Whos Right on Global Warming: The United Nations IPCC or the Skeptics?

Robert A. Knox 64, researcher and associate director emeritus of Scripps Institution of Oceanography, and Harvey M. Sheldon 64, an environmental lawyer with Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP, discuss the significance (or not) of human-produced greenhouse gases toward global climate change. Knox argues that human emissions are significant and the evidence is credible; Sheldon gives a skeptics view. Richard E. Sparks 64, researcher with the Great Rivers Research and Education Center, moderates.

Category:

Education

Tags:

• Global
• Warming
• Amherst
• College
• United
• Nations
• Environment
• Climate
• Change

[katheryncruz24]

Nice vid...

[egcroan]

@deskset24 I agree this is not two equals debating, and I doubt this lawyer is anything but a liar.

[egcroan]

Wow the skeptic is a fricking lawyer just what do you think he is going to say but his clients who are the polluters aren't doing anything wrong which would make them liable. This is a joke to even have a lawyer talk about anything other than a legal matter, and no even open his corrupt biased mouth about anything scientific.

[addvoc8]

Anyone who would trust an Inter Governmental Panel on ANYTHING is very gullible to power-mongers and their agitprop.

[HadasahB]

@believersunderground You certainly do upset some folks don't you, bro? Although if they hated the Master they must hate his friends, eh? Be strong and very brave, there really only One to please!

[deskset24]

Climate scientists should not give in to these bullshit debates. The GW-deniers do not deserve a platform. They already have their corporate-welfare-fed organizations where they are free to spout all the lies and garbage they want.

Should a professor from the geology department waste their time debating whether the earth is flat or round with some dumb christian or Flat Earth Society member? No!

[TheRealArchAngel]

P.S. AGT or Average Global Tempatures mean nothing to Regional and area tempature swings and daily and trend tempature swings mean nothing for daily weather and trend weather....the real determiners of relative Ecology (e)(enviroment.plants.life) often mislabeled "climate"

Real "Climate"(C) is a Geological Feature determined by elevation and between what 2 lines of latitude a area falls (Tropics,Sub Tropics,Temperate,Polar,Sub-Po­lar,Highlands)

Eg,despite Snow Vegas is Temperate(C) Desert(E)

[TheRealArchAngel]

"Even if true 100ppm increase has no effect and we are ignoring natural and certian temp change up to 3 deg C in little as 200 years

MissingGWdotcom 15 hours ago"

Problem is the Ground based Weather stations data used for the so call\ed "AGT" is only about 40 in number and all in the Northern Hemisphere so what you have with that "AGT" is a +1.4 in the Northern Hemisphere ot Regional Temperature jump

Regional "Climate variability" swings in daily and trend temperatures 20 degrees either way

[TheRealArchAngel]

"but for argument sake will accept this 100ppm rise in CO2 the last 200 yrs."

Actually that is the general consensus of the opinion and predictions

"CO2 varies greatly and just taking it from one mountain top is full of holes":

That is why Imbuki was launched in January 2009 and CanX-2 in November 2008..to collect real world Co2 creation/in points,how co2 moves and drop out point in real world/real time to compare against predictions and computer simulations to see if they match

[MissingGWdotcom]

@werecow2003 Here is the problem you believers do not even know what your own argument is, damn it it is in the IPCC 4th report chapters 1, 6 and 9 explains it all. Takes about 2 hours to read darn it. You are correct CO2 is a greenhouse gas but in the lab it takes 200,000 PPM of CO2 (or 20%) to get a 3 degree C increase, NOTE 100 PPM HAS NO! I SAID NO AFFECT! Nothing of nothing is nothing!!!! We are talking about CO2 rising .01%!!! not 20%%%% like me giving you 100 dollars or 200,000!!!!! HELLO