How It All Ends: No Holds Barred (Pt 1 of 6)

[FenixLites]

@phantomscolts2 explain how nuclear fusion or nuclear fission release more aerosols or more ghg than factories running round the clock all over the world and millions of cars driving at all times of the day along with the burning of everything that is organic as we inevitably do which is has carbon as a by-product. Really i don't see what that has to do with the actual POINT of this video in reality(as it doesn't) just kind of humoring you really.

[sladeltd1]

From the evidence I believe that AGW as you call it, is true and we should take action. But I also believe that whatever action we take will be too little, too late leaving us with a frowney face world. Thats why Im getting ready for the "zombie apocalypse" :) Not real zombies, but people that are willing to attack, steal, and kill because of the new dire nature of the world. So when is the turning point, when do we decide its too late and we should get ready for the worst? Im already there.

[HoratioCrunch]

LOVE YOU!!!!!!

[joiles01]

I watch watching a scene from a horrible Hulk Hogan movie, also called "No Holds Barred." He was frothing around with a limo driver and then the limo driver shits himself. Hulk Hogan, departing from his growling, then says "RRRR! What's that smell?" The limo driver reluctantly responds, "Dookie..." Hogan repeats him, repulsed, "Dookie..."

Just wanted to let you know how I got here.

[tyryte]

it's hard to reason with someone who is unreasonable

[NicholasFerren]

9,700 view!!!w

[bribeanbabybopdelux]

You make out that you are open minded, then go on to tell us you dismiss conspiracy theories cos they cant be disproved.??

You wanna go and re-check that logic because the theories you dismiss are provable facts.

And a growing number of people are waking up to it.

Its ironic that you are supporting one of the 'conspiracy theories' that you refuse to even look at.

Use your science to check out the physics and probabilities of 9-11 for a start.

It may even lead to you truly opening your mind.

[picbusket]

So is this how you would recommend we make our choices in life? Let's say I am unsure about what religion to choose. Shall I make a column for each and choose my religion based on which one has the most horrible afterlife possible if I do not join up and follow it's rules? I am willing to bet everything that you and everyone that agrees with you are abject morons.

[ReVoLynx]

Pascal's wager is not an applicable comparison, religions have claims that can not be measured, tested or evaluated objectively. Plus they offer infinite salvation vs infinite suffering. Climate science and economics are measurable, testable and can be subject to risk management, unlike religion.

[picbusket]

It is an applicable comparison since that is exactly how he is framing his argument. He says throw out all the data and everything you've heard, and think about Anthropogenic Global Warming from this perspective. Global Warming doomsday cult anyone? Hello?

[ReVoLynx]

He isn't saying to throw all the data out, he is saying to throw all the data INTO this grid while considering the credibility scale. This lets us make reisk assessment.

Besides, if you would have payed attention to this video, you would've known that he directly answered your argument within the first 2 minutes and this discussion could have been avoided.

[Twist9]

@picbusket did you watch ANY of the other videos? If you did you will notice that he tells you to refer to outside sources frequently, sometimes through google and sometimes directly. He only tells you to start from the ground up in specific examples, or in order to inform you of the scientifically accepted logical framework. Also he already addressed empty rhetoric in this very video. Argue with logic or science rather than pure rhetoric and you will see that you can't support your own opinion.

[picbusket]

@Twist9

I do think people should examine the junk science the warmers are putting out there, however I am commenting on this video which is his last ditch attempt to convince others of the validity of his junk science with poor logic.

[Twist9]

@picbusket If this is junk science you should be able to find some "non-junk" science to counter it otherwise you are just a scientist conspiracy theorist arguing a non-falsifiable point which, as Mr. Craven so eloquently pointed out, there is no point arguing against. Equally you have failed to point out any flaws in his logic, specifically because the example you have used (choosing religions) is made up of two non-falsifiable points. The grid only applies to empirically measured phenomena.

[bribeanbabybopdelux]

@Twist9 Hello Twisty-baby, how you doin?

You guys like to put forward your argument, but have pre-determined boundaries to protect the argument from 'non-credible' sources.

Its like putting your fingers in your ears and going blaah blaah blaah...

You guys just carry on in your bubbles. They will soon be burst.

I have spent many hours now watching these videos cos I'm a thorough researcher. My oppinion is unchanged about the science.

Have you bothered to look at the videos I suggested you watch?

[Twist9]

@bribeanbabybopdelux I assume you a referring to the Stan Meyers story. The FACTS of the matter are that Stan Meyer's experiments have never been duplicated. While he was a live he repeatedly refused to allow any other scientist to inspect his devices to verify his results. The closest he ever came to allowing his claims to be verified was in court where he was sued by investors who he defrauded, when experts and laymen witnesses all testified his creations failed to perform as he asserted.

[bribeanbabybopdelux]

@Twist9 Its not hard to buy witnesses, nor for that matter judges, when you know how to shake hands in the correct manner.

If it is true that his method did not work, why did the American Military buy his patents? Then the very next thing you know, he is dead from poisoning?

Just another coincidence I suppose.

Have you watched The Cloud Mystery, or Jesse Ventura Conspiracy Theory- Global Warming yet?

[Twist9]

@bribeanbabybopdelux In addition the so called "pre-determined boundaries" are based on a system of logic that has extremely simple and universally applicable rules. If you state something that you believe is true it must be treated as a theorem. A theorem must be checked against using empirical evidence (using non-subjective measurements) and repeat observations in order to verify it. Find me an argument which is applicable within these bounds (the bounds of science). No pudding without proof.

[bribeanbabybopdelux]

@Twist9 The science of mam made GW is in hot dispute. You have admitted that already.

The consensus is not as clear cut as you have been led to believe.

It has already been shown that the data used by the IPCC has been doctored and indeed steered to show a pro-warming argument.

I do not even debate on these issues so much as the political and economical drive to push this viewpiont into public consciousness, using a demonstrably controlled media.

Its propaganda - pure and simple.

[Twist9]

@bribeanbabybopdelux Whether or not the IPCC's data set is faulty is not the point, there are hundreds of other data sets out there which have been created using various independently measured empirical values, and all of them agree that there has been a warming trend. EVERY MAJOR GROUP OF CLIMATE SCIENTISTS IN THE WORLD, agrees that there has been warming, that is the consensus. To say that none of the data sets are correct is to say you are more qualified than they are, which is false.

[bribeanbabybopdelux]

@Twist9 I think you would benefit from taking a look at the HAARP programme.

Jesse Ventura does an episode on it, which would be a good intro.

Also take a look at the chemtrail phenomena.

I know this is probably streaching your credibility meter to the limit, but the facts that they both have the potential to change weather patterns, and are both in use is undeniable.

Before ye mock chemtrails, geoengineer David Kieth has advocated their use for climate regulation at the AAAS meeting in Feb.

[Twist9]

@bribeanbabybopdelux In addition the opposition to the AGW stance are far more guilty of using propaganda tactics than any of the science groups. Nearly every major talking point for climate deniers can be easily countered as a misrepresentation of the facts or simple rhetorical fluff. If you would like to see specific instances of this you should watch Greenman3610's comprehensive video series "the Climate Denier's Crock Of The Week". Also you need to ask yourself, who benefits from both sides?

[bribeanbabybopdelux]

@Twist9 I will take a look at theGreenman videos, thanks.

Although I do not take the stance that this is about warmers vs deniers.

I see that as an example of divide and rule.

[bribeanbabybopdelux]

@Twist9 I appreciate your concern for mankinds future and agree with you about the scientific method.

I have problems when political agendas creep into it.

I think you would do well to utilise such methods to make sense of our political and economical structures also.

The world seems complex and confusing because we have a preconcieved notion that those we trust in high office hold the same moral values as us.

Look closer and you will be alarmed at the morals of the elite.

Its not so complex.

[Twist9]

@bribeanbabybopdelux I do not defend the elite, the government, or any of the rest as a whole. My beliefs are closer to yours than it would seem, however I have conceded to myself that GW, because of the risks associated with it, is a point which government has the most capacity to change. Whether or not you like government is not the point, what you are arguing against is action on a major issue with world-spanning consequences. Conflating the system and the method leads you astray.

[bribeanbabybopdelux]

@Twist9 I know, I can tell you are not a system server, or you would not feel the need to pressure government in the first place.

I think we probably do agree on the most fundamental of issues.

I too think that action must be taken for all our sakes.

We will just have to agree to disagree on what course of action is required for the moment.

Like any scientist or mathmatician, I look for predictable patterns when looking at politics/the system.

I predict you will be let down badly by TPTB.

[Twist9]

@bribeanbabybopdelux If not the government then who? The corporations? Or are you just waiting for "the revolution" to come? I may well be disapointed by the government's actions, but it can't be worse that the consequences of complete inaction, which appears to be your proposed alternative. If you are hoping for a mass movement of individually acting environmental preservers you need to wake up and smell the marketing. Sheeple cannot act as effectively as the dominant government structure.

[bribeanbabybopdelux]

@Twist9 I do not advocate inaction.

I advocate the spreading of truthful information.

We need to awaken.

People are going to get squeezed more and more until they finally realise that they either come together in non-compliance of the fascist system bearing down on them or they will be crushed into submission.

I know it seems out-there to most, but compared to when I first woke up over 20 yrs ago, its miraculous how many people are now in the loop.

And its growing.

The revolution is here.

[picbusket]

@Twist9

Arguing with YouTube comments is like arguing with bathroom graffiti. It is a total waste of time. I was just pointing out how stupid it would be to make any choice using that stupid grid. Do you honestly like that grid? Do you really think that is logic in it's purist form? No wonder you fall for the material fallacie of affirming the consequent.

[Twist9]

@picbusket First, I never claimed humans were the only possible cause of climate change, second, do you brush your teeth? If so you use that grid every day.

Brush: yes/no Cavities: yes/no

1 Brush Yes Cavities No, 2 Brush No Cavities no, 3 Brush Yes Cavities Yes, 4 Brush No Cavities Yes

The proportional chance of 3 happening vs. 4 happening leads you to choose to brush your teeth to prevent cavities, yet you could just as easily not brush your teeth, avoid the risk, and save yourself labor.

[picbusket]

@Twist9

Well, the thing is, dentistry is real.

You can directly link the act of not brushing to cavities. It's falsifiable, unlike the horrible doomsday global warming apocalypse cult myth. Also, like the NASA thermal Imaging photography taken from satillites in orbit around the earth showing vast amounts of heat escaping, you can see the holes in your teeth as clearly as you can spot holes in global warming data. You know, for some reason I have yet to see a hole in the the ozone layer...

[communistpianist]

@picbusket

Wait, aren't there two holes in the ozone layer, one over the North Pole and one over the South Pole? Huge holes too.

You don't see it, it's O3 man. It's clear and colorless.

[rossjpg]

Im from Argentina,

te felicito, enseño Administracion y veo tu camino logico de resultado ineludible, a lo que te respondo:

i´ll follow my ideas,

thx

[Orca8472]

Personally, I'm more disgusted by what you just said.

[Zeuts85]

Agreed.

[AeonSteampunk]

The solution is to never have children and reduce the population. Stop curing diseases that are here for a reason, cancer etc. They are designed to keep population in control. There are too many people living too long. Part of me actually wants global catastrophy to happen so that the human race will be wiped out. It disgusts me to be honest.

[MrTridac]

I agree with you guy.

It might not sound pleasant, but it's a fact that our planet can hold just a limited amount of human beings.

Wipe out completely? No, but reducing could help a lot.

[Shiga37]

it would take Rush Limbaugh to come out about it ha

[bluetwinky]

My estimate is that it will take Rush Limbaugh about thirty years before he will change his mind. However given the probability that he will vapor lock or slip into a diabetic coma before then it seems unlikely.

[mavrick1992]

i agree the earths climate is changing but i has ALLWAYS CHANGED!!!!!

[VinBorges87]

Maveric, the point is that we are changing it now...

I was totally on the fence about Global Warming until I saw this video. Never heard of any of the organizations you wrote on the whiteboards...Except for the Pentagon...

[rileannas]

I can't remember who said this - "People are doing the best they can, given their level of awareness."

If everyone knew about the level of scientific agreement over AGW, we'd likely be much more motivated, as a society, to act.

[v1660]

i found an interesting site based on peer reviewed articles called skepticalscience(.com). if you go to the argument section, you see a list of arguments ranged from most to least used. if you click on one of them you can read the claim, and what the science have to say about it.

i reccomend it for both skeptics and skeptics of skeptics.

[johnnyharpe]

You MUST be an Obama voter. You people are delusional. I can't believe how stupid you are.

[charbuk]

unless you find a way to save the world while, at the same time, making billions for the men in power, rest assured that nothing will get done. the few people who can bring about a change have all of this info. it is not a problem of conflicting science. it is one of ethics. the leaders of politics and business will not lift a finger unless it means filling their own pockets in the short run. if saving the world requires any sacrifice on their part, then we're probably doomed.

[elvismilk]

hello hat man, falsifiability can be proven wrong, because if you have a claim of something existing, then you must define what you claim, since you or nobody else has yet to prove what you are claiming exists there can be no definition except that invisible thing/idea that doesn't exist, therefore you have no claim towards falisfiability being incorrect or correct, sorry but that's just the way it is spaghetti monster man.

[omarfreeman1]

If Christopher Walken stated his view on climate change, I would surely believe him.

[KJShackx]

so are AAA and NAS infallible?

[wonderingmind42]

Ha! Good one. (Seriously). No, they're not. But we're being required by the physical world to make a bet on columns. And when placing a bet, isn't it in your best interest to research the track records of the horses in the race, and go with the one that has the best? Doesn't mean they'll win. But it means they're the best bet.  Make sense?

[picbusket]

So the earth never lets heat escape? It can't cool itself? That seems to be the basis of the argument for man made global warming. The earth is not a greenhouse. The idea of all this heat is building up and just staying here is like saying we can turn the planet into a perpetual motion machine with no lost energy.

[KillahMate]

@picbusket You're right, there aren't levels and degrees of warming, it's all on or off, like a light switch. In other news, don't turn your central heating on! Picbusket has conclusively proved it won't warm up your house, because the idea of all this heat building up is just ridiculous.

[picbusket]

@KillahMate

You're right, it's not all on or off. The earth is not a closed system like a house. Thermodynamics anyone?

[Azraeltheartist]

hahaha the man who cried man bear pig rofl rofl rofl hahahaha

[flashman201]

i love it how he talks i never heard so fast and clear in my entire life!

[stopsigndicknozer]

less government and more hemp

[jimacck]

Global warming, who cares? because if you think thats whats going to kill most of us, your all very wrong, remember most of the planet are still quite stupid, and they listen to who they think is inteligent. Also remember the planet is grossly over populated and what is the only thing that can solve this, it doesn't take a genius to work this out. so are you all still worried about global warming. have a nice day!

[ted77756]

You say I am a skeptic going on faith?

Actually, I am saying you haven't provided the mathematical model. How can you make claims?

You just go by everyone elses opinion. Plus you basic model might show some info.

I agree with you, but I think you owe the general public some MATH on the blackboard. You are a smart education major. You are NOT a scientist. That's why this is unfair.

Please try again and do the MATH on the blackboard.

[wwickeddogg]

What math do you want? The question is about whether carbon emissions caused by human consumption of fossil fuels will have an effect on the climate severe enough to destroy human life.

There was math in earlier videos about the amount of carbon being produced, the amount in the atmosphere, and the effect that carbon has on the greenhouse effect.

Do you believe that if the glaciers at the poles did melt, that sea levels would rise?

[rileannas]

South Pole. Not North Pole. Add in some thermal expansion of water from heating as well.

[wwickeddogg]

I admit I used the word pole loosely, how about Greenland? There must be some ice up north on some land somewhere, maybe Canada?

[rileannas]

Greenland and a lot of northern islands surrounding the North Pole have land-locked ice, Baffin Island and so on. But the Pole itself is in the middle of the Arctic Ocean :)

[wwickeddogg]

Like there's a real pole

[ted77756]

AGW is bunk!!!!!!!

Since 1970, Michael Tabor "Chaos and Integratablity on Nonlinear Systems".

You broke it down to a 2nd order mass damper system. Let's do the math together. To hell with a supercomputer. Since then we got the cross product for all those dumb physics theories that are totally wrong!!

Proof: IEEE has alot of publications that have errors. Organizations make mistakes too.

[ted77756]

Also, I am an expert. Those guys look like liars.

A retard can solve the diff eq from the ozone aersol problem vs carbon in the atmosphere and how it produces climate change.

Face reality. Show the diff eq. It's also for boneheads. The general public is beyond the PBS Seasame Street Program. We can handle a Diff Eq. You broke it down to spring damper. WE CAN KNOW! We don't need 1970 people. We can do this together as a society right now. No stupid 2nd sources.

[ted77756]

Continued +

Plus the size of an electron thru Milkian but done on a cloud with acid rain may solve this.

Also Newton KE of Earth moving in space vs Thermo KE from Greenhouse effect needs to be considered. Although, not easy to prove it might rm that sigma.

The point is we can know. And!!! We can prove it to the public!! Then funding is realistic. Scare tactics are NOT science.

So business 101 is not a fair approach. And I know you are smart enough to solve the diff eq.

[ted77756]

You said we can't know. So we need risk assesment. Ironically you gave a gaussian expectation with small sigma. Hence, Markov. We can know. You even have a graph from 300 years ago and show fundament harmonic, but forget about the graph fundamental harmonic??

[blahgirl37]

nice metaphors, this guy is making a very intelligent argument.

[xilix]

Most of the people you're debating with on youtube at this point have the I.Q. of a carrot. If people don't get it, then they sadly never will.

[mdiem]

xilix: I sometimes wish it were a matter of I.Q.

But apparently, normally intelligent people are compartmentalizing their intelligence away in favor of something else when it comes to this topic.

Something else is influencing their thought process.

It is rather similar to the religiously devout who cannot conceive of the possibility of their delusion.

[RyuDarragh]

No, I have not seen the "list of 31000 scientists" and I, for one, am curious as to what they are scientists *of*. How many are qualified in the field of climatology? I would, reasonably, discount all in fields like microbilogy, solid state physics and so forth. Their "expertise" is no better than mine and *I* am a multiple PhD in several physical sciences and *I* am not qualified.

[rileannas]

Check out the post "Ignore the Petition Project" on my blog - link is on my webpage, or Google "climatesight" (one word).

You can also watch "The Great Petition Fraud" by greenman3610.

[davidnightingale]

Many measurements are taken in urban areas where it is hotter. Computer models are not always accurate. Has the pentagon found those WMDs yet? What could you tax globally to fund global government? CO2 If now is so hot, can they grow grain crops in greenland as the Vikings did? Have you seen the list of over 31000 scientists who contest the Carbon Global Warming scenario? Who is funding all this world opinion? Where's the hockey stick gone? What about the ommitted two lines from the UN statement

[davidnightingale]

What about this? Global Warming is 100% man made, here is the evidence.......

"In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill ... All these dangers are caused by human intervention and it is only through changed attitudes and behaviour that they can be overcome. The real enemy, then, is humanity itself." This is from the Club of Rome work, The First Global Revolution.

[gotohellfast]

I think,you are clever...

Clearly not as intelligent as I am....but...

;)

...acceptable!...

:)

[SCUMalgore]

if the asshole control freeks like gore and the psycos he works for real had a genuine concern about the environment they would offer real solutions to pollution. Our shit government would offer substantial tax breaks for people who moved in the direction of solar power for their houses. Instead they offer more taxes and control on you because it is about slavery.

[KID433321]

LOL control freaks? has it ever crossed your mind that maybe they are trying to help? I was speaking to someone from Latvia the other day, and he tells me that Latvians are upset with theire recent winters, because they have not been actual winters...what is it going to be like in 20 years??? think about it///pffft control freaks? it's just advice, good one at that...

[KID433321]

to anyone who thinks global warming is a myth: i dont think people would waste soooooo much time lying to us.. i mean,humans, most of us, are goood people....why make up such a myth,, and why now>???? it is VERY true

[SCUMalgore]

All of this global warming shit is about control over you and your freedom by the power elite. It does not matter to the agents like wonderboy here and the mindless robot followers of that psyco control freek gore that the Earth has been much much warmer in the past as evidenced by geological finds all over the planet. They do not care about historical fact. They are either ill intentioned or dumb.

[hb2322]

if you honestly believe that global warming exists, you are probably in a special institution. Global warming is a myth, further study is needed. look at states like colorado, nebraska, and the dakotas whom get snow 4-5 months out of the year(usually Nov-March). not to mention it's always cold here too.

[baggies70]

You're insane!

[KID433321]

havent you listened? global ''warming'' is the least of our worries...its that DISEQUILIBERIUM that will arise ... global warming will likely make the place ou live in even colder due to changing oceanic currents and salinity levels decreaSING..........you are so ignorant

[Xlolita89X]

You need to watch ALL his videos. He states climate CHANGE is a more appropriate term, not WARMING.

Some places get colder and other warmer or get more natural disasters than usual.

[HomelessHippy]

Someone didn't watch the videos...

[KID433321]

LOL...just wait and see, when your daughter has trouble breathing due to bush fires.....

[iwishiwasagenius]

Like the guy said, your claim is unfalsifiable.

[imdamasta]

Rush Limbaugh and Carl Rove, if they said it I would totally believe it.

[barockeva]

They arnt intelligent enough to believe the truth.

[tobelost87]

I agree with you entirely. unfortunatly i think it would take a serious call from hollywood to get the attention of most of the people that i have encountered on this issue. On that subject, i think that would be the next best move for people like you. of course this is just a raw idea and would have to be thought through a little more thoroughly. I got this idea from a comedian who suggested turning the presidential election into an american idol type show to increase voter turn out.

[KnighTC0rE]

Every single one of those reputable organizations that you mentioned are not unanimously sided with action global climate change. There are numerous scientists within those organizations themselves that are skeptical on action on global climate change. And please spare the Nobel Prize nonsense. Someone like Al Gore has been awarded it, despite a complete tear up of his IT movie by members within the IPCC who's data for some reason is inconsistent with his.

[TempestStormwind]

KnighTC0re:

If you know of a dissenting organization, please, let us know. You can check the statements yourself -- ALL of what WM42 mentions is online.

Also, we know that there are still dissenters. The point is that for a statement to be made by these organizations, it must be supported by most members; there's also a vested interest in never making incorrect statements. See also How It All Ends: Risk Management.

Gore got a Nobel PEACE prize. It's harder to get one in the physical sciences.

[TheNatealator]

It is (nearly) IMPOSSIBLE to get unanimity with scientists. We don't wait for unanimity to elect our leaders, or decide on other courses of action, so why should this issue be any different?

[KID433321]

''numerous scientists''???

like who? please do tell

[bimmjim]

In 2002 in Canada we changed the deffinition of GDP. WE made up GDP so we can change it any time we want. Note that the definitions of all the economic indicators can be changed and are changed quite often.

[bimmjim]

minilemur: When I say "we need a new economic model." I mean, for example the way US in 1939 through out its old E model inorder to mobelize for the WWII. Read J Kennith Gaulbraith. Also read an article in Harper's Magazine by J Raulston Saul. He says that this model we are running now changes totally every 30 years or so.

[bimmjim]

The biosphere came before the economy. The biosphere is much bigger, more complex and more powerful than the economy. The economy is just a subsystem of the biosphere. We made the economy. WE can change the economy. It is obvious that we need a new economic model.

[minilemur]

bimmjim - it is ludicrous to suggest that we can simply or accurately or painlessly change the economy. We know what happened when people like Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot and other tyrants tried to change the economy - utter chaos and untold hardship with literally millions dying of their economic mismanagement. It isn't obvious why we need a new economic model. See if you can explain why.

[minilemur]

To answer the absurdity of this video in another way, your challenge being WHO would it take to convince me - well if some of the following changed their analyses: Henrik Svensmark, Bjorn Lomborg, Fred Singer, Dennis Avery, Jan Veizer, Christopher Essex, Nir Shaviv, Ross McKitrick, Chris Macintyre, etc. etc. (and 18,000 others - see Oregon petition).

[mitcleantech]

Read "Carbon Wars" by Jeremy Leggett. Some you've cited are paid by the carbon and oil lobbies, going back to 1988. Svensmark's theory on cosmic rays is the best "objection" I've read, but even then it hasn't survived peer review and he admits it won't explain all of the warming. Even if we only cause a fraction of the warming, it could be enough to avoid a disastrous "tipping point". Then there are the economic, health, and national security benefits of converting to clean technology.

[TempestStormwind]

In addition, Svensmark's recent reply to Lockwood (2007) actually demonstrated how cosmic rays had a negligable effect on the warming -- he had to remove El Nino, volcanic eruptions, and a *linear warming trend* from the temperature record before the temperatures correlated with cosmic rays. (This means that the trend he removed couldn't be related to cosmic rays.) This wasn't some critic -- it was Svensmark himself.

(His reply wasn't peer-reviewed, though, and still concludes a connection.)

[minilemur]

Tempest your ignorance of the research of Svensmark et al is astounding. Contrary to what you claim, even Lockwood et al had to admit that his theory worked for the earlier half of the twentieth century! And how dumb can you be - EVERYONE removes El Nino and other events when calculating trends - even the CO2 alarmists!

[TempestStormwind]

A trend that breaks down on the part we're most interested in (the latter half of the 20th century) isn't helpful to explain that bit. Svensmark has a good idea but hasn't explained why it's necessary and sufficient to explain the warming, when CO2 theory (much better understood) *is* sufficient to explain it.

Furthermore, no one removes the OBSERVED WARMING TREND from their data and concludes that their data reflects the trend. Except Svensmark.

[minilemur]

Tempest - the trend doesn't break down. Svensmark has explained why cosmic rays explain the warming more accurately than CO2 - for one hting the graphs correlate much better.

Even the IPCC admits CO2 isn't enough to explain its predictions, and relies on so called positive feedback. If such exists, why should it not rather be caused by increasing solar activity rather than CO2?

Finally, you're wrong - Svensmark uses the correct observed non warming trend of the last 10 years.

[TempestStormwind]

Show me the paper with his recent work, please.

The newest one of his I've seen -- his non-peer-reviewed response to Lockwood -- removed a +0.14C/decade warming trend from the data after removing ENSO and volcanism.

(This is a POSITIVE warming trend, even over the last 10 years, in his own analysis.)

Also, water vapor is a feedback from increased T. The sun isn't a feedback, it's a forcing, but there has been no trend observable(up or down) in solar activity for 30 years: it can't be the sun.

[minilemur]

TempestStormwind -

As you know there has been entrenched and notorious opposition by eco-alarmist editors to publishing eco-rationalist stuff in some journals, so it takes longer. But you'll find his rebuttal, if you're interested via the argument on the Danish Space Research centre website. It' standard practice by all climatologists to remove ENSO peaks and volcanic troughs from trend data. So recent temperature plateau fits recent solar activity plateau very well - thus rebutting Lockwood.

[TempestStormwind]

You mean this one?

tinyurl com/3bsm3u

That's the same one I'm talking about.

I *agree* that they should have removed ENSO and vulcanism. That's not what I'm disputing.

My issue is they removed a LINEAR WARMING TREND -- and *after* they removed it, temperature correlated with cosmic rays.

This means that the linear warming trend they removed -- approx. the same as the observed warming trend once you remove ENSO/vulcanism -- is not affected by cosmic rays.

On entrenchment: tinyurl com/345xuf

[KID433321]

if u think co2 ISNT the main cause...then you are so dumb

[Xlolita89X]

Sorry I accidentally clicked minus. I wanted to put thumbs up. XD

Stupid clumsiness!

[minilemur]

mitcleantech you are mistaken. Far more money is paid to alarmists ($5 billion : $5 million). So bias is more likely on the thousand times more lucrative Al Gore side of the debate. Svensmark has most definitely survived peer review - see the work of Shaviv and Veizer, to name but 2.

The benefits of clean technology is a separate matter unrelated to global warming.

[minilemur]

mitcleantech - instead of reading "Carbon Wars" by a notorious CO2 dogmatist, why don't you read Lomborg's "Cool it" instead - or the excellent book "Taken by Storm" by Essex and McKitrick.

[minilemur]

The logic of this video is ludicrous. Popper - the person who "invented" the argument about falsifiability would laugh at it (or weep!). Falsifiability is about data, not poerful individuals' opinion. So, what would convince me that we need to take action is ANY SINGLE RELIABLE PEER REVIEWED DATA SET THAT SHOWS UNPRECEDENTED GLOBAL WARMING CORRELATED WITH HUMAN CO2 EMISSIONS.

[SteveWrathall]

I am a MMGW skeptic and outline in my video "Is climate change unscientific?" exactly what it would take for me to admit I'm wrong. Please note that my tests are based 100% on OBSERVATIONAL EVIDENCE, not the filtering of this evidence through any authority.

Now what OBSERVATIONAL EVEDENCE would falsify your beliefs. Please note urgings to adopt policy agendas by NAAS or anyone else are not evidence. Global temperatures for e.g. are.

[baley7]

do you know what would falsify Global warming (global climate destabilization) ? if it didn't happened! How much bizarre the climate has to go before starting to believe the scientists are right?

[minilemur]

and do you know what baley7 - it hasn't happened anything like the alarmist models have warned. Only 0.6 degrees C at most over the 20th century. No rise in global temperatures over the last decade. Where are you getting your data from?

[baley7]

@SteveWrathall

The global climate destabilization cannot be proved ( 100% ) until we will be in deep shit but the single phenomena that contribute to GW can be studied separately and make reasonably accurate predictions.

[SteveWrathall]

And these predictions are proving false. Global temperature is undershooting even the "low" MMGW predictions made 20 years ago. This shows that the climate is dominated by (like the vast majority of natural systems) negative feedback, not positive feedback as the catastropgists assume. See my vid "Mother earth: Global warming denier"

[TempestStormwind]

And why are you obsessing over 20 year predictions? Science has this sort of tendency to revise itself as our understanding improves. Unless you still think that burning things releases the negative mass of phlogiston, that light propogates through the aether, that an absolute reference frame exists, and that the sun orbits the Earth.

The point is, no matter how you look at it, the globe *is* warming up abnormally fast. Given that, what is the most rational course of action?

[SteveWrathall]

Because 20 year-old predictions now have enough real-world data to to be tested against- and they fail. The world hasn't warmed since 1998, and even the 1975-98 was not abnormal.

False prophets of doom should be continually reminded of their past abyssmal track record.

[minilemur]

No, TempestStromwind, it isn't warming up abnormally fast.

[guffpot]

"Abnormally fast". I would like to see this proven. Reference please.

I agree with Steve - you appear to be saying that predictions are useless at any time. So what's so special about today's predictions?

[baley7]

The main effects of global warming will be climate going FUBAR, not dramatic temperature rise. Search the Effects of global warming on wikipedia and you will see that they are already happening.

[SteveWrathall]

The Wiki article is a grab-bag of cherry-picked weather events, not one of which can be proven to be caused by anything other than natural cycles. They even try to pin the genocide in Darfur on GW!! What lengths they will go to infantilise the 3rd world, excuse islamist thugs and transfer the blame to their own guilty western consciences?

[spiderlawatgmail]

That was 6 minutes that I'll never get back. I waited far too long to click the stop button.

I pity the young skulls full of mush that you supposedly teach "science" to on a daily basis.

[TempestStormwind]

Dismissing an argument out of hand without specifically addressing its points isn't a refutation. It's a concession.

[spiderlawatgmail]

Hey sparky, there are fairly egregious errors in this wannabe scientist's joke of a video. There are also strict character limits on youtube responses, which severely restrict the amount of "refutation" anyone can reasonably engage in. Finally, and most importantly, who the hell said I was refuting this asstard anyway? It was a mere comment in response to the time I wasted watching his attempt to fool people. I'm sorry you were fooled. I hope you get straightened out some day.

[TheRealArchAngel]

Ah. So if I was to say that Human Civilization happened within 10,000 years of fluke relatively "stable" climate and the 4 billion year History of the Earth shows sudden and extreme climate Change with the "Great Barrier reef" being a Forest 100,00 years ago, most of the USA being under a Glacier 40,000 years ago and the Sahara being a "Cradle of life" up to 5000bc before a 1%axis shift be proof that "radical Change" isn't unusual?

[TheRealArchAngel]

And I say "relatively stable" cause the Shift in the earths Orbit/axis caused the Sararah to turn into a desert within a generation and the civilization their collapsing and more recently a EM Polar shift reversing the flow of the Nile and turning the "Bread Basket" in Egypt to a desert within a few decades also (People really believe a Empire could flourish in a desert when sudden climate change is why it collapsed...lol)

[greyflcn]

==Shift in the earths Orbit/axis caused the Sararah to turn into a desert within a generation==

Uhm. No.

Shifts in the earth's orbit/axis happen on the scale of tens of thousands of years.

Not tens of years.

"Milankovitch cycles". Look it up.

[TheRealArchAngel]

Gravitational shifts, magma circulations shifts, Massive impact shifts...and then off world there is fluctuations in the sun's magnetic fields, planetary alignments, rogue planetiods and such that get near enough to aeffect the eartch Gravity. I am Sorry but I am not talkng about the 27,000-33,000 year "wobble" but something that suddenly shifted the Earths axis twice in Modern Human Civilization Hisory aside from "wobble"

[TempestStormwind]

Would you care to cite your source?

Something that shifts the entire earth's axis twice during modern civilization would have been pretty intensely studied in the scientific literature, especially if we can't explain it.

[TheRealArchAngel]

Google "The Velikovsky Affair" hich is something Carl Sagan was interested in and/ or "axis shift Sahara desert".

[xGhaastx]

The only fear I have of this man's otherwise pristine thoughts on saving our asses, is that the anti-christ may use "the environment" to "unify" everyone.

I will not resist saving the environment, but I will never on pain of death, join the anti-christ, no matter what his campaign platform might be.

[TempestStormwind]

No one except the anti-AGW lobby is talking about world unification. None of the people proposing solutions are proposing world government. Just one single policy change.

Remember the CFC scare over the ozone? How multiple nations banned CFCs in order to address the problem? That didn't unify the world, and it was a global policy change. What's different now?

[waspbloke]

Flying Spaghetti Monster eh? Careful, you don't want to alienate the creationist/ID brigade with subtle references to their most eloquently vocal nemesis.

[TempestStormwind]

He's mentioned your Noodly Master before, and it's always been in jest -- good-hearted jesting, of course (for instance, the infamous Pastafarian graph that proves that the FSM is punishing us for our lack of pirates shows up in How It All Ends: The Nature of Science -- with no tongue-in-cheek involved!).

Besides, the video How It All Ends: God's Will (earlier in the expansion) should have achieved solidarity with the people who'd have been offended by it.

[henriatheist]

Wonderingmind, this is a bit off-topic, I just want to say how I love how you can describe so clearly what good argumentation is (credibility of sources for example). This is another great one. Not many people understand the concept of falsification, but you make it clear for everyone. Thanks. You must be a good teacher.

[Aldarris]

More appeals to authority, same as previous movies.

By the way, did you know that despite all human activity the temperature has been constant for the past eight years, while scaremongers promised little short of exponential growth?

[damathacus]

By the way, did you know that attacking the person rather than rebutting his points is the same as conceding them? By the way, did you also know how transparent your attempt to change the subject afterwards is? By the way, do you know that we can't take you seriously if you don't cite credible sources? By the way, do you know that scientists work with probabilities and logic, and as a rule don't "promise" anything?

[aurelia314159]

Aldarris, Either you are wrong or the major corporations and the scientists are wrong - nobody's perfect. But by dismissing the video as an appeal to authority, you are giving your own analysis more weight than that of all the professional scientific organizations on the planet and more importantly, ASCAP. Do you honestly belive that those people are idiots?

[TempestStormwind]

Just adding this in (as others are addressing the errors in your second paragraph).

Some logical fallacies, such as most of the "appeals", cease to be logical fallacies once you stop talking about logic.

For instance, Martin Luther King Jr.'s I Have A Dream speech is pure appeal to emotion, but it wasn't fallacious since it was a social justice issue.

When talking about science, referring to the scientists is likewise a legitimate appeal to authority.

[JSBACH992211]

This is about appeals to authority-- it's appeals to people like you? Did you watch the vidoes? How do you know that your statement you made is true? Did you read all the counterpoints and then reconsidered? Please don't make comments that are essentially based on emotion and not fact, because they get us nowhere in reaching a solution. Thank you.

[slrothen]

I am confused...if this is one of 6...why is it the third in a series...?

[ShalomYal]

The second reason for the continued denial of HIClCh is that it would mean that scientists can explain reality and this would then give those sneeky scientists some creedence when they tell us that all life evolved from a common ancestor. And they have convinced themselves that that means God does not exist. Which of course it does not do.

[ShalomYal]

There are two main reasons, as to why, that in the face of overwhelming evidence the sceptics won't for the most part change their mind. First, it has become part of the identity of being part of the far "right". And to accept human induced climate change would mean siding on those wako liberals on the left.And that would mean going to hell---

[Poki3]

I'm convinced, but you know what I think would convince the sceptics? If the media would start honking about it and demanding government action... a lot... no one can ignore the media today.

[TheRealArchAngel]

problem with "Government Action" is that up to this point it has been the World Governments artificially deflating the price of oil and forcing the Energy providers to only provide Oil and made them providing or researching Alternative fuels Illegal. Notice that in the few short years of loosened regulation that Chevron is now the largest Provider of Geo-Thermal and Exxon is R&D the "nuclear option" (More money toprovid Alternative fuels compared to government regulated Oil)