@rstevewarmorycom You are an arrogant numbskull with no understanding of Science. If you even put a minute of logical thought into climate change, it would dawn on you that an atmospheric trace gas, heavier than air cannot influence nevermind drive the planet's climate.
@rstevewarmorycom Go get a life , you are a bore. Co2 is an atmospheric trace gas, heavier than air that is essential to life on the Planet. It has no proven effect on the climate.
There is a quick simple solution to global warming and climate change. It is called Muon Catalysed Fusion. As worked on Star Scientific. NO CO2. NO Greenhouse Gases. NO Toxic Waste. The source is dueterium from the World's Oceans - virtually limitless. It is cheap to produce. WE NEED IT NOW. See the website "Star Scientific Limited", Blog "The Big Picture by Andrew Horvath", Youtube video - "In the Footsteps of Fusion"
The effects of galactic cosmic rays, modulated by solar terrestrial magnetic fields, on the climate (Russian Journal of Earth Sciences, vol. 6, no. 5, October 2004) - V. A. Dergachev, P. B. Dmitriev, O. M. Raspopov, B. Van Geel
@TheKickerboy99 you claimed "Now your going to tell me we are not at the end of a long warming trend? That is from the IPCC's own data, so take it up with them" tell me where is the study you were referencing to make this claim? you can try and change the subject all you like but until you can provide evidence to back up your claim the IPCC data indicates were're at the end of a warming trend you are nothing but a liar inventing "facts"
for anyone watching this video TheKickerboy99 said "Now your going to tell me we are not at the end of a long warming trend? That is from the IPCC's own data, so take it up with them" yet when I asked for evidence this was completely IGNORED. kickerboy is obviously an ignorant little shit who INVENTS "facts' and lies but will ignore you when you ask for proof.
Abandoning the scientific method led to the “Climategate” scandal and the errors and abuses of peer review by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). This is slowly being corrected, by honest players, but it is to be expected when you let politicians mandate what science studies, or ignores. The IPCC was flawed from the beginning, as the mandate they were given was to explore only manmade, and not natural climate changes. One must look at the whole picture to understand anything.
@TheKickerboy99 you little shit. you DELIBERATELY ignore my questions and do not even bother to address the comment to me. ANSWER THE FUCKING QUESTION.
"Now your going to tell me we are not at the end of a long warming trend? That is from the IPCC's own data, so take it up with them"
YOU LYING LITTLE SHIT, ADMIT YOU JUST MAKE ALL THIS SHIT UP.
@TheKickerboy99 you SAID "Now your going to tell me we are not at the end of a long warming trend? That is from the IPCC's own data, so take it up with them" YOU MADE A CLEAR CLAIM ABOUT THE DATA AND YOU HAVE BEEN UNABLE TO BACK IT UP. YOU ARE A LYING LITTLE SHIT WHO INVENTS 'FACTS' TO SUIT YOURSELF. UNLESS YOU CAN PROVE YOUR CLAIM FUCK OFF YOU LYING SHIT.
@TheKickerboy99 "Now your going to tell me we are not at the end of a long warming trend? That is from the IPCC's own data, so take it up with them."
come on, provide evidence of this claim or admit you lied and invented your own facts. YOU LIED you ignorant little shit.
@TheKickerboy99 "Now your going to tell me we are not at the end of a long warming trend? That is from the IPCC's own data, so take it up with them."
@TheKickerboy99 you obviously are such a cowardly little shit you deliberately ignore my requests for evidence and then write a comment not even addressed to me. "Now your going to tell me we are not at the end of a long warming trend? That is from the IPCC's own data, so take it up with them." come on you dumb little shit, back this up or are you going to keep making claims and ignoring my requests for evidence?
@TheKickerboy99 i bet when you get this you cowardly little shit you're going to be pretty bloody annoyed i noticed your cowardly comment. i have asked you again and again to back up your claim that "Now your going to tell me we are not at the end of a long warming trend? That is from the IPCC's own data, so take it up with them". admit you are a lying little shit who makes things up and then ignores requests for evidence to back up your claims.
@TheKickerboy99 good job censoring your channel you lying tool. i guess you must like to ignore the fact you claimed "Now your going to tell me we are not at the end of a long warming trend? That is from the IPCC's own data, so take it up with them" yet obviously you INVENTED this "fact". when you go making bold claims based on factual data and cant back it up, that tells me you're nothing but an ignorant little lying shit.
You are not a scientist, nor do you have much common sense. The IPCC has very few scientists in it, it is a political group formed by Maurice Strong. Do i have to tell you about him? AGW or ACC as you sheeple like to call it now, is his baby, it is only about 20-30 years old, and it is a scam to force world control of energy. You babble on about this and that, but until you start with that one main point, you waste your time. Defend Maurice Strong and his ideologies, my dear puppet.
@TheKickerboy99 "You are not a scientist" actually you stupid fuck I am. do you think I learned about the exact chemical processes of photosynthesis for shits and giggles? anyone with any scientific training can easily rebut your laughably ignorant comments. any fuckwit who just says plants will grow lots and there's no problem is ignorant of how transpiration works.
@TheKickerboy99 talking of roy spencer that man is hilarious. he says "i am a scientist and i think climate change AND evolution are crap so religious right please pay me to come give lots of presentations to conform to your views." one thing that is extremely easy to pick up from the data you cited is it tries to extrapolate GLOBAL CLIMATE SENSITIVITY from TROPICAL data. thats as logical as calculating the average temperature of the planet but ignoring all the cold areas.
@TheKickerboy99 I did, and I read another peer reviewed study which examined some gaping flaws in the study such as like i said, it tried to calculate climate sensitivity for the WHOLE planet based on tropical data. oh and like i said, roy spencer is an absolute dickhead who makes immense amounts of money pandering to fools like you. if he gets a call he must say "right which scientific consensus do you want me to "fight" against? climate change or evolution?"
@AussiePolitics Funny though, the PEER reviewed papers the IPCC uses to push this crap are what gets used against them when they are shown to be exaggerating, or just making up doomsday shit, like the himalayan glaciers and sea levels rising 20 feet. If they have to lie to get your attention they loose my ear. You say nothing on here, but you sure try to make it look good, you should join the IPCC they need all the help they can get these days.
@TheKickerboy99 We know for a fact that glaciers are in retreat globally so its amusing when you find a single error in one paragraph in a 3000 word report and act like that disproves EVERYTHING. if you understood ANYTHING about climate science you would realise that the IPCC has been in trouble for being TOO CONSERVATIVE.
@TheKickerboy99 I find it amusing how you accuse me of ignorance and being a sheep yet I am the only one here who actually has ANY scientific training and actually understands this issue. you have been wrong on so many issues, from volcanoes to plant growth that I find it hilarious that you still act like you're some great intelligent being. you're no better than a fucking creationist who looks at all the evidence and goes "its all a conspiracy! i know because the internet tells me it is!"
@AussiePolitics Too conservative lmoa...they have been caught over and over in lies. You are a scientist like I'm the Queen of England, you just spout off the same crap you have learned here on youtube, so nice try there. You don't have the vocabulary of anyone who has studied anything, so stop trying to claim it. As stated many times here by me, yes we are at the end of a long warming trend, it started before the invention of fossil fuel energy. The IPCC is in trouble because they lied.
@TheKickerboy99 the actual sea-level rise is 80% higher than the median IPCC projection. that is called being pretty damn fucking conservative. where have I been caught out over and over in lies? come on, WHEN??? I don't have the vocabulary? LOL just because I converse in a casual manner means i cant be a scientist. you really are a fool. "we are at the end of a long warming trend". peer reviewed study please, no more lies and bullshit.
@AussiePolitics You know what, just go put in a Harry Potter movie, and wait for mommy to call you for dinner, you are obviously a kid in his parents basement. Now your going to tell me we are not at the end of a long warming trend? That is from the IPCC's own data, so take it up with them.
@TheKickerboy99 so a petty ignorant comment and you IGNORED my request for a peer reviewed study proving your comment we are coming out of a warming period. you stupid fool, if you repeat the statement that does not provide proof. give me a peer reviewed study backing your claim up, you have made up so much shit during this debate i do not trust a thing you say.
@TheKickerboy99 "You know what, just go put in a Harry Potter movie, and wait for mommy to call you for dinner" that makes you sound like a petulant little teenager.
@TheKickerboy99 yep you definitely sound like a brainwashed teenager with that comment, and based on that username you definitely sound like one too. my namecalling is in response to your insults you fool. when a person lies so frequently about information i study and then insults me about it of course it would piss anyone off.
@TheKickerboy99 oh and by the way fuckwit, scientists have known that CO2 traps heat in the atmosphere since the 1800s, its not some "new" science invented by a man. just because fools like yourself with no scientific background get paranoid since its been politicised, doesn't mean the scientific community has not been concerned about this for a very, very long time. the more i talk to people like yourself the more ignorant i realise you people are.
@TheKickerboy99 actually you idiot like I have said MANY TIMES satellites are able to measure the amount of outgoing radiation along the wavelengths associated with CO2 and over the past 40 years it has been DECREASING. we have empirical evidence you fool that CO2 is trapping more and more heat in the atmosphere. yet again I have called you out on your bullshit.
@AussiePolitics Once again you show yourself to be brainwashed, only stating what agrees with your view point. Ever heard of negative/positive feedbacks? That was what Lindzen's last paper was about, it is peer reviewed and stands as such.
@TheKickerboy99 you idiot water vapour increasing in the atmosphere in response to rises in CO2 is an example of positive feedback that i was not talking about long ago. i noticed AGAIN you dodged the question. you claimed we are coming out of a warming period. i asked for proof. provide or admit you are a lying fool.
@AussiePolitics Again I would point you to the IPCC's data, which they have compiled, and use to push the carbon tax. The science is good, they just cherry pick what parts to tell the people to maximize the scare. It's ok the sky isn't falling go back to your movie.
@TheKickerboy99 I just provided you a clear example of where the IPCC was EXTREMELY wrong because they were being too conservative. another example is that each arctic summer sea-ice is melting faster than average predictions in the last IPCC report. now again I ask: WHERE IS YOUR PROOF for these claims??? you say we are coming out of a warming period. study and journal name please. you say the IPCC is lying again study please
@AussiePolitics Well i don't believe the burden of proof lies with me, rather with you, as you are the one claiming we have a global warming problem when we don't seem to.
@TheKickerboy99 " i don't believe the burden of proof lies with me" YOU JUST SAID WE WERE COMING OUT OF A WARMING PERIOD AND THE DATA BACKED IT UP. no you are back-peddling because you realise you have made that up. admit you lied.
@TheKickerboy99 "Now your going to tell me we are not at the end of a long warming trend? That is from the IPCC's own data, so take it up with them." you made a clear statement about the IPCC's data. I asked you for evidence which supported this and after dodging the question you just stated "Well i don't believe the burden of proof lies with me". so you obviously lied then.
@TheKickerboy99 "Once again you show yourself to be brainwashed" well when over 90% of climatologists agree with you and thousands of studies its not called being brainwashed its called actually looking at the fucking evidence. you on the other hand ignore the thousands of scientists and studies, have no understanding of climatology and lie frequently about the data. you are the one who is either wilfully ignorant or brainwashed.
@TheKickerboy99 Journal Science published 2004 "The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change". "
Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change" again found that 97.5% of climatologists who were actively publishing studies agreed with the consensus position that ACC was real. dont pretend there is any debate you fool, the only people debating it are dickheads like yourself who dont even know transpiration requires water.
@TheKickerboy99 you stated increased CO2 would just make plants grow more. only a fool ignorant of how transpiration works would make such a stupid statement, they lose a LOT of water through photosynthesis. you could have an atmosphere 100% CO2 and it doesn't mean plants would be using the extra amount.
@AussiePolitics Funny how they are all silent on the issue, none of them will debate the issue, i just can't find one that will stand up and support carbon tax due to measured data, as the measured data shows no cause for alarm.
@TheKickerboy99 "Funny how they are all silent on the issue" because most climatologists like most evolutionary biologists dont give a shit about debating with ignorant members of the public like yourself. they'd rather be doing real research.
@AussiePolitics There are thousands of climate scientists to debate them, yet not one will do it, the truth is the truth, and it does not support your view. You keep name calling in every comment, you obviously don't realize it lowers you. You can't prove something that isn't happening no matter how much you try, I can understand your frustration.
@TheKickerboy99 you said we were coming out of a warm period. you said that the data supported this. guess what? you just made a claim. i asked you to back it up and what do you say? you dont feel you have to prove anything. you made a FACTUAL claim. so are you going to admit you lied now?
@AussiePolitics We are coming out of a warming period, I never said when or how long it will take or that it would start cooling soon or anything. Don't get your panties in a knot. The Earth has been doing it for much longer than man has been here, why would you think that would change? Or that we could control it in anyway? It happens because of outside forces, The Sun, and our travel through he galaxy, in and out of spiral arms, these are how we have ice ages, and melting periods.
@TheKickerboy99 you made a very clear claim: "Now your going to tell me we are not at the end of a long warming trend? That is from the IPCC's own data". please show me the study which indicates this. i keep asking and you cannot do it so clearly you have LIED.
@TheKickerboy99@TheKickerboy99 you said "That is from the IPCC's own data". I kept asking for proof of this and suddenly its not there. if its from the IPCC's own data like you claim, why can you not find a study demonstrating your claim??? admit you lied about this and were just trying to make more shit up like you have throughout this debate and been caught time and time again.
@TheKickerboy99 this is what you wrote copied word for word:
"Now your going to tell me we are not at the end of a long warming trend? That is from the IPCC's own data, so take it up with them."
I asked you where your proof of this claim was and you have been avoiding the question. you made a specific claim, that the IPCC data indicated we were at the end of a "long warming trend". well come on, evidence please or admit you lied.
@AussiePolitics Have you studied any of Henrik Svensmark's work on the formation of cloud cover? It is 95% of the greenhouse effect, I suggest you start there, as you seem to have no knowledge of it. He had many scientists help him with his study, and it is peer reviewed, explains things quite well, it should even make sense to you.
@TheKickerboy99 now you are avoiding it because you made a very clear claim and you obviously LIED.
"Now your going to tell me we are not at the end of a long warming trend? That is from the IPCC's own data, so take it up with them."
come on, where are the studies showing the IPCC data indicates we are at the end of a warming trend? you made a very specific claim. now back it up or admit you are a lying fool.
@AussiePolitics Rhodes Fairbridge and the idea that the solar system regulates the Earth's climate (Journal of Coastal Research, SI 50, pp. 955-968, 2007) - Richard Mackey
@AussiePolitics Solar and climate signal records in tree ring width from Chile (AD 1587–1994) (Planetary and Space Science, vol. 55, issue 1-2, pp. 158-164, January 2007) - Nivaor Rodolfo Rigozoa, Daniel Jean Roger Nordemann, Heitor Evangelista da Silva, Mariza Pereira de Souza Echer, Ezequiel Echer
@AussiePolitics Solar correlates of Southern Hemisphere mid-latitude climate variability (International Journal of Climatology, vol. 22, issue 8, pp. 901-915, 27 May 2002) - Ronald E. Thresher
@TheKickerboy99 "there are hundreds more I can post" yet you cant find any evidence to back up your claim that "Now your going to tell me we are not at the end of a long warming trend? That is from the IPCC's own data, so take it up with them" come on, where is the IPCC data you claimed to have to support your views? admit you lied and invented it because you have yet to provide ANY evidence for this specific claim.
@TheKickerboy99 "Now your going to tell me we are not at the end of a long warming trend? That is from the IPCC's own data, so take it up with them." unless you can come up with a study right now to back this claim up then its obvious you have lied. tell me, do you make this shit up in your mind or do you just believe anything you read online that conforms to your views?
@AussiePolitics Solar Variability Over the Past Several Millennia (Space Science Reviews, vol. 125, issue 1-4, pp. 67-79, 22 December 2006) - J. Beer, M. Vonmoos, R. Muscheler
@TheKickerboy99 i find it hilarious how you act like you know anything about climatology while acting like transpiration does not involve water. what kind of fuckwit is so stupid they think that if a plant has more CO2 is just requires that to grow? for every 6 molecules of CO2 a plant absorbs it loses 6 H2O molecules you fool. yet you were too stupid to even understand this. yet here i am debating with an idiot with so little knowledge who accuses me of being ignorant.
@TheKickerboy99 this is why people like you are clearly not scientists. science works by looking at ALL the evidence and evaluating it. when you have thousands of studies over a hundred years and over 90% of climatologists accepting ACC then it takes a special kind of idiot to go "yeah but I found a couple of scientists who disagree with everyone else and because i agree with them i just think they're right"
You are beating a dead dog you fool, the scam is exposed, its about taxing a minor, harmless gas, to control energy world wide. Have fun with it I guess, you'll never get anyone with a brain to buy it. Apparently you have no brain of your own, and just regurgitate what you've been taught by the proponents of it.
@TheKickerboy99 you absolute fucking coward. you do not even have the balls to respond to my rebutting all your lies and half-truths. if the scam is "exposed" why is so easy to show just how fucking wrong all your lies are? why do you have to stoop to making shit up if all the facts are on your side? why cant you cite any peer reviewed studies? all you do is call me stupid despite me being the one who obviously understands this topic vastly better than you. fuck off you ignorant fool.
@TheKickerboy99 "harmless gas" yet not too long ago you were saying that you were deliberately trying to increase CO2 yourself because you wanted more warming. so yet again we come back to your hypocritical arguments "there's no warming but if there is it isnt carbon, but if it is its not because of humans but if it is then its good to be warm". idiot.
@TheKickerboy99 no i didn't because unlike you i didn't give a shit about the politics. unlike you I care about the SCIENCE and also unlike you i have not gone around spreading blatant lies like that humans emit more CO2 than humans. that comment alone tells me that you just believe only what conforms to your views and you dont even bother to question it. by all means come back with some more myths but dont expect me to filter a century of scientific research for your brainwashed mind.
@AussiePolitics This is your comment, "unlike you I care about the SCIENCE and also unlike you i have not gone around spreading blatant lies like that humans emit more CO2 than humans." Thanks for clearing up what kind of scatter brain you are.
@TheKickerboy99 "to name a few" a study done several years ago found that between 1993-2003 not ONE published study contradicted the scientific consensus that climate change is real. so when you give me a few scientists out of the THOUSANDS doing research into this then that just tells me you are no better than the creationists. tell me, have you even read a peer reviewed study? i really doubt it based on the lies you keep repeating.
@AussiePolitics Of course climate change is real you moron, the climate has always changed, and hopefully always will. Your comment following "to name a few" is priceless. Read it again and tell me how dumb you feel. I am rolling around on the floor laughing uncontrollably. Thanks for that.
@TheKickerboy99 you arrogant fool do you really think scientists do not know that the climate has not changed in the past? you have lied and recounted so many myths like volcanoes emitting more than humans it is absolutely pathetic. you obviously get your 'facts' after they have been carefully filtered by whoever reinforces your views. we know for a FACT that for the past 40 years satellites have been able to measure less heat leaving the planet as it is trapped in the atmosphere.
@TheKickerboy99 between 1993 and 2003 NOT ONE study disagreed with the consensus position. you fools are no different to creationists: you find ONE scientists out of the thousands and suddenly thats ALL you listen to. sorry but science doesn't work by cherry picking information, you have to look at the whole body of evidence and over 100 years of research overwhelmingly supports that human emissions are changing the climate.
@AussiePolitics You prove over and over how dumb you are. Its funny reading every word. What about after 2003? lol there has been lots since then. If you really wish to discount water vapour when considering climate on Earth you lose me right away. If you don't acknowledge cosmic rays control cloud formation, you've lost me. These are testable phenomenon, Svensmark, Lindzen, Ball, Christie, Choi, are some famous ones, but the list is extensive.
@TheKickerboy99 I find it amusing how you accuse me of ignorance while you are the one who spreads obviously falsehoods and ignorant comments about photosynthesis. I have not seen a study since 2003 but I am aware from the peer reviewed literature that there have been thousands of studies since then published which verify climate change, can you quote any peer reviewed studies that call it into question?
@AussiePolitics Yes the climate changes at all times, never remaining stable. I though we already went over this lol. We are talking I think about climate change, that is out of the norm, and there hasn't been any. So what is your question?
@TheKickerboy99 hooray another half-truth "climate changes all the time". go reading a bloody science book and you'll realise that the reason scientists are concerned about climate change is because of the RATE of change. like i said before, when the difference between an ice age and a warm period is 5-8oC and it takes THOUSANDS of years to change for a variety of reasons, we have damn good reason to be concerned by a degree of warming in less than a century.
@TheKickerboy99 hooray we get to another half-truth "water vapour". yes, scientists are well aware water vapour is a strong greenhouse gas. thats what fools like you like to say 'look its a strong greenhouse gas that means that CO2 isnt important!". what you do not understand is that water vapour a) remains in the atmosphere only a short time - about a week vs CO2 which stays up there about a century.
@AussiePolitics You just make shit up as you go eh? Nice. Water vapour is 95% of the GH effect, CO2 being less than 4%, and we have changed CO2 content by less than 4% from its normal. No climate out of the normal has been recorded. None is expected. CO2 does not drive climate......try to imagine its true, its easy if you have a brain. Water vapour is in the atmosphere at ALL times, as is CO2, there content is pretty constant in different places throughout the globe. They are controlled by space
@TheKickerboy99 "make shit up" actually what I talk about is based on real scientific studies, not recycled bullshit by people who agree with you so you believe them. did I say that water vapour was not a major greenhouse gas? no, but we know for a FACT that increases in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere lead to warming as it is a greenhouse gas and lead to the evaporation of MORE water which increases this warming.
@TheKickerboy99 I never said water vapour was not in the atmosphere at all times, but it is in a constant cycle - its called fucking rain you fool. CO2 on the other hand does not stay at a constant level but increases, causing further warming which does not decrease until the excess carbon is absorbed which takes over a century.
@TheKickerboy99 "No climate out of the normal has been recorded" and where the fuck are you getting that from? come on, reference a reputable journal that states that. hundreds of independent studies over many years indicate the complete opposite so you are just making shit up. back up that claim right now with peer reviewed studies published in a journal.
@TheKickerboy99 its so amusing the number of half-truths you're using to try and make a point. first you claim that its volcanoes, but that was absolute bullshit. then you think fewer and fewer plants will magically start absorbing immense amounts of CO2. will they magically all grow a billion more stomata and complete systems to cope? LOL now you're claiming that because water vapour is an important greenhouse gas it means CO2 is not important. lol
@AussiePolitics No I said the more CO2 we have, the faster plants will grow, it'll be beautiful. CO2 is almost irrelevant as a greenhouse gas, being the 95% to 4% ratio. Plants thrive in high CO2 environments and its warming contribution is almost immeasurable by the IPCC's own data. So whats your point?
@TheKickerboy99 "it'll be beautiful" as more and more rainforests are cut down every day where are all these forests springing up absorbing carbon? like i said before, there is a PHYSICAL limit to the amount of photosynthesis plants can perform and you're expecting fewer plants to absorb more carbon. saying CO2 is irrelevant is as stupid as saying arsenic is irrelevant because its only a tiny part of the overall % of your body. CO2 INCREASES water evapouration which leads to more warming.
@AussiePolitics I have told you about a few studies, if you have a brain you can find them too. :) Your quite angry eh? thats funny. Common sense should tell you its a scam, you should even need a peer reviewed study if you know all the facts, and have a brain.
@TheKickerboy99 actually it gets rather frustrating conversing with someone who obviously have no scientific knowledge at all who keeps peddling bullshit. I asked you for a peer reviewed study to back up your claim that there has been no warming in the past century. please reference it and back up your claim. its funny how you keep saying common sense should tell you its a scam yet you have demonstrated nothing but ignorance on this topic.
@AussiePolitics Of course there has been warming for the last century, how about for the last 15,000 yrs.....since the turn of the last ice age you putz?????? Why ask me for a PEER reviewed document that says something that is just dumb? You either can't understand simple concepts, or just contradict everything I say for fun.
@TheKickerboy99 THAT IS MY FUCKING POINT. you act like scientists say that climate change has never happened before. bullshit, scientists are worried about the SPEED. when it takes THOUSANDS of years for the climate regime to change and we get a degree of warming in less then a century of course scientists are worried.
@TheKickerboy99 thats the sign of an idiot? actually its frustrating when I discuss scientific concepts such as photosynthesis and I get immature responses about plants magically absorbing immense amounts of carbon. I get frustrated when I discuss these issues with someone who has no understanding of the topic and who keeps reciting absolute lies.
@TheKickerboy99 "Common sense" tell me where is your common sense when your argument is that CO2 does not impact climate yet you say you're creating as much of it as you can because you want it to be warmer. that tells me i am not dealing with a rational person, but an ignorant fool who believes that CO2 has no impact but even if it does it doesnt matter.
@TheKickerboy99 oh and there's your other half-truth: the climate has changed in the past therefore every single change has to be natural". what simplistic bullshit. ice ages and warm periods in the past are only a few degrees different in global mean temperature yet this change takes THOUSANDS of years and occurs for a variety of reasons including orbit and solar activity. yet for the past 60 years solar activity has remained constant while temperatures have increased.
@AussiePolitics Solar activity is never constant, in the last 60 years we have had many changes in solar activity some of it quite violent. You words show your ignorance of every aspect of your world.
@TheKickerboy99 actually according to a number of published studies such as "solar activitiy over the last 1150 years: does it correlate with climate" solar activity has NOT increased over the past several decades. you accuse me of ignorance yet I am the one getting my facts from the scientific literature while you spread absolute BULLSHIT.
@AussiePolitics Well Svensmark's paper on cosmic rays was peer reviewed, as was Lindzen's. Both stand as such. The sun has 57 yr. cycles which it goes through regularly, the next is in 2012. You should know this if your as smart as you claim. It seems you are making stuff up as you go.
@TheKickerboy99 you have provided no journal in which is was published. " you are making stuff up" actually unlike you EVERYTHING i have said is based on the scientific literature. i am not the idiot who has the childish mentality that "CO2 is absorbed by plants therefore lots of it just means plants will grow more". that kind of ignorant mentality tells me you know NOTHING about the biology of plants, photosynthesis or climatology.
@TheKickerboy99 "More warm, more water, more CO2" you have no fucking clue. you are completely ignorant of basic plant physiology if you think they have an unlimited ability to absorb excess CO2. again I ask, with more and more deforestation how the fuck are fewer and fewer plants supposed to absorb increasingly high amounts of CO2. if you ever took a course on plant ecology you would realise there are optimal levels for all elements
@AussiePolitics Your so mad eh? Can't just have a debate without getting all emotional, thats the sign of an idiot, talking about stuff he doesn't really know about.
@AussiePolitics It is not excess CO2 its just more than we have now, There have been times when there has been more, the world continues. The doomday stuff just doesn't fly dude. But carry on if it makes you happy, or angry or whatever.
@TheKickerboy99 yes there have been times when we had more, and the last times organisms radically altered the composition of the atmosphere - trees and aerobic bacteria vast numbers of species went extinct. we have seen extinctions in the past due to organisms changing the planet, and we're seeing them again.
@TheKickerboy99 im makinga rule from now on. if someone says 'plants will just use the extra CO2" they are clearly a moron and not worth the effort. whats the point in explaining how transpiration works and how water loss is a major part of photosynthesis? its not hard to work out that photosynthesis is not just sunlight and CO2.
@TheKickerboy99 I referenced a study that showed there has been NO increase in solar activity for the past few decades despite you accusing me of making shit up. i am the only one who has not been stating lie after lie after lie.
@TheKickerboy99 talking of roy spencer that man is hilarious. he says "i am a scientist and i think climate change AND evolution are crap so religious right please pay me to come give lots of presentations to conform to your views." one thing that is extremely easy to pick up from the data you cited is it tries to extrapolate GLOBAL CLIMATE SENSITIVITY from TROPICAL data. thats as logical as calculating the average temperature of the planet but ignoring all the cold areas.
@TheKickerboy99 and b) and most importantly, water vapour is a form of positive feedback for warming induced by CO2 rises. increase the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere and what happens? WARMING. what does warming do? CAUSE WATER TO EVAPORATE. you get more water in the atmosphere. scientists have calculated this feedback and worked out that it DOUBLES the impact of CO2 induced warming.
@TheKickerboy99 this is why most of the scientific community dont give a shit about brainwashed fools like yourself, you are WILFULLY ignorant. you are so arrogant you believe your google degree is equivalent to the qualifications of in excess of 90% of climatologists. like i said, you are no different to a creationist: you ignore thousands of studies that contradict you, you believe ANYONE out of the thousands that supports you and you repeat lies and myths because you have no understanding.
@AussiePolitics You are such a joke, keep up with the current trends you putz! Maybe, just maybe there is less radiant heat leaving the atmosphere because the planet is not warming as much, and starting to turn back to a cooling trend, as one should expect after the end of a long warming trend. One that started long before we started burning fossil fuels. I have been trying my hardest to create as much CO2 as possible, cause its really cold up here in Canada. A little warming would be nice. LMAO
@TheKickerboy99 yep this is what you idiots always boil down to, cheap comments about things you understand nothing of. im afraid your degree from google uni means absolutely shit all. we know for a fact that the planet is warming and if you had ANY understanding of climate science you would realise that scientists are concerned because the only difference between an ice age and warm period in global temperatures is just 5-8oC.
@TheKickerboy99 so your arguments boil down to this: ok there's no warming but if there is it isnt CO2 so its not humans but even if thats wrong then warming is a good thing because i live in a cold place. you sound absolutely pathetic, in other words you have no understanding of this field of science so you'd rather people closed their eyes and ignored it.
@AussiePolitics Also heres the thing, you should like this. :) Plants as you know love CO2, in rain forests you get readings of 600 ppm of CO2. So warmer, and more plants I like it :) Anyways you carry on with your doomsday stuff, Just know that most people know your a sheep, following a political mantra blindly, able to lie to yourself, about facts staring you in the face. I feel bad for your ignorance, happily though, the majority of the world is smarter.,
@TheKickerboy99 yep hooray we get an ignorant comment about photosynthesis, again stop talking about shit you dont understand. for your information there are THREE kinds of photosynthesis. C3, C4 and CAM. they ALL have limitations on how much carbon dioxide they are physically capable of absorbing in a certain amount of time, particularly CAM plants as they only absorb CO2 at night but CO2 also have an inefficient system as they are not able to move CO2 into bundle sheath cells.
@TheKickerboy99 so as we destroy more and more of the earth's rainforests you have the ignorant idea that the fewer and fewer trees remaining will absorb more and more carbon. thats like someone saying "hey you like a big steak for dinner so it must be extra good for you if I get you to start eating a tonne of steak every night. its not physically possible. you have proven yourself ignorant in every way imaginable on this topic. you really are just a fool with no scientific understanding.
@TheKickerboy99 also i note how you did not even bother replying directly to me for a few days, just writing comments you coward. you obviously do not read peer reviewed journal studies which most scientists get in the habit of doing when they are at university. if you are so ignorant of the scientific process that you need to get your information from secondary sources you obviously have no bloody clue what you are talking about.
Humans do not emit 100 times more CO2 than volcanos do. We've only been doing it for 150 years. Co2 follows temps through history. Tell me where I'm wrong? The stats I have quoted are correct, you are a scientist like I'm the queen.
@TheKickerboy99 the strongest eruption in 50 years was mount Pinatubo. that released 42 million tonnes of CO2. it did have an impact on the climate but it was a COOLING impact due to the sulfur in released into the stratosphere. now compare that to the 23 billion tonnes of CO2 that humans emitted in the same year. you obviously have never read ANY scientific studies and are just going off whatever websites or fools invent.
@TheKickerboy99 "Ok, well tell me then, what is the CO2 going to do to our climate" ah I see that you've decided to keep your mouth shut after you realised all the bullshit you were spreading about volcanoes was just so laughably easy to shoot down. when people like you go on about this shit i can tell straight away that you have never understood ANYTHING remotely scientific on this matter and that you're so biased you accept any statement that verifies your position.
@TheKickerboy99 i enjoy shooting down the myths you people peddle but if you want me to educate you on this matter, please get a life. go read a scientific journal if you want to learn something, stop getting your information from the university of google.
@TheKickerboy99 oh and by the way, you people are all the same. I start talking about the science of this issue and all you rant about is taxes. so then i say that i am talking about SCIENCE and you respond with lies and myths like volcanoes emitting more than humans. that tells me instantly you have read no scientific studies and are just getting your information from fools. its interesting how you're the one who has no understanding of this matter yet apparently im the one deluded.
We have only increased CO2 by a minute amount, and being that is is a trace gas that has almost zero effect, would you not deduce there is little risk? With the additional knowledge that, by the IPCC's own literature, a doubling of CO2 would only increase global temps 4*? In 150 years we have increased it less than 4%, and being that is is less than 4% of the greenhouse effect, it becomes a very small number. Canada will never allow Cap and Tax as long as Harper has a majority. Leighton UGGGGGG!
Wow. This, 0:35 seems to explain that one author publishing one page of covert criticism of the Global Warming Theory was the catalyst for waking up MC from the conventional wisdom that he later decided was false. I think this is a tremendous story because MC became one of the most powerful critics of this nonsense in the world. I wish I knew what article it was. I'd bet the author would like to know also.
"I talked to very few climate scientists.,,,,I didn't want to be influenced."...????? By the facts, Michael?....Who else should we go to for this information?...Politics aside, global warming is accepted by 99% of relevant scientists.
@216trixie Accepted by 99% of relevant scientists? As long as your making up numbers why not say a MILLION percent? or perhaps a BILLION percent. The alleged consensus on AGW has been proven false for years. Your using talking points that even most AGW supporters no longer use...
@216trixie Very untrue, most reputable climate scientists now back away from the panic button, and cast the reason for this to the computer models that can be made to say anything you want. Please search Henrick Svensmark and watch that series of vids if you want to understand our planets temperature fluctuations.
@216trixie As Crichton puts it, Science is not concensus. In the 1930's and 1940's, Eugenics was accepted by 95% of the scientific community, you wanna tell me Eugenics should be accepted just because of this?
And BTW, it's not 99%, not even close. The number is more of around 80%, and that's overestimating it.
What he was saying is that he was doing his own research and analysis of the data himself.
@LiouTao 80% is about right. According to the 2008 Von Storch poll of climatologists about 35% are absolutely convinced that man is directly involved in the recent warming and that we need to decarbonize our economy. Then there are various levels of similar feeling but less confidence that add up to around 80%. You can see the Von Storch poll here ://coast.gkss.de/staff/storch/pdf/GKSS_2010_9.CLISCI.pdf (page 46-47)
@LiouTao no science is not consensus, but when you have a century of research backing it up and the vast majority of experts on this issue agreeing there is a problem then its time to take notice. you people are no different to creationists: you find one scientist out of thousands who conforms to your views and suddenly they're the only expert on the matter who can be trusted.
This has been flagged as spam show
Logic from a sensible guy.
What a change from the warmists!
Besetho 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Logic from a sensible guy.
What a change from the warmists!
Besetho 1 month ago
Logic from a sensible guy.
What a change from the warmists!
Besetho 1 month ago
He doesn't even remember that it was the scientists who told
us we had nothing significant to worry about regarding Y2K.
He has a muddy memory and he's a confused thinker.
rstevewarmorycom 1 month ago
Michael Crichton needs to get educated in physics before
he tries to judge this stuff. Michael, you've got ice and water
in a glass. Does the water heat up first, or does the ice melt
first? This goes to show that a medical degree is NOT a science
degree. I used to tutor pre-med students in physics. They just
don't seem to get it very well. And he's not even doing science,
he's a writer/film producer. His grasp regarding theory of science
is totally lacking.
rstevewarmorycom 1 month ago
@rstevewarmorycom You are an arrogant numbskull with no understanding of Science. If you even put a minute of logical thought into climate change, it would dawn on you that an atmospheric trace gas, heavier than air cannot influence nevermind drive the planet's climate.
david222444 1 month ago
@david222444 And so you're one of the name-calling
whackadoodle deniers I've been hearing about. Did you
know that the size of the human population now means
that we each have only a couple football-field sized acres
of arable land per person, and that we each also have only
a few acres underlying the air to the top of the armosphere,
which for 99% of the atmosphere is only about ten miles thick?
And so you think dumping CO2 by the kilo into this just
won't make any difference?
rstevewarmorycom 1 month ago
@david222444 If you'd ever done a simple absorption
experiment with sunlight and a vessel of CO2 you'd know
better. But of course, like Aristotle, you do no science, you
merely know everything from surmise, like the Sun going
around the earth. If I have no understanding of science,
it couldn't be because I have a degree in physics, I guess.
Rather it is because you are a moron.
rstevewarmorycom 1 month ago
@rstevewarmorycom Go get a life , you are a bore. Co2 is an atmospheric trace gas, heavier than air that is essential to life on the Planet. It has no proven effect on the climate.
david222444 1 month ago
@david222444 I see. You're just a disinfobot that
keys on words or phrases and formulates a denial
of crucial science by random assembly. My son
can write one of those on Perl.
rstevewarmorycom 1 month ago
One of the greatest dangers to yourself and others is saying you know when you don't
ElJefer 2 months ago
Reminds me of how the correlation between ice cream sales and polio led people to believe ice cream caused polio.
axelasdf 5 months ago
what is the music at the beginning?
Sage80 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
There is a quick simple solution to global warming and climate change. It is called Muon Catalysed Fusion. As worked on Star Scientific. NO CO2. NO Greenhouse Gases. NO Toxic Waste. The source is dueterium from the World's Oceans - virtually limitless. It is cheap to produce. WE NEED IT NOW. See the website "Star Scientific Limited", Blog "The Big Picture by Andrew Horvath", Youtube video - "In the Footsteps of Fusion"
2110kop 7 months ago
The effects of galactic cosmic rays, modulated by solar terrestrial magnetic fields, on the climate (Russian Journal of Earth Sciences, vol. 6, no. 5, October 2004) - V. A. Dergachev, P. B. Dmitriev, O. M. Raspopov, B. Van Geel
TheKickerboy99 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheKickerboy99 you claimed "Now your going to tell me we are not at the end of a long warming trend? That is from the IPCC's own data, so take it up with them" tell me where is the study you were referencing to make this claim? you can try and change the subject all you like but until you can provide evidence to back up your claim the IPCC data indicates were're at the end of a warming trend you are nothing but a liar inventing "facts"
AussiePolitics 8 months ago
Cosmic rays and Earth's climate (Space Science Reviews, v. 93, issue 1/2, pp. 175-185, July 2000) - Henrik Svensmark
TheKickerboy99 8 months ago
Influence of Cosmic Rays on Earth's Climate (Physical Review Letters, vol. 81, issue 22, pp. 5027-5030, 30 November 1998) - Henrik Svensmark
TheKickerboy99 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
for anyone watching this video TheKickerboy99 said "Now your going to tell me we are not at the end of a long warming trend? That is from the IPCC's own data, so take it up with them" yet when I asked for evidence this was completely IGNORED. kickerboy is obviously an ignorant little shit who INVENTS "facts' and lies but will ignore you when you ask for proof.
AussiePolitics 8 months ago
Abandoning the scientific method led to the “Climategate” scandal and the errors and abuses of peer review by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). This is slowly being corrected, by honest players, but it is to be expected when you let politicians mandate what science studies, or ignores. The IPCC was flawed from the beginning, as the mandate they were given was to explore only manmade, and not natural climate changes. One must look at the whole picture to understand anything.
TheKickerboy99 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheKickerboy99 you little shit. you DELIBERATELY ignore my questions and do not even bother to address the comment to me. ANSWER THE FUCKING QUESTION.
"Now your going to tell me we are not at the end of a long warming trend? That is from the IPCC's own data, so take it up with them"
YOU LYING LITTLE SHIT, ADMIT YOU JUST MAKE ALL THIS SHIT UP.
AussiePolitics 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheKickerboy99 you SAID "Now your going to tell me we are not at the end of a long warming trend? That is from the IPCC's own data, so take it up with them" YOU MADE A CLEAR CLAIM ABOUT THE DATA AND YOU HAVE BEEN UNABLE TO BACK IT UP. YOU ARE A LYING LITTLE SHIT WHO INVENTS 'FACTS' TO SUIT YOURSELF. UNLESS YOU CAN PROVE YOUR CLAIM FUCK OFF YOU LYING SHIT.
AussiePolitics 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheKickerboy99 "Now your going to tell me we are not at the end of a long warming trend? That is from the IPCC's own data, so take it up with them."
come on, provide evidence of this claim or admit you lied and invented your own facts. YOU LIED you ignorant little shit.
AussiePolitics 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheKickerboy99 "Now your going to tell me we are not at the end of a long warming trend? That is from the IPCC's own data, so take it up with them."
PEER REVIEWED EVIDENCE TO BACK THIS UP PLEASE.
AussiePolitics 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheKickerboy99 you obviously are such a cowardly little shit you deliberately ignore my requests for evidence and then write a comment not even addressed to me. "Now your going to tell me we are not at the end of a long warming trend? That is from the IPCC's own data, so take it up with them." come on you dumb little shit, back this up or are you going to keep making claims and ignoring my requests for evidence?
AussiePolitics 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheKickerboy99 i bet when you get this you cowardly little shit you're going to be pretty bloody annoyed i noticed your cowardly comment. i have asked you again and again to back up your claim that "Now your going to tell me we are not at the end of a long warming trend? That is from the IPCC's own data, so take it up with them". admit you are a lying little shit who makes things up and then ignores requests for evidence to back up your claims.
AussiePolitics 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheKickerboy99 good job censoring your channel you lying tool. i guess you must like to ignore the fact you claimed "Now your going to tell me we are not at the end of a long warming trend? That is from the IPCC's own data, so take it up with them" yet obviously you INVENTED this "fact". when you go making bold claims based on factual data and cant back it up, that tells me you're nothing but an ignorant little lying shit.
AussiePolitics 8 months ago
You are not a scientist, nor do you have much common sense. The IPCC has very few scientists in it, it is a political group formed by Maurice Strong. Do i have to tell you about him? AGW or ACC as you sheeple like to call it now, is his baby, it is only about 20-30 years old, and it is a scam to force world control of energy. You babble on about this and that, but until you start with that one main point, you waste your time. Defend Maurice Strong and his ideologies, my dear puppet.
TheKickerboy99 9 months ago
@TheKickerboy99 "You are not a scientist" actually you stupid fuck I am. do you think I learned about the exact chemical processes of photosynthesis for shits and giggles? anyone with any scientific training can easily rebut your laughably ignorant comments. any fuckwit who just says plants will grow lots and there's no problem is ignorant of how transpiration works.
AussiePolitics 9 months ago
Plants grow faster in higher CO2 environments, do you debate that?
TheKickerboy99 9 months ago
@TheKickerboy99 talking of roy spencer that man is hilarious. he says "i am a scientist and i think climate change AND evolution are crap so religious right please pay me to come give lots of presentations to conform to your views." one thing that is extremely easy to pick up from the data you cited is it tries to extrapolate GLOBAL CLIMATE SENSITIVITY from TROPICAL data. thats as logical as calculating the average temperature of the planet but ignoring all the cold areas.
AussiePolitics 9 months ago
@AussiePolitics PEER REVIEWED right? Well it is. Read it.
TheKickerboy99 9 months ago
@TheKickerboy99 I did, and I read another peer reviewed study which examined some gaping flaws in the study such as like i said, it tried to calculate climate sensitivity for the WHOLE planet based on tropical data. oh and like i said, roy spencer is an absolute dickhead who makes immense amounts of money pandering to fools like you. if he gets a call he must say "right which scientific consensus do you want me to "fight" against? climate change or evolution?"
AussiePolitics 9 months ago
@AussiePolitics Funny though, the PEER reviewed papers the IPCC uses to push this crap are what gets used against them when they are shown to be exaggerating, or just making up doomsday shit, like the himalayan glaciers and sea levels rising 20 feet. If they have to lie to get your attention they loose my ear. You say nothing on here, but you sure try to make it look good, you should join the IPCC they need all the help they can get these days.
TheKickerboy99 9 months ago
@TheKickerboy99 We know for a fact that glaciers are in retreat globally so its amusing when you find a single error in one paragraph in a 3000 word report and act like that disproves EVERYTHING. if you understood ANYTHING about climate science you would realise that the IPCC has been in trouble for being TOO CONSERVATIVE.
AussiePolitics 9 months ago
@TheKickerboy99 I find it amusing how you accuse me of ignorance and being a sheep yet I am the only one here who actually has ANY scientific training and actually understands this issue. you have been wrong on so many issues, from volcanoes to plant growth that I find it hilarious that you still act like you're some great intelligent being. you're no better than a fucking creationist who looks at all the evidence and goes "its all a conspiracy! i know because the internet tells me it is!"
AussiePolitics 9 months ago
@AussiePolitics Too conservative lmoa...they have been caught over and over in lies. You are a scientist like I'm the Queen of England, you just spout off the same crap you have learned here on youtube, so nice try there. You don't have the vocabulary of anyone who has studied anything, so stop trying to claim it. As stated many times here by me, yes we are at the end of a long warming trend, it started before the invention of fossil fuel energy. The IPCC is in trouble because they lied.
TheKickerboy99 9 months ago
@TheKickerboy99 the actual sea-level rise is 80% higher than the median IPCC projection. that is called being pretty damn fucking conservative. where have I been caught out over and over in lies? come on, WHEN??? I don't have the vocabulary? LOL just because I converse in a casual manner means i cant be a scientist. you really are a fool. "we are at the end of a long warming trend". peer reviewed study please, no more lies and bullshit.
AussiePolitics 9 months ago
@AussiePolitics You know what, just go put in a Harry Potter movie, and wait for mommy to call you for dinner, you are obviously a kid in his parents basement. Now your going to tell me we are not at the end of a long warming trend? That is from the IPCC's own data, so take it up with them.
TheKickerboy99 9 months ago
@TheKickerboy99 so a petty ignorant comment and you IGNORED my request for a peer reviewed study proving your comment we are coming out of a warming period. you stupid fool, if you repeat the statement that does not provide proof. give me a peer reviewed study backing your claim up, you have made up so much shit during this debate i do not trust a thing you say.
AussiePolitics 9 months ago
@TheKickerboy99 "You know what, just go put in a Harry Potter movie, and wait for mommy to call you for dinner" that makes you sound like a petulant little teenager.
AussiePolitics 9 months ago
@AussiePolitics Your name calling is what makes you sound like a kid. Ask your mommy, she'll tell you the same thing.
TheKickerboy99 9 months ago
@TheKickerboy99 yep you definitely sound like a brainwashed teenager with that comment, and based on that username you definitely sound like one too. my namecalling is in response to your insults you fool. when a person lies so frequently about information i study and then insults me about it of course it would piss anyone off.
AussiePolitics 9 months ago
@TheKickerboy99 oh and by the way fuckwit, scientists have known that CO2 traps heat in the atmosphere since the 1800s, its not some "new" science invented by a man. just because fools like yourself with no scientific background get paranoid since its been politicised, doesn't mean the scientific community has not been concerned about this for a very, very long time. the more i talk to people like yourself the more ignorant i realise you people are.
AussiePolitics 9 months ago
@AussiePolitics CO2's effect is barley measurable, that is IPCC data, I know you don't like it, but that is the data.
TheKickerboy99 9 months ago
@TheKickerboy99 actually you idiot like I have said MANY TIMES satellites are able to measure the amount of outgoing radiation along the wavelengths associated with CO2 and over the past 40 years it has been DECREASING. we have empirical evidence you fool that CO2 is trapping more and more heat in the atmosphere. yet again I have called you out on your bullshit.
AussiePolitics 9 months ago
@AussiePolitics Once again you show yourself to be brainwashed, only stating what agrees with your view point. Ever heard of negative/positive feedbacks? That was what Lindzen's last paper was about, it is peer reviewed and stands as such.
TheKickerboy99 9 months ago
@TheKickerboy99 you idiot water vapour increasing in the atmosphere in response to rises in CO2 is an example of positive feedback that i was not talking about long ago. i noticed AGAIN you dodged the question. you claimed we are coming out of a warming period. i asked for proof. provide or admit you are a lying fool.
AussiePolitics 9 months ago
@AussiePolitics Again I would point you to the IPCC's data, which they have compiled, and use to push the carbon tax. The science is good, they just cherry pick what parts to tell the people to maximize the scare. It's ok the sky isn't falling go back to your movie.
TheKickerboy99 9 months ago
@TheKickerboy99 I just provided you a clear example of where the IPCC was EXTREMELY wrong because they were being too conservative. another example is that each arctic summer sea-ice is melting faster than average predictions in the last IPCC report. now again I ask: WHERE IS YOUR PROOF for these claims??? you say we are coming out of a warming period. study and journal name please. you say the IPCC is lying again study please
AussiePolitics 9 months ago
@AussiePolitics Well i don't believe the burden of proof lies with me, rather with you, as you are the one claiming we have a global warming problem when we don't seem to.
TheKickerboy99 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheKickerboy99 " i don't believe the burden of proof lies with me" YOU JUST SAID WE WERE COMING OUT OF A WARMING PERIOD AND THE DATA BACKED IT UP. no you are back-peddling because you realise you have made that up. admit you lied.
AussiePolitics 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheKickerboy99 "Now your going to tell me we are not at the end of a long warming trend? That is from the IPCC's own data, so take it up with them." you made a clear statement about the IPCC's data. I asked you for evidence which supported this and after dodging the question you just stated "Well i don't believe the burden of proof lies with me". so you obviously lied then.
AussiePolitics 9 months ago
@TheKickerboy99 "Once again you show yourself to be brainwashed" well when over 90% of climatologists agree with you and thousands of studies its not called being brainwashed its called actually looking at the fucking evidence. you on the other hand ignore the thousands of scientists and studies, have no understanding of climatology and lie frequently about the data. you are the one who is either wilfully ignorant or brainwashed.
AussiePolitics 9 months ago
@AussiePolitics I like the way you just pick numbers out of the air. 90% of climate scientists? lol name me a few.
TheKickerboy99 9 months ago
@TheKickerboy99 Journal Science published 2004 "The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change". "
Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change" again found that 97.5% of climatologists who were actively publishing studies agreed with the consensus position that ACC was real. dont pretend there is any debate you fool, the only people debating it are dickheads like yourself who dont even know transpiration requires water.
AussiePolitics 9 months ago
@AussiePolitics When did I say plants don't need water?
TheKickerboy99 9 months ago
@TheKickerboy99 you stated increased CO2 would just make plants grow more. only a fool ignorant of how transpiration works would make such a stupid statement, they lose a LOT of water through photosynthesis. you could have an atmosphere 100% CO2 and it doesn't mean plants would be using the extra amount.
AussiePolitics 9 months ago
@AussiePolitics Funny how they are all silent on the issue, none of them will debate the issue, i just can't find one that will stand up and support carbon tax due to measured data, as the measured data shows no cause for alarm.
TheKickerboy99 9 months ago
@TheKickerboy99 "Funny how they are all silent on the issue" because most climatologists like most evolutionary biologists dont give a shit about debating with ignorant members of the public like yourself. they'd rather be doing real research.
AussiePolitics 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@AussiePolitics There are thousands of climate scientists to debate them, yet not one will do it, the truth is the truth, and it does not support your view. You keep name calling in every comment, you obviously don't realize it lowers you. You can't prove something that isn't happening no matter how much you try, I can understand your frustration.
TheKickerboy99 9 months ago
@TheKickerboy99 you said we were coming out of a warm period. you said that the data supported this. guess what? you just made a claim. i asked you to back it up and what do you say? you dont feel you have to prove anything. you made a FACTUAL claim. so are you going to admit you lied now?
AussiePolitics 9 months ago
@AussiePolitics We are coming out of a warming period, I never said when or how long it will take or that it would start cooling soon or anything. Don't get your panties in a knot. The Earth has been doing it for much longer than man has been here, why would you think that would change? Or that we could control it in anyway? It happens because of outside forces, The Sun, and our travel through he galaxy, in and out of spiral arms, these are how we have ice ages, and melting periods.
TheKickerboy99 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheKickerboy99 you made a very clear claim: "Now your going to tell me we are not at the end of a long warming trend? That is from the IPCC's own data". please show me the study which indicates this. i keep asking and you cannot do it so clearly you have LIED.
AussiePolitics 9 months ago
@TheKickerboy99 @TheKickerboy99 you said "That is from the IPCC's own data". I kept asking for proof of this and suddenly its not there. if its from the IPCC's own data like you claim, why can you not find a study demonstrating your claim??? admit you lied about this and were just trying to make more shit up like you have throughout this debate and been caught time and time again.
AussiePolitics 9 months ago
@AussiePolitics What have I said that you would like to dispute? Read carefully what I HAVE said, not what you keep trying to tell me I said.
TheKickerboy99 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheKickerboy99 this is what you wrote copied word for word:
"Now your going to tell me we are not at the end of a long warming trend? That is from the IPCC's own data, so take it up with them."
I asked you where your proof of this claim was and you have been avoiding the question. you made a specific claim, that the IPCC data indicated we were at the end of a "long warming trend". well come on, evidence please or admit you lied.
AussiePolitics 9 months ago
@AussiePolitics Have you studied any of Henrik Svensmark's work on the formation of cloud cover? It is 95% of the greenhouse effect, I suggest you start there, as you seem to have no knowledge of it. He had many scientists help him with his study, and it is peer reviewed, explains things quite well, it should even make sense to you.
TheKickerboy99 9 months ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheKickerboy99 now you are avoiding it because you made a very clear claim and you obviously LIED.
"Now your going to tell me we are not at the end of a long warming trend? That is from the IPCC's own data, so take it up with them."
come on, where are the studies showing the IPCC data indicates we are at the end of a warming trend? you made a very specific claim. now back it up or admit you are a lying fool.
AussiePolitics 9 months ago
@AussiePolitics Rhodes Fairbridge and the idea that the solar system regulates the Earth's climate (Journal of Coastal Research, SI 50, pp. 955-968, 2007) - Richard Mackey
TheKickerboy99 8 months ago
@AussiePolitics Solar activity variations and global temperature (Energy [Oxford], vol. 18, no. 12, pp. 1273-1284, 1993) - Eigil Friis-Christensen
TheKickerboy99 8 months ago
@AussiePolitics Solar and climate signal records in tree ring width from Chile (AD 1587–1994) (Planetary and Space Science, vol. 55, issue 1-2, pp. 158-164, January 2007) - Nivaor Rodolfo Rigozoa, Daniel Jean Roger Nordemann, Heitor Evangelista da Silva, Mariza Pereira de Souza Echer, Ezequiel Echer
TheKickerboy99 8 months ago
@AussiePolitics Solar correlates of Southern Hemisphere mid-latitude climate variability (International Journal of Climatology, vol. 22, issue 8, pp. 901-915, 27 May 2002) - Ronald E. Thresher
TheKickerboy99 8 months ago
@AussiePolitics There's a few for you, there are hundreds more I can post.
TheKickerboy99 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheKickerboy99 "there are hundreds more I can post" yet you cant find any evidence to back up your claim that "Now your going to tell me we are not at the end of a long warming trend? That is from the IPCC's own data, so take it up with them" come on, where is the IPCC data you claimed to have to support your views? admit you lied and invented it because you have yet to provide ANY evidence for this specific claim.
AussiePolitics 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheKickerboy99 "Now your going to tell me we are not at the end of a long warming trend? That is from the IPCC's own data, so take it up with them." unless you can come up with a study right now to back this claim up then its obvious you have lied. tell me, do you make this shit up in your mind or do you just believe anything you read online that conforms to your views?
AussiePolitics 9 months ago
@AussiePolitics Solar Variability Over the Past Several Millennia (Space Science Reviews, vol. 125, issue 1-4, pp. 67-79, 22 December 2006) - J. Beer, M. Vonmoos, R. Muscheler
TheKickerboy99 8 months ago
@TheKickerboy99 i find it hilarious how you act like you know anything about climatology while acting like transpiration does not involve water. what kind of fuckwit is so stupid they think that if a plant has more CO2 is just requires that to grow? for every 6 molecules of CO2 a plant absorbs it loses 6 H2O molecules you fool. yet you were too stupid to even understand this. yet here i am debating with an idiot with so little knowledge who accuses me of being ignorant.
AussiePolitics 9 months ago
@TheKickerboy99 this is why people like you are clearly not scientists. science works by looking at ALL the evidence and evaluating it. when you have thousands of studies over a hundred years and over 90% of climatologists accepting ACC then it takes a special kind of idiot to go "yeah but I found a couple of scientists who disagree with everyone else and because i agree with them i just think they're right"
AussiePolitics 9 months ago
You are beating a dead dog you fool, the scam is exposed, its about taxing a minor, harmless gas, to control energy world wide. Have fun with it I guess, you'll never get anyone with a brain to buy it. Apparently you have no brain of your own, and just regurgitate what you've been taught by the proponents of it.
TheKickerboy99 9 months ago
@TheKickerboy99 you absolute fucking coward. you do not even have the balls to respond to my rebutting all your lies and half-truths. if the scam is "exposed" why is so easy to show just how fucking wrong all your lies are? why do you have to stoop to making shit up if all the facts are on your side? why cant you cite any peer reviewed studies? all you do is call me stupid despite me being the one who obviously understands this topic vastly better than you. fuck off you ignorant fool.
AussiePolitics 9 months ago
@TheKickerboy99 "harmless gas" yet not too long ago you were saying that you were deliberately trying to increase CO2 yourself because you wanted more warming. so yet again we come back to your hypocritical arguments "there's no warming but if there is it isnt carbon, but if it is its not because of humans but if it is then its good to be warm". idiot.
AussiePolitics 9 months ago
*C3 also have an inefficient system.
AussiePolitics 9 months ago
Did you read the Copenhagen Treaty? I did.
TheKickerboy99 9 months ago
@TheKickerboy99 no i didn't because unlike you i didn't give a shit about the politics. unlike you I care about the SCIENCE and also unlike you i have not gone around spreading blatant lies like that humans emit more CO2 than humans. that comment alone tells me that you just believe only what conforms to your views and you dont even bother to question it. by all means come back with some more myths but dont expect me to filter a century of scientific research for your brainwashed mind.
AussiePolitics 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@AussiePolitics This is your comment, "unlike you I care about the SCIENCE and also unlike you i have not gone around spreading blatant lies like that humans emit more CO2 than humans." Thanks for clearing up what kind of scatter brain you are.
TheKickerboy99 9 months ago
I have read Richard Lindzen, Tim Ball, John Christie, Henrick Svensmark, to name a few. Who would you have me read?
TheKickerboy99 9 months ago
@TheKickerboy99 "to name a few" a study done several years ago found that between 1993-2003 not ONE published study contradicted the scientific consensus that climate change is real. so when you give me a few scientists out of the THOUSANDS doing research into this then that just tells me you are no better than the creationists. tell me, have you even read a peer reviewed study? i really doubt it based on the lies you keep repeating.
AussiePolitics 9 months ago
Comment removed
TheKickerboy99 9 months ago
@AussiePolitics Of course climate change is real you moron, the climate has always changed, and hopefully always will. Your comment following "to name a few" is priceless. Read it again and tell me how dumb you feel. I am rolling around on the floor laughing uncontrollably. Thanks for that.
TheKickerboy99 9 months ago
@TheKickerboy99 you arrogant fool do you really think scientists do not know that the climate has not changed in the past? you have lied and recounted so many myths like volcanoes emitting more than humans it is absolutely pathetic. you obviously get your 'facts' after they have been carefully filtered by whoever reinforces your views. we know for a FACT that for the past 40 years satellites have been able to measure less heat leaving the planet as it is trapped in the atmosphere.
AussiePolitics 9 months ago
@AussiePolitics -eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/230_TakingGr.pdf put a w ww. in front of it and read, it is good for your brain.
TheKickerboy99 9 months ago
@TheKickerboy99 between 1993 and 2003 NOT ONE study disagreed with the consensus position. you fools are no different to creationists: you find ONE scientists out of the thousands and suddenly thats ALL you listen to. sorry but science doesn't work by cherry picking information, you have to look at the whole body of evidence and over 100 years of research overwhelmingly supports that human emissions are changing the climate.
AussiePolitics 9 months ago
@AussiePolitics You prove over and over how dumb you are. Its funny reading every word. What about after 2003? lol there has been lots since then. If you really wish to discount water vapour when considering climate on Earth you lose me right away. If you don't acknowledge cosmic rays control cloud formation, you've lost me. These are testable phenomenon, Svensmark, Lindzen, Ball, Christie, Choi, are some famous ones, but the list is extensive.
TheKickerboy99 9 months ago
@TheKickerboy99 I find it amusing how you accuse me of ignorance while you are the one who spreads obviously falsehoods and ignorant comments about photosynthesis. I have not seen a study since 2003 but I am aware from the peer reviewed literature that there have been thousands of studies since then published which verify climate change, can you quote any peer reviewed studies that call it into question?
AussiePolitics 9 months ago
@AussiePolitics Yes the climate changes at all times, never remaining stable. I though we already went over this lol. We are talking I think about climate change, that is out of the norm, and there hasn't been any. So what is your question?
TheKickerboy99 9 months ago
@TheKickerboy99 hooray another half-truth "climate changes all the time". go reading a bloody science book and you'll realise that the reason scientists are concerned about climate change is because of the RATE of change. like i said before, when the difference between an ice age and a warm period is 5-8oC and it takes THOUSANDS of years to change for a variety of reasons, we have damn good reason to be concerned by a degree of warming in less than a century.
AussiePolitics 9 months ago
@TheKickerboy99 hooray we get to another half-truth "water vapour". yes, scientists are well aware water vapour is a strong greenhouse gas. thats what fools like you like to say 'look its a strong greenhouse gas that means that CO2 isnt important!". what you do not understand is that water vapour a) remains in the atmosphere only a short time - about a week vs CO2 which stays up there about a century.
AussiePolitics 9 months ago
@AussiePolitics You just make shit up as you go eh? Nice. Water vapour is 95% of the GH effect, CO2 being less than 4%, and we have changed CO2 content by less than 4% from its normal. No climate out of the normal has been recorded. None is expected. CO2 does not drive climate......try to imagine its true, its easy if you have a brain. Water vapour is in the atmosphere at ALL times, as is CO2, there content is pretty constant in different places throughout the globe. They are controlled by space
TheKickerboy99 9 months ago
@TheKickerboy99 "make shit up" actually what I talk about is based on real scientific studies, not recycled bullshit by people who agree with you so you believe them. did I say that water vapour was not a major greenhouse gas? no, but we know for a FACT that increases in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere lead to warming as it is a greenhouse gas and lead to the evaporation of MORE water which increases this warming.
AussiePolitics 9 months ago
@TheKickerboy99 I never said water vapour was not in the atmosphere at all times, but it is in a constant cycle - its called fucking rain you fool. CO2 on the other hand does not stay at a constant level but increases, causing further warming which does not decrease until the excess carbon is absorbed which takes over a century.
AussiePolitics 9 months ago
@TheKickerboy99 "No climate out of the normal has been recorded" and where the fuck are you getting that from? come on, reference a reputable journal that states that. hundreds of independent studies over many years indicate the complete opposite so you are just making shit up. back up that claim right now with peer reviewed studies published in a journal.
AussiePolitics 9 months ago
@TheKickerboy99 its so amusing the number of half-truths you're using to try and make a point. first you claim that its volcanoes, but that was absolute bullshit. then you think fewer and fewer plants will magically start absorbing immense amounts of CO2. will they magically all grow a billion more stomata and complete systems to cope? LOL now you're claiming that because water vapour is an important greenhouse gas it means CO2 is not important. lol
AussiePolitics 9 months ago
@AussiePolitics No I said the more CO2 we have, the faster plants will grow, it'll be beautiful. CO2 is almost irrelevant as a greenhouse gas, being the 95% to 4% ratio. Plants thrive in high CO2 environments and its warming contribution is almost immeasurable by the IPCC's own data. So whats your point?
TheKickerboy99 9 months ago
@TheKickerboy99 "it'll be beautiful" as more and more rainforests are cut down every day where are all these forests springing up absorbing carbon? like i said before, there is a PHYSICAL limit to the amount of photosynthesis plants can perform and you're expecting fewer plants to absorb more carbon. saying CO2 is irrelevant is as stupid as saying arsenic is irrelevant because its only a tiny part of the overall % of your body. CO2 INCREASES water evapouration which leads to more warming.
AussiePolitics 9 months ago
@AussiePolitics I have told you about a few studies, if you have a brain you can find them too. :) Your quite angry eh? thats funny. Common sense should tell you its a scam, you should even need a peer reviewed study if you know all the facts, and have a brain.
TheKickerboy99 9 months ago
@TheKickerboy99 actually it gets rather frustrating conversing with someone who obviously have no scientific knowledge at all who keeps peddling bullshit. I asked you for a peer reviewed study to back up your claim that there has been no warming in the past century. please reference it and back up your claim. its funny how you keep saying common sense should tell you its a scam yet you have demonstrated nothing but ignorance on this topic.
AussiePolitics 9 months ago
@AussiePolitics Of course there has been warming for the last century, how about for the last 15,000 yrs.....since the turn of the last ice age you putz?????? Why ask me for a PEER reviewed document that says something that is just dumb? You either can't understand simple concepts, or just contradict everything I say for fun.
TheKickerboy99 9 months ago
@TheKickerboy99 THAT IS MY FUCKING POINT. you act like scientists say that climate change has never happened before. bullshit, scientists are worried about the SPEED. when it takes THOUSANDS of years for the climate regime to change and we get a degree of warming in less then a century of course scientists are worried.
AussiePolitics 9 months ago
@AussiePolitics The rate of current change is normal, based on measured data, not computer models.
TheKickerboy99 9 months ago
@TheKickerboy99 thats the sign of an idiot? actually its frustrating when I discuss scientific concepts such as photosynthesis and I get immature responses about plants magically absorbing immense amounts of carbon. I get frustrated when I discuss these issues with someone who has no understanding of the topic and who keeps reciting absolute lies.
AussiePolitics 9 months ago
@TheKickerboy99 "Common sense" tell me where is your common sense when your argument is that CO2 does not impact climate yet you say you're creating as much of it as you can because you want it to be warmer. that tells me i am not dealing with a rational person, but an ignorant fool who believes that CO2 has no impact but even if it does it doesnt matter.
AussiePolitics 9 months ago
@TheKickerboy99 oh and there's your other half-truth: the climate has changed in the past therefore every single change has to be natural". what simplistic bullshit. ice ages and warm periods in the past are only a few degrees different in global mean temperature yet this change takes THOUSANDS of years and occurs for a variety of reasons including orbit and solar activity. yet for the past 60 years solar activity has remained constant while temperatures have increased.
AussiePolitics 9 months ago
@AussiePolitics Solar activity is never constant, in the last 60 years we have had many changes in solar activity some of it quite violent. You words show your ignorance of every aspect of your world.
TheKickerboy99 9 months ago
@TheKickerboy99 actually according to a number of published studies such as "solar activitiy over the last 1150 years: does it correlate with climate" solar activity has NOT increased over the past several decades. you accuse me of ignorance yet I am the one getting my facts from the scientific literature while you spread absolute BULLSHIT.
AussiePolitics 9 months ago
@AussiePolitics Well Svensmark's paper on cosmic rays was peer reviewed, as was Lindzen's. Both stand as such. The sun has 57 yr. cycles which it goes through regularly, the next is in 2012. You should know this if your as smart as you claim. It seems you are making stuff up as you go.
TheKickerboy99 9 months ago
@TheKickerboy99 you have provided no journal in which is was published. " you are making stuff up" actually unlike you EVERYTHING i have said is based on the scientific literature. i am not the idiot who has the childish mentality that "CO2 is absorbed by plants therefore lots of it just means plants will grow more". that kind of ignorant mentality tells me you know NOTHING about the biology of plants, photosynthesis or climatology.
AussiePolitics 9 months ago
@AussiePolitics More warm, more water, more CO2, sounds like what plants like to me. Where is that wrong?
TheKickerboy99 9 months ago
@TheKickerboy99 "More warm, more water, more CO2" you have no fucking clue. you are completely ignorant of basic plant physiology if you think they have an unlimited ability to absorb excess CO2. again I ask, with more and more deforestation how the fuck are fewer and fewer plants supposed to absorb increasingly high amounts of CO2. if you ever took a course on plant ecology you would realise there are optimal levels for all elements
AussiePolitics 9 months ago
@AussiePolitics Your so mad eh? Can't just have a debate without getting all emotional, thats the sign of an idiot, talking about stuff he doesn't really know about.
TheKickerboy99 9 months ago
@AussiePolitics It is not excess CO2 its just more than we have now, There have been times when there has been more, the world continues. The doomday stuff just doesn't fly dude. But carry on if it makes you happy, or angry or whatever.
TheKickerboy99 9 months ago
@TheKickerboy99 yes there have been times when we had more, and the last times organisms radically altered the composition of the atmosphere - trees and aerobic bacteria vast numbers of species went extinct. we have seen extinctions in the past due to organisms changing the planet, and we're seeing them again.
AussiePolitics 9 months ago
@AussiePolitics Oh well, should be fun eh?
TheKickerboy99 9 months ago
@TheKickerboy99 im makinga rule from now on. if someone says 'plants will just use the extra CO2" they are clearly a moron and not worth the effort. whats the point in explaining how transpiration works and how water loss is a major part of photosynthesis? its not hard to work out that photosynthesis is not just sunlight and CO2.
AussiePolitics 9 months ago
@TheKickerboy99 I referenced a study that showed there has been NO increase in solar activity for the past few decades despite you accusing me of making shit up. i am the only one who has not been stating lie after lie after lie.
AussiePolitics 9 months ago
@AussiePolitics Search Lindzen and Choi (2009) - Roy Spencer, Ph. D.
TheKickerboy99 9 months ago
@TheKickerboy99 talking of roy spencer that man is hilarious. he says "i am a scientist and i think climate change AND evolution are crap so religious right please pay me to come give lots of presentations to conform to your views." one thing that is extremely easy to pick up from the data you cited is it tries to extrapolate GLOBAL CLIMATE SENSITIVITY from TROPICAL data. thats as logical as calculating the average temperature of the planet but ignoring all the cold areas.
AussiePolitics 9 months ago
@TheKickerboy99 and b) and most importantly, water vapour is a form of positive feedback for warming induced by CO2 rises. increase the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere and what happens? WARMING. what does warming do? CAUSE WATER TO EVAPORATE. you get more water in the atmosphere. scientists have calculated this feedback and worked out that it DOUBLES the impact of CO2 induced warming.
AussiePolitics 9 months ago
@TheKickerboy99 this is why most of the scientific community dont give a shit about brainwashed fools like yourself, you are WILFULLY ignorant. you are so arrogant you believe your google degree is equivalent to the qualifications of in excess of 90% of climatologists. like i said, you are no different to a creationist: you ignore thousands of studies that contradict you, you believe ANYONE out of the thousands that supports you and you repeat lies and myths because you have no understanding.
AussiePolitics 9 months ago
@AussiePolitics You are such a joke, keep up with the current trends you putz! Maybe, just maybe there is less radiant heat leaving the atmosphere because the planet is not warming as much, and starting to turn back to a cooling trend, as one should expect after the end of a long warming trend. One that started long before we started burning fossil fuels. I have been trying my hardest to create as much CO2 as possible, cause its really cold up here in Canada. A little warming would be nice. LMAO
TheKickerboy99 9 months ago
@TheKickerboy99 yep this is what you idiots always boil down to, cheap comments about things you understand nothing of. im afraid your degree from google uni means absolutely shit all. we know for a fact that the planet is warming and if you had ANY understanding of climate science you would realise that scientists are concerned because the only difference between an ice age and warm period in global temperatures is just 5-8oC.
AussiePolitics 9 months ago
@TheKickerboy99 so your arguments boil down to this: ok there's no warming but if there is it isnt CO2 so its not humans but even if thats wrong then warming is a good thing because i live in a cold place. you sound absolutely pathetic, in other words you have no understanding of this field of science so you'd rather people closed their eyes and ignored it.
AussiePolitics 9 months ago
@AussiePolitics Also heres the thing, you should like this. :) Plants as you know love CO2, in rain forests you get readings of 600 ppm of CO2. So warmer, and more plants I like it :) Anyways you carry on with your doomsday stuff, Just know that most people know your a sheep, following a political mantra blindly, able to lie to yourself, about facts staring you in the face. I feel bad for your ignorance, happily though, the majority of the world is smarter.,
TheKickerboy99 9 months ago
@TheKickerboy99 yep hooray we get an ignorant comment about photosynthesis, again stop talking about shit you dont understand. for your information there are THREE kinds of photosynthesis. C3, C4 and CAM. they ALL have limitations on how much carbon dioxide they are physically capable of absorbing in a certain amount of time, particularly CAM plants as they only absorb CO2 at night but CO2 also have an inefficient system as they are not able to move CO2 into bundle sheath cells.
AussiePolitics 9 months ago
@TheKickerboy99 so as we destroy more and more of the earth's rainforests you have the ignorant idea that the fewer and fewer trees remaining will absorb more and more carbon. thats like someone saying "hey you like a big steak for dinner so it must be extra good for you if I get you to start eating a tonne of steak every night. its not physically possible. you have proven yourself ignorant in every way imaginable on this topic. you really are just a fool with no scientific understanding.
AussiePolitics 9 months ago
@TheKickerboy99 also i note how you did not even bother replying directly to me for a few days, just writing comments you coward. you obviously do not read peer reviewed journal studies which most scientists get in the habit of doing when they are at university. if you are so ignorant of the scientific process that you need to get your information from secondary sources you obviously have no bloody clue what you are talking about.
AussiePolitics 9 months ago
What will happen, and when?
TheKickerboy99 9 months ago
Still waiting.
TheKickerboy99 9 months ago
I have studied both sides, yours is deluded.
TheKickerboy99 9 months ago
Humans do not emit 100 times more CO2 than volcanos do. We've only been doing it for 150 years. Co2 follows temps through history. Tell me where I'm wrong? The stats I have quoted are correct, you are a scientist like I'm the queen.
TheKickerboy99 9 months ago
@TheKickerboy99 the strongest eruption in 50 years was mount Pinatubo. that released 42 million tonnes of CO2. it did have an impact on the climate but it was a COOLING impact due to the sulfur in released into the stratosphere. now compare that to the 23 billion tonnes of CO2 that humans emitted in the same year. you obviously have never read ANY scientific studies and are just going off whatever websites or fools invent.
AussiePolitics 9 months ago
@AussiePolitics Ok, well tell me then, what is the CO2 going to do to our climate?
TheKickerboy99 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheKickerboy99 "Ok, well tell me then, what is the CO2 going to do to our climate" ah I see that you've decided to keep your mouth shut after you realised all the bullshit you were spreading about volcanoes was just so laughably easy to shoot down. when people like you go on about this shit i can tell straight away that you have never understood ANYTHING remotely scientific on this matter and that you're so biased you accept any statement that verifies your position.
AussiePolitics 9 months ago
@TheKickerboy99 i enjoy shooting down the myths you people peddle but if you want me to educate you on this matter, please get a life. go read a scientific journal if you want to learn something, stop getting your information from the university of google.
AussiePolitics 9 months ago
@TheKickerboy99 oh and by the way, you people are all the same. I start talking about the science of this issue and all you rant about is taxes. so then i say that i am talking about SCIENCE and you respond with lies and myths like volcanoes emitting more than humans. that tells me instantly you have read no scientific studies and are just getting your information from fools. its interesting how you're the one who has no understanding of this matter yet apparently im the one deluded.
AussiePolitics 9 months ago
We have only increased CO2 by a minute amount, and being that is is a trace gas that has almost zero effect, would you not deduce there is little risk? With the additional knowledge that, by the IPCC's own literature, a doubling of CO2 would only increase global temps 4*? In 150 years we have increased it less than 4%, and being that is is less than 4% of the greenhouse effect, it becomes a very small number. Canada will never allow Cap and Tax as long as Harper has a majority. Leighton UGGGGGG!
TheKickerboy99 9 months ago
Three quarters of all the lawyers? That explains a great deal.
sleedolfine15 9 months ago
MC was right on, I miss him, he was a voice of reason on this issue.
MultiTacs 1 year ago
Listen to Charelton Hestons speech on Global Warning he is completly right
VO9BuckSMan48 1 year ago
...
Wow. This, 0:35 seems to explain that one author publishing one page of covert criticism of the Global Warming Theory was the catalyst for waking up MC from the conventional wisdom that he later decided was false. I think this is a tremendous story because MC became one of the most powerful critics of this nonsense in the world. I wish I knew what article it was. I'd bet the author would like to know also.
DAILEYericCaryUSA 1 year ago
Crichton's books rule
ConspectuMortis 1 year ago
Lord Christopher Monckton before congress, May 6 2010, part 1 of 3
TheKickerboy99 1 year ago
"I talked to very few climate scientists.,,,,I didn't want to be influenced."...????? By the facts, Michael?....Who else should we go to for this information?...Politics aside, global warming is accepted by 99% of relevant scientists.
216trixie 1 year ago
@216trixie Accepted by 99% of relevant scientists? As long as your making up numbers why not say a MILLION percent? or perhaps a BILLION percent. The alleged consensus on AGW has been proven false for years. Your using talking points that even most AGW supporters no longer use...
nlpjohn 1 year ago
@216trixie Very untrue, most reputable climate scientists now back away from the panic button, and cast the reason for this to the computer models that can be made to say anything you want. Please search Henrick Svensmark and watch that series of vids if you want to understand our planets temperature fluctuations.
TheKickerboy99 1 year ago
@216trixie As Crichton puts it, Science is not concensus. In the 1930's and 1940's, Eugenics was accepted by 95% of the scientific community, you wanna tell me Eugenics should be accepted just because of this?
And BTW, it's not 99%, not even close. The number is more of around 80%, and that's overestimating it.
What he was saying is that he was doing his own research and analysis of the data himself.
LiouTao 1 year ago
@LiouTao 80% is about right. According to the 2008 Von Storch poll of climatologists about 35% are absolutely convinced that man is directly involved in the recent warming and that we need to decarbonize our economy. Then there are various levels of similar feeling but less confidence that add up to around 80%. You can see the Von Storch poll here ://coast.gkss.de/staff/storch/pdf/GKSS_2010_9.CLISCI.pdf (page 46-47)
GorterPoss 1 year ago
@LiouTao no science is not consensus, but when you have a century of research backing it up and the vast majority of experts on this issue agreeing there is a problem then its time to take notice. you people are no different to creationists: you find one scientist out of thousands who conforms to your views and suddenly they're the only expert on the matter who can be trusted.
AussiePolitics 9 months ago
Was this guy a libertarian? I think I heard somewhere or have a feeling that he was, but I'm not sure.
whoo689 1 year ago