What is Normal? Climate Video Part 2

A critique of catastrophic man-made global warming theory

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• climate
• global
• warming
• skeptic
• greenhouse
• effect

[TheMrSirCharles]

Alone how the author tries to explain us that the TREND would be in two directions shows us how unscientific this show is. Of course a young child can see an upward trend.

But don't you worry. Climate denialists always work with confusion.

watch?v=S9ob9WdbXx0

[TheMrSirCharles]

Alone how the author tries to explain us that the TREND would be in two directions shows us how unscientific this show is. Of course a young child can see an upward trend.

watch?v=S9ob9WdbXx0

[misterkel10]

Same bullshit as NIST and 911 - computer models, fake science building on fake science. Obscurantism, etc.

[pburto]

You are NOT getting enough views for a video series of this quality!

[rugbyguy59]

The 12 different reconstructions are all based on independent work. They may have, in some cases, used some of the same proxies, but they obtained their data independently and arrived at their conclusions using different methods.

Some of these works have been replicated by others working from the same raw data. That is how science works.

And the Vikings who were there called it Greenland to attract settlers. Most of it was still covered in massive glaciers.

[rugbyguy59]

Video begins by showing the effects of scales and then presents the early IPCC graph at an outrageous scale. It is also not a true graph but a schematic. It was not based on numerical data.

It then goes totally fraudulent by saying McIntyre And Mcitrick prove Mann wrong. M&M's work has been shown to be based upon incorrect data censoring and poor methods. M&M's work has been shown to be without statistical merit. Mann's work has stood up to scientific scrutiny. McIntyre's has not.

[Brantoc]

I love the use of the same 40 trees +2 others means a new study, or add another is a new study, there, thats 3 with almost the same data from only 43 trees..

[sadaeus]

...in 12000 metres per minute, which equals 720 000 metres per hour, this equals 720km/h.

Now I'm sure I don't have to tell you how high your chances are to survive such a crash. So in conlusion, we have to assume that things will be even harsher then they were back then - only on the global level. Ouch.

Even the possibility of such a risk would lead me to check at least whether the scientists could be right. After all, I did also trust the scientists when they came up with the car, right?

[sadaeus]

Imagine we have a car on a 100 meter distance lane, and at the end, we have a wall.

Now the first go, the car drives the 100 metres in 10 seconds. That's 600 metres per minute and 36000 metres per hour.

= 36 km/h.

Now at that speed, the crash might be unpleasent, but if you're lucky, you'll be off quite well.

Now factor twenty means our car from 2000-2100 drives 20 times as fast, in a half second 100 metres which results...

[sadaeus]

But about 7,300 years ago, again as a result of a change in the monsoonal cycle, the rain started to cease and over the next two thousand years until 5,500 years ago the Sahara desiccated.

Interesting, isn't it? Over two thousand years the temperatures changed by 5 degree celsius. This is what is expected to occur now in just a hundred years. That's a times 20 factor difference there. Well, is there a good example to show what this might mean? Surely, I have a neat one, hold onto your toes.