Why The Global Warming Agenda Is Wrong

SHARE THIS VIDEO:
A debunking of the global warming agenda, from Roy W. Spencer, former NASA climatologist and climate expert. For more on this topic, purchase his new Broadside, "The Bad Science and Bad Policy of Obama's Global Warming Agenda" by clicking here: http://amzn.to/jYWzEH.

• Category

  Nonprofits & Activism

[PrairleDoggedRez]

LOL ~ so why has the warming taken the last sixteen years off then?

MWP "very little to support it" ??? what planet are you talking about?

[James David Bruce]

The "global warming agenda" is right.

Glaciers have always been growing and receding but now many if not all of them are receding,in a much more consistent and pervasive way then ever before.

The "Medieval Warm Period" has very little evidence to support it.

The proof is more then just the correlation between CO2 levels and temperatures rise, there is satellite data, radiosondes, borehole analysis, sea ice melt, sea level rise and more to show anthropogenic climate change is real and happening.

[PrairleDoggedRez]

Right now I understand why the UK has snow in May ~ obvious Eh? the ocean stole the heat.

[grindupBaker]

maintain enough radiation, and so on for centuries (longest leg of THC Global Ocean Conveyor takes 1,600 years for 1 cycle). We've already seen a taste of this, surface temperature went up a lot for 3 decades or so, then the oceans took down a smidgin more heat for a decade & surface temperature increase flattened. It'll take a few centuries to mix the ocean heat. Deepest 80% ocean is avge. ~4.4 degrees and that will rise to ~6.6 degrees with my example. It's because ocean has 97.4% of

[grindupBaker]

means (less coal, more soil vegetation etc.) then surface might reach 16.1C quickly and stay near there but the ocean will keep taking heat down, cooling the surface slightly. That slight surface cooling, say 15.9, will restart "Global Warming" because cooler surface radiates less to space. It'll reach 16.1 again & "Global Warming" will pause. Later, ocean will take another smidgin of heat down. Surface cools to, say, 16.0 and that starts."Global Warming" again because it must stay at 16.1 to

[grindupBaker]

Childish crap. No impartial lay person will ever grasp this topic unless they realize that

"Global Warming" is an increase in the ocean heat content (deep ocean temperature). For example if "final" (exc. natural periodic vagaries) CO2x2 average surface temperature of 16.1 degrees C is required in order to balance in&out TOA radiation (debate-neutral mid point of "best estimates" skeptic Dr. Lindzen +1.6 & pro Dr. Hansen +2.8) and this happens, say, at 2100 and then humans decide to use diverse

[MetalicAtheist]

This video proclaims that we need fossil fuels because they do good things for us, as well as some bad things. What if I told you that other sources of energy such as solar cell technology and nuclear reactors are not only safer to the environment than fossil fuels, but also allow us to capture millions of times more energy than traditional sources? it's a win-win. Solar is progressing at a much faster rate than ever predicted. That and nuclear fusion are the future. Both are safe and efficient.

[wjestick]

The consequences of global warming are largely speculation. We can barely make accurate predictions of climate 10 years ahead. But the consequences of deindustrialisation are well understood. Take a look at the third world. Mass starvation, poverty, despotism and vanishing human rights.

The Internet means the whole human race could work on the technological problems of climate change. A few volunteers created Linux, Apache, MYSQL and most of the Internet.

Why don't we see this?

[mmille10]

I assume you mean liquid fluoride thorium reactors. I may have addressed breeder reactors earlier. The main concern I've heard about them is political. Breeders can produce a by-product that can be used to make nuclear weapons. From what I've read, there's a way to avoid this. Even so, there's the perception to deal with.