCrus 6 months ago
@MrWheel008 yeah, benefit unless you Don't want to have to deal hundreds of millions of people having to move from low-lying cities to higher ground, the loss of vast swathes of fertile soil, and radically changing weather patterns just about all over. The planet isn't under threat, but the nice cosy niche that we humans occupy certainly is.
Ocker3 6 months ago
@Ocker3 All I'm saying is that people would benefit from that sort of temperature rise. Hundreds of thousands more people die from cold than heat. Climate change happens. I know this because the dinosaurs aren't here anymore, but it's not my fault and we need to stop assuming and get on with our lives.
MrWheel008 6 months ago
@MrWheel008 Assumptions nothing, the science is rock solid, global temperatures will rise, the polar caps will shrink, ocean levels will rise (more next to land, as the shallower water will heat up and rise more than the deeper cold water), islands and low-lying cities will be threatened, changing weather patterns will ruin huge swathes of fertile land, and people will be displaced in the millions. That's millions More than are Already displaced by war and famine.
Ocker3 6 months ago
@Ocker3 Ok
MrWheel008 6 months ago
@Ocker3 I view sea rise as a longer term threat. What's likely to be much more impactful in the short-term is water shortages due to rising temperatures, the population boom, and agricultural practices (which feeds the population). Billions of people rely on water run off from mountain ranges - and places like India will feel an inconceivable pinch from the loss of the glaciers. If one is an American, read up on the predictions for Lake Powell and Lake Mead and what that means.
jimbills 5 months ago in playlist jimbills's Favorited Videos
"pumping the atmosphere full of CO2" eh? 0.039%.... thats hardly a very large portion. Is the climate changing? yes of course it is; it is ever changing and has been since the formation of the planet. Did humans do anything to cause or accelerate it? no we did not, and claims otherwise are bollox made either by those who dont know better (read: "ideological" youth) or those who want to profit from people believing it (read: al gore and his like). Sadly my "characters remaining" count has run out
GroovingPict 6 months ago
@GroovingPict Average mass of the atmosphere is roughly 5 quadrillion tons. 0.039% of 5 quadrillion is 1,950,000,000,000 tons. Not much you say? According to the Global Carbon Project, 31.8 gigatons of (fossil fuel-related) carbon dioxide was released into the atmosphere in 2009. That number is 31,800,000,000. Clearly the numbers we're releasing are significant. We don't fully understand how finely calibrated the atmosphere is, and to release enormous quantities of it is senseless.
DirectInjected 6 months ago
@GroovingPict The only people who "promote" global warming are politicians. Most scientists, (real scientists, not fake TV scientists) do not believe in global warming. They even had to change its name to climate change. Some people just make mountains out of molehills. I'm just going to hold my breath for a minute to stop releasing carbon into the atmosphere and do my bit in the fight against global climate warming change.
MrWheel008 6 months ago
@MrWheel008 Actually the consensus of opinion among the majority of scientists is that man-made climate change is real, if you knew a little bit more about the issue you'd be aware of that fact, you're just drowning in your own ignorance.
tdavies456 6 months ago 24
@tdavies456 'consensus of opinion'? Now THAT is science isn't it. Here we sit, each of us 15 minutes away from annihilation via MIRVED ICBMs, calm and cool that the scientists that created such gems were blith that such marvels of science will not end up at the control of some madman of a 'leader' who is quite willing to employ such. My bet is that the madman will beat out any excess of CO2 first. Oh, yes, don't forget seven billion and counting. Have a nice day.
danldunham 3 months ago
@danldunham err...yeah
tdavies456 3 months ago
@tdavies456 CLIMATEGATE 2.0 says you are WRONG.
Jasonsenipor 3 months ago
He is Right, anyone who thinks otherwise, well done you have just proven your an idiot!
rathfullshadow 6 months ago
This is hilarious. Very well written. If you don't appreciate this humour, you don't deserve to.
Guernseyman325 6 months ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
yeeeeeeeee this ain't even remotely funny, sorry
LuxCheers 6 months ago
The problem is David EVERYTHING has been tried. And as things get more and more desperate MORE AND MORE HAS TO GO! It has now got to a point that people are so stupid and reflective and the problem so desperate that the scientists can no longer tell the truth lest the bat shit crazy right wingers start threatening the lives and families of the people TRYING TO SAVE CIVILISATION! Stand there all smug and superior if you like but you have NO idea how dirty the debate has become!
StunnedByStupidity 6 months ago
What I hate about the globalwarmingzists, is that they try to scare people into doing what they want. It's like terrorism, some wanker on the tv telling me that I should do something like make a windmill or a waterplant in my yard or else the world is going to die and it will be all my fault.
If you really want to do something to use less fossil fuel, then nuclear power is the only real alternative. What are we going to do, power our cars like the Flintstones?
emikke 6 months ago
Hey Jim
Right, there's no perfect system
Capitalism isn't perfect nor socialism
That's why my preference is to not give them more things to screw up.
Look what politicians do with the power we give them- and think about how much they could screw it up more if we ask them to play god
RL36D 7 months ago
Jez jez jez I'm not fabricating and not again
So hard to explain things to you in 500 characters, hence the ridicule which is more to the point
Sigh
The bad economic decisions of greece ireland spain and italy drag down countries like germany which have to cover their debt
1.7T is the figure
RL36D 7 months ago
Hi Jim my sister in-law's from texas, sandy, know her?
Sorry i tease but all this stuff about enforced solutions sound ideal till it gets to the political level
I don't want to turn to politicians for the answer. As a merican you may understand
RL36D 7 months ago
@RL36D The problem is that politicians already are defining the market. They always have - and there's no escaping that. There is NO such thing as the "free market". It's a total illusion. If we had a truly free market, we'd have slavery, child labor, no limits on work hours or pay, no trade protectionism, no tax breaks for big corporations, etc. It's all a matter of HOW the market is regulated. And big biz is excellent at manipulating public opinion via all forms of media - hence, the politics.
jimbills 7 months ago
thanks jim, guess I was too busy with all these multiple replies to spell check.
I wish we would all just get along. I love the planet too. And I really hope you're right, and reducing carbon dioxide will turn everything around, because obviously it has become the sole environmental concern for many, draining funds from all other causes. So I really hope that reducing carbon dioxide is the answer for all our environmental woes, as we won't be able to afford any other problems.
RL36D 7 months ago
@RL36D Well, the issue is deeply complex. But the main problem is that fossil fuels, which were insanely cheap and powerful, are finite, increasingly difficult to extract, and pollutant. I just wish that we were more open to alternative energies while we still have the resources to maximize them and before we screw up the planet more than is inevitable. But even that is not optimal - we've been spoiled since the Drake Well in Pennsylvania, Eventually, we'll understand that.
jimbills 7 months ago
jimbills- Peak oil scares me- reeks of 'disaster capitalism'. I agree new technology should be encouraged, but when it becomes mandated it leads to absurd conclusions (rare earth batteries/ mercury CFLs)
How many people will just throw CFLs in landfill?
Heard of MSUs wave disk generator engine? 90% less CO2, 3.5x more efficient than hybrid, 5x more than conventional. Peak oil expects all other factors to remain constant. Soon LED will replace CFL- by being better, not by mandate, not by dictate
RL36D 7 months ago
@RL36D Yes, I've researched peak oil theory fairly thoroughly. I've tried to poke holes in it, and I cant. I think it's all but certain and imminent (if not already happening). How bad it will be is guesswork, though.
On capitalism, despite its many benefits (higher standard of living, increased efficiency, etc.), I don't view it as a very strong at adapting in advance of a changing environment. As long as there is money to be made (demand), things will remain as they are....
jimbills 7 months ago
@RL36D ....which makes avoiding issues like economic chaos from peak oil and climate change largely unavoidable without governmental action. And I think that's REALLY why some people fight AGW theory so vigorously. I won't argue that government mandate can be harmful and often counter-productive (ethanol being an excellent example). It can. But, as it is now, our government subsidizes oil/coal/gas far more than solar/wind/biofuel - despite record profits in fossil fuel companies....
jimbills 7 months ago
@RL36D ....We aren't allowing a 'free market' - we have an active hand in making the market friendlier for fossil fuels (because they are the campaign contributors) than alternatives. Doing so for a finite resource that is pollutant, increasingly expensive to find and produce, and highly questionable in terms of energy security and foreign policy seems more than a little crazy to me. It's a crash waiting to happen.
jimbills 7 months ago
@RL36D You're listed as living in Bolivia, but your English is excellent, so I don't know if you're a North American or a European living abroad. Anyway, I'm writing from a U.S.-centric position (and that can be annoying to non-U.S. citizens). But another major problem with oil (unlike coal and gas right now) is trade deficits. We've been slowing selling the country away since the 1970s because we've had to import more and more oil. It's self-destructive economically (and environmentally).
jimbills 7 months ago
@jimbills- I was trying to figure out why you and mech are being such fierce gate-keepers on this page, now I realize- you two are the 'el dude brothers'!
No Mark, I am not from Bolivia.
Gee Mark, what's wrong with world government, can I answer that in two letters? E-U. The entire experiment may crumble under a Greek default.
Thanks for pointing out AGW is about world govt- hand over your sovereignty, then gee, we came up with a cheap electric car, crisis averted- but you lost your freedom
RL36D 7 months ago
@RL36D You may have noticed the Euro is doing well against the dollar. The problems in the US economy are far more serious than that of Greece.
As for "freedom", small-government capitalism challenges this far more than anything else in the modern world. Free-marketeers attempt to replace the democratically mandated public sector with an unaccountable, unelectable private sector, creaming value off the top of the economy. Where is the freedom in that?
Mechness 7 months ago
@Mechness- the euro is doing well? jeremy you are misinformed. have you followed the latest on Germany having to put up 1.7trillion to monetize failing countries' debt, and if it doesn't work they all go down?
no, I suppose that's fine.
jeremy, when did you become someone 'of any importance'? what a laugh.
RL36D 7 months ago
@RL36D Well Bertram, I see you don't understand what "against the dollar" means. 10 years ago a euro was worth $0.90. Now it's worth $1.42. It's been climbing in value for the past year throughout the "debt crisis".
You may want to look at the US's own debt crisis. The US economy is 40 times that of Greece. If it goes down, bad things will happen. If Greece defaults... well it'll be bad for Greece, but everyone else will get by one way or another.
1.7 trillion? ? You're fabricating again...
Mechness 7 months ago
@RL36D ? My name is Jim, and I live in Texas. I've posted my own videos, so this is easily verified. I have no opinion about world government. If it happens - it's a long, long way off. I was posting, again, in the hopes that we were getting somewhere constructively. But I see that isn't the case. Okey doke. Again, best wishes to you.
jimbills 7 months ago
@RL36D I don't have a problem with CFLs. The mercury content is tiny. Far less than the fluorescent tubes of yesteryear which have been in production for over half a century. Less even than the burning of the additional coal needed to power incandescent bulbs.
CLFs are also not stipulated by legislation anywhere in the world as far as I am aware. Neither have LEDs been able to match them in efficiency up until now, and LEDs are still a lot more expensive.
Mechness 7 months ago
@Mechness- Sorry Jeremy, I don't have the exact quote, don't have climategate chapter and verse, that's why I put it in one quote instead of two. No Jeremy, sorry, I won't reread them all to satisfy you.
No Jeremy, this isn't a scientific debate, this is a regular debate. If either of us were scientists we'd have something better to be doing with our time. I hope Jones and Mann don't troll youtube posts.
Yes the emails reek, but I won't be condensing them in 500 char, people should read them
RL36D 7 months ago
I read those e-mails, that was a brilliant piece of cointel ops (Unsure which government was behind the hack) and the world news corporations pumped it out as if they were newsworthy as their wealthy masters told em to. Theirs no stopping the global ponzi scheme orchestrators and fossil fuel industry just happens to be one of those arms of it, good luck and take care during the upcomming ecological and civilization catastophy.
Gantzer1 7 months ago
@RL36D My name is not Jeremy.
If you wish to question climate science you need to address the science. I don't need to be a scientist to debate the science, so neither do you. If you have a scientific argument use it. If you only have rhetoric you will persuade no one of any importance.
I have read the emails. I don't see anything that challenges climate science.
Mechness 7 months ago
@Mechness They never really do address is the science. If they do, it's all about natural cycles as opposed to the actual physics of greenhouse gasses. As I wrote before, I think it's all really about protecting "free market" principles instead of science.
On "Climategate", doesn't anyone else find the timing a bit suspicious? It was right before Copenhagen. Aren't those who believe it's a "smoking gun" even slightly concerned that they are the ones being manipulated?
jimbills 7 months ago
I read those e-mails, that was a brilliant piece of cointel ops (Unsure which government was behind the hack) and the world news corporations pumped it out as if they were newsworthy as their wealthy masters told em to. Theirs no stopping the global ponzi scheme orchestrators and fossil fuel industry just happens to be one of those arms of it, good luck and take care during the upcomming ecological and civilization catastrophy.
Gantzer1 7 months ago
@Gantzer1 it's a rorschach test. I see jones and mann discussing what journals are to be counted as peer-review based on a single dissenting article, I see them sitting on each other's review panels and giving each other grants and awards and saying who will and won't be in the club, I see jones admit there's been no statistically significant warming since '98 but he won't reveal that because people the critics would have a field day, and I see a pile of crap. you see it and think it fine.
RL36D 7 months ago
actual weather report 26/7/2011
Northern italy (somewhere near venice) elevation 1500feet or above. 20centimeter snow.
In italy, In the summer????
weeks of dry 40degrees celsius weather reports all across north america.
Climate change here we come.....GO!
InODependanceSyndrom 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
There is a quick simple solution to global warming and climate change. It is called Muon Catalysed Fusion. As worked on Star Scientific. NO CO2. NO Greenhouse Gases. NO Carbon Tax. NO Toxic Waste. The source is dueterium from the World's Oceans - virtually limitless. It is cheap to produce. WE NEED IT NOW. See the website "Star Scientific Limited", Blog "The Big Picture by Andrew Horvath", Youtube video - "In the Footsteps of Fusion".
2110kop 7 months ago
Hey deniers, how was your week? Cool? Cool. Because climate doesn't care that much about short trends, But you do, of course, silly humans.
Not convinced yet? Wait ten years. Do fuck all, laugh at the concept of climate change, wait ten years, if you can, and evaluate the whole concept ten years from now. If you can wait that long.
Meurglys33 7 months ago
@myfeelingforyou I think you need to be more discerning about who you classify as "alarmists". btw, our banks were on the brink of collapse; that's why taxpayers (in the US and UK, at least) paid billions to prevent this happening.
OldishTim 7 months ago
@OldishTim Alarmists are people who derive attention from pointing out doom and gloom, have no solid proof, proof that cannot be undeniable, who are educated with the help of either rich parents or the Government themselves then advise the goverenments for which they actually work for that if they don't listen the world will end, funny that the earth has been around for millions of years but in our liftime it will end in 50 years or so,really?? oh and who pays alarmists wages? taxpayers do.
myfeeling4you 7 months ago
with the gfc the ceo's sent out emails to their managers telling them to sell "loans" they did this all too well, even to people who couldn't afford them but in the meantime the ceo's reaped millions in bonuses, cashed up and some left, others stayed on and those who stayed on payed themselves handsomely when the US gov and UK gov rescued the banks, so in the scheme of things who do you think benifited from the gfc, not the man in the streets as some ended up homeless, women included.
myfeeling4you 7 months ago
the gfc wasn't prevented, if it didn't happen then why did the governments assist with a bail out fund?
also has it ever passed your mind as to why the swine flu and the gfc were happening at the same time? without sounding like an alarmist it's because it's a way to get the governments worldwide to spend big to prop up private enterprise, if you think it's not true then ask why ceo's earn more now than they ever did in history and why shareholders are less involved, capitalism come communism
myfeeling4you 7 months ago