CO
Upload
You're viewing YouTube in English (US).
Switch to another language: | View all
You're viewing YouTube in English.
Switch to another language: | View all

The American Denial of Global Warming - Perspectives on Ocean Science

by University of California Television (UCTV) • 261,489 views

Polls show that between one-third and one-half of Americans still believe that there is "no solid" evidence of global warming, or that if warming is happening it can be attributed to natural...

We just need to find another brand new planet. There are supposedly billions of unspoiled planets, which we just need to reach through finding the right wormholes. Problem solved.
Report spam or abuse
Ah well OK, but... wormholes are still theoretical at this time and our fastest spaceships can only travel at a tiny fraction of the speed necessary to travel to another human habitable planet so there really is no alternative but to fix the one we have. 
Report spam or abuse
Absolutely but cost is high so humans must prioritize the best quality genes. A top priority VIP Ark needs building immediately and filling with the DNA cream of our species such as Donald Trump, corporate giants, most U.S. of American politicians and top celebs. ASAP, next year latest, should be pre-programmed to crash into planet Golgafrincham and replicate superior genes. Rest of us plebs hang around and just hope for the best, maybe get off in a few decades or centuries.
Report spam or abuse
Such a masterful study of the Merchants of Doubt and their criminal confusion of the American People
Report spam or abuse
Megan Owen Shared on Google+ · 7 months ago
The American Denial of Global Warming - Perspectives on Ocean Science Brilliant history of climate science and climate denial.  Global warming was known about in the 1930s, recognised as a significant problem by the 1960s-70s, yet 4 physicists who used to work for the tobacco industry used the same strategy of creating a PR campaign that there was "scientific uncertainty" to confuse the US public into thinking that there is a lack of scientific consensus on the issue.  Shocking!
Report spam or abuse
A significant proportion of American people believe the sun orbits the earth, that people arose from a process of 'intelligent design' controlled by some supernatural deity, that Elvis is still alive, and that possession of automatic weaponry is an incontestable right. That's not to say that Americans are more gullible or stupid than any other nation - they've produced some truly wonderful innovations in science and technology, their philanthropists are some of the most generous in the world, etc.,  - but I do wonder how a sane person can cling to ideas that are demonstrably untrue or unwise.
Report spam or abuse
+Andrew Meir Sadly anyone can.  We are not as rational as we hope we are.
Report spam or abuse
M Newman Shared on Google+ · 1 month ago
Report spam or abuse
Haha bunch of nitwits, alarmists against africa
Report spam or abuse
Well, here we are 7 years later, and you'll have to excuse me for a moment while I go get my jacket. This global warming is freezing!
Report spam or abuse
2014 = Hottest year on earth in recorded history.  But you can ignore that and stick with your "but I'm cold" statements.
Report spam or abuse
+Gene C ''2014 = Hottest year on earth in recorded history.''OMG you gimp.
Report spam or abuse
Do the denialists have children? If so, why make a living in denying a future for your children? Is it really impossible to find another occupation? If you don't have children, do you have anybody that you care for that will die in misery thanks to global warming? 
Report spam or abuse
This is an excellent presentation and explanation of the facts that explain a lot, and that have been common hunches in the thoughts of the public for decades.  One consistent reason for all of the efforts, from all involved in keeping the public confused via camouflaging the truths of these issues and many more, is to get more money, profit and/or fame.  Money gets used as a motivating manipulator to get more money, power and fame, industrially and politically....   The victims are those involved and the remainder of the public nationally and world wide.
Report spam or abuse
I find it interesting that "Liberals" of today are suddenly discovering many of the things we hippies were doing to save the planet back in the 1960s are now things we should be doing today. But if I recall correctly, the establishment liberals of today would have been the conservative government rulers of the 1960's. Meaning today, as a hippy who has been practicing daily to conserve, protect and save the planet is indeed an outcast of the liberal party because "I don't know what I'm doing" or "I am a tool of the corporations" because I raise my own food, recycle and live "green" and have since 1973. Why are the "SoCalled Liberals" just now getting on board and now believe they are the Masters of this all the while they continue to create the most pollution? Flying all over the globe and driving to all these seminars just pollutes more
Report spam or abuse
Excellent talk. The first half gives a brief overview of some of the history of the study of Global Warming. (Scientists have been studying it for a lot longer than some of you probably think) The second half provides an excellent insight into the origins of the Global Warming/Climate Change denial movement, particularly the actions of the George C. Marshall Institute (Why does that name sound familiar?) some of whose principle members, in the employ of R.J. Reynolds, were the authors of the strategy behind the campaign to convince the public that there was no link between the use of tobacco products and adverse health consequences ... It might surprise some of you to learn that, up until and including George H.W. Bush's administration, Global Warming was not quite such the partisan, political issue that it has become today. Watch and learn, ... if you can.(Don't get hung up on the title. It's part of a series of lectures)
Report spam or abuse
What your so called peer reviewed study isnt telling you is only 40% of the  abstracts collected regarding global warming even mention causation.Of course of that forty percent there was a 97% agreement on climate change but not all put afull support behind man made change.  Its kinda thin on real scientific support.
Report spam or abuse
+Mike McMaster I have stayed away from the topic of evolution on purpose... I have enough on my plate the way it is. . . But I will say this... the evolutionary processes is a very slow, gradual phenomenon that is to have progressed over eons of time ... as is necessitated in the very basis of it's theory. . . but very much the same as in the lack of empirical evidence to suggest a catastrophic result of anthropogenic climate change, the empirical evidence for evolution is also non existent in the fossil record. So often, as the fossil records show, there are new forms and or species of life burst on the scene , seemingly out of no where... this is contrary to everything that the evolutionary theory states should happen. In fact, it is impossible according to the evolutionary theory! I am not saying there is no evidence to support some forms of evolution because there clearly are... but to suggest that all life on earth started from a one celled organism is is not in the least bit substantiated and , In view of the evidence, a ridiculous conclusion to make. For the first time scientists ,in the field, are now earnestly questioning the whole basis of evolution, as it has been taught for years. . . and rightly so. Questions as to its validity due to its major flaws have been around for decades, but... having no other explanation to take its place... except intelligent design... science has been slow to discuse the flaws ... even though intelligent design ties up all those loose ends rather nicely. I'm sure they'll be quite a lot debate as more & more people are questioning Darwinism in its current form.
Report spam or abuse
Change! What me Change?  No way budrow... .
Report spam or abuse
What Ms. Oreskes states starting at around 11:00 minutes, is the undeniable (even by all of the, most likely, paid Koch suckers or prostitutes whose comments litter this thread) truth. They are greedy bastards that will say anything, just like the disgraceful physicists, that she highlights in this presentation and her book "Merchants of Doubt". Fossil fuels (coal, oil, natural gas, tar sands, shale) which have accumulated in the earth over hundreds of millions of years and which represent trillions of BTU's of stored thermal energy have been radically depleted and released in the atmosphere as the industrial waste gas, carbon dioxide, in the blink of an eye relative to the amount of time it took for them to accumulate.
Report spam or abuse
Report spam or abuse
A history of the science of greenhouse-gas-induced climate change. Also, misinformation to arise.
Report spam or abuse
Chris Campbell Shared on Google+ · 11 months ago
Excellent talk. The first half gives a brief overview of some of the history of the study of Global Warming. (Scientists have been studying it for a lot longer that some of you probably think) The second half provides an excellent insight into the origins of the Global Warming/Climate Change denial movement, particularly the actions of the George C. Marshall Institute (Why does that name sound familiar?) some of whose principle members, in the employ of R.J. Reynolds, were the authors of the strategy behind the campaign to convince the public that there was no link between the use of tobacco products and adverse health consequences ... It might surprise some of you to learn that, up until and including George H.W. Bush's administration, Global Warming was not quite such the partisan, political issue that it has become today. Watch and learn, ... if you can.(Don't get hung up on the title. It's part of a series of lectures)
Report spam or abuse
The ignorant (and the shills of course and persons with money at stake) keep asking why scientists would be so silly as tyo assume it's only CO2 change causing warming and cooling. They don't of course you half wits, they have their best assessments of all the major effects on the Earth's energy budget clearly laid out, can be found in IPCC AR5 and all over the internet. It's based on a mixture of physics, measurements and modeling to try to figure out what's going on as accurately as possibly. Your worthless drivel doesn't even get in at the basement level, some of you people down below.
Report spam or abuse
Oreskes is a shill and a liar, sorry. "" Higher levels of CO2 should be more beneficial than detrimental to humanity. Increased CO2 will bring an enhancement of vegetation growth, a small global rainfall increase and a very slight global temperature rise — all positive changes for humankind. History has a number of examples where the majority has been wrong on an important scientific issue. This will prove to be another one." William M. Gray is a professor emeritus, head of tropical meteorology department, department of atmospheric science, Colorado State University.   "THE MAIN MISCONCEPTION OF THE GLOBAL WARMERS IS TO ASSUME THAT ALL THE MANY LARGE ENERGY TERMS OF THE CLIMATE SYSTEM REMAIN CONSTANT OVER LONG PERIODS AND THAT THE ONLY CHANGES THAT MATTER FOR CLIMATE ALTERATION ARE THE VERY SMALL MAGNITUDE VARIATIONS OF HUMAN-INDUCED CO 2" . " HOW COULD THE WARMERS BE SO NAÏVE AS TO BELIEVE THAT CHANGES IN CO 2 ARE THE DOMINANT CLIMATE FORCING MECHANISM?" http://tropical.atmos.colostate.edu/Includes/Documents/Publications/gray2012.pdf
Report spam or abuse
Your friend Mr. Gray is an 85 year old radical that, I believe, has never had a peer reviewed climate paper accepted. His friend Peter Webster wouldn't even accept his climate change papers because they weren't up to scientific standards. You can claim 1350 peer reviewed papers that claim AGW is a hoax. Fine. I'll use another reference that states only 24 papers out of 13,950 made such a claim. Here's that reference: http://www.desmogblog.com/2014/01/08/why-climate-deniers-have-no-scientific-credibility-only-1-9136-study-authors-rejects-global-warming The deniers all want everything in a nice little box with absolutely no loose ends and 100% certainty. However, that's not science. That's fantasy. Good science recognizes that virtually nothing is 100% certain. But we can be "certain enough" and that's when the confidence level is at the 95% or greater level. We are at the 95% level for AGW. We are also at that level for smoking causes cancer and second hand smoke causes cancer and the ozone hole is real and manmade and DDT is toxic to the environment, etc.
Report spam or abuse
Mizz K Shared on Google+ · 11 months ago
Excellent talk. The first half gives a brief overview of some of the history of the study of Global Warming. (Scientists have been studying it for a lot longer that some of you probably think) The second half provides an excellent insight into the origins of the Global Warming/Climate Change denial movement, particularly the actions of the George C. Marshall Institute (Why does that name sound familiar?) some of whose principle members, in the employ of R.J. Reynolds, were the authors of the strategy behind the campaign to convince the public that there was no link between the use of tobacco products and adverse health consequences ... It might surprise some of you to learn that, up until and including George H.W. Bush's administration, Global Warming was not quite such the partisan, political issue that it has become today. Watch and learn, ... if you can.(Don't get hung up on the title. It's part of a series of lectures)
Report spam or abuse
The Obama Administration funds Billions of dollars each year for science research that supports the man made global warming claim.  The several billion the government gives out is MINUSCULE to the amount of money that they make from cross-funds, donations, and voter support in favor of climate change concerns (man made). It's a hoax folks.  Al Gore made millions off of his scam to go green.
Report spam or abuse
The "Obama Administration" has funded no one. Only Congress can appropriate funds. The hoax is on the denialists. Come up with some peer reviewed studies to refute global warming rather than slinging mud. 
Report spam or abuse
omg, the real life drama in the scientific world~
Report spam or abuse
Report spam or abuse
Only 3 dislikes in 4 months.
Report spam or abuse
Proof that it's a lie: If warmers were really so worried about a catastrophe, they would not celebrate during a heat wave and get so anxious and upset when it's cool. They are devastated by the fact that earth has not heated in 18 years, they should be happy!! Michael Piltdown Mann is really upset about it. If we get another El Nino he'll be out celebrating.
Report spam or abuse
Is she wearing a wig? That "hair" looks unnatural. 
Report spam or abuse
Her face looks unnatural too ... wig on a pig.
Report spam or abuse
Sarah Lee Shared on Google+ · 1 month ago
The American Denial of Global Warming - Perspectives on Ocean Science
Report spam or abuse
Not only she is stupid and dishonest, she also has an horrible voice.
Report spam or abuse
Report spam or abuse
What are you trying to do here ?  Count all your thumbs up ?
Report spam or abuse
The world is changing but it is not us. So we should not be taxed to death for it.
Report spam or abuse
When powerful entities push an agenda on the masses, it is to gain control over those masses. Rule of thumb #1:  For the totality of control over the masses, the masses must have the desire to be controlled. Rule of thumb #2:  A prime catalyst to instill desire to be controlled, is to have a solution to a dire crisis. Rule of thumb #3:  A dire crisis must be caused by the behavior of the masses in order for the solution of control to be established. Rule of thumb #4:  The more dire the crisis, the more the masses will demand increased outward control over their behavior.
Report spam or abuse
Alright, the "Experts" are predicting the "hottest Summer yet" with their certainty at 75%,  but they don't take into account the cooling abilities of added water vapor added to the atmosphere or the bitter cold winter affecting the long term climb of heat distribution thus this Summer is going to be cooler then 2013...and as usual the "climatologists" will be perplexed when the "Hot August Nights" aren't so hot
Report spam or abuse
August and September 2014 were the warmest August and September on the 134-year long record. That's the problem with making predictions - time passes and people get to see how clever you aren't. In future, be vague like all the others in your bunch.
Report spam or abuse
Anyone else watching this for a Climate Change class at BYU-Idaho?
Report spam or abuse
d'abord la température augmente, ensuite c'est le co2 augmente, et pas l'inverse
Report spam or abuse
Excellent talk. The first half gives a brief overview of some of the history of the study of Global Warming. (Scientists have been studying it for a lot longer that some of you probably think) The second half provides an excellent insight into the origins of the Global Warming/Climate Change denial movement, particularly the actions of the George C. Marshall Institute (Why does that name sound familiar?) some of whose principle members, in the employ of R.J. Reynolds, were the authors of the strategy behind the campaign to convince the public that there was no link between the use of tobacco products and adverse health consequences ... It might surprise some of you to learn that, up until and including George H.W. Bush's administration, Global Warming was not quite such the partisan, political issue that it has become today. Watch and learn, ... if you can.(Don't get hung up on the title. It's part of a series of lectures)
Report spam or abuse
What's the difference, the World as we know it is unsustainable and has no future anyway.  We are nearly on the verge of being a one government police planet, maybe destruction through global warming is a better alternative to the Orwellian World predicted for 1984.  
Report spam or abuse
There's more wrong in closing off a debate than keeping it open. It's the people decide, for that you need debate. I think the smoking connection was a dirty trick. And lastly I know few who want more government regulation, hardly a sin. And the earth hasn't heated up in the last 15 years I've heard many scientists say. There is no limit on how much could be spent on what might happen. It's when something does happen that we'll regret not having developed all the power that was possible having wasted our resources on the particular fear of global warming.
Report spam or abuse
The right-wing media in America has played a blinder by associating climate change and environmentalism with socialism, abortion, high taxes, gun control and all those other things that conservatives hate. A masterful propaganda campaign. You've got to hand it to FOX & Co. for that.
Report spam or abuse
Climate Change ~ all things to all Red Cabbages.
Report spam or abuse
Observe how the denialists that have come out of the woodwork here are highly intent on NOT debating the content of Oreskes speech, or the scientific basis of AGW, but rather go - very emotionally and very angrily  into various peripheral minutiae of the whole shebang. It's called smokescreening.
Report spam or abuse
+Rob Woolmer  1) GHG warming cannot be expected to be instantaneous. 2) Even if there was no observable warming since 1997, there is an observable warming of the oceans (the planets largest heat sink) which again indicates increased heat trapping.
Report spam or abuse
+neglesaks I agree with you. I was having a go at busguy.
Report spam or abuse
7 years on and things have not improved all that much. 7 more years of warming which we will have to deal with at some point.
Report spam or abuse
No one with a working brain will believe this con artist. Go back to 1988 when this jerk scammed the nation with a setup on the hottest day and his henchmen shut off the air conditioning. James is a rich conman who depends on the dumbest of the Yanks to believe his bullshit.  Drink the koolaid if you will but don't expect normal people to believe you. All the greenery on this planet is due to carbon dioxide, if it does not produce CO2, then it is not green. As you should know, if you do any research, GHGs have very little effect on this global cooling.  Yes global cooling. Up here in Canada we still have a foot of snow. Each year gets a little colder. Winnipeg expects that frozen water lines will not be thawed until possibly July. Next year will be a little cooler due to global cooling.
Report spam or abuse
For those Serious on keeping current with IPCC projections Axel and Mark has done a outline of the 5th report that can be seen on youtube IPCC Report Climate Change 2013: Briefing by Lead Authors at University of Hawaii.
Report spam or abuse
14:18 - 15:25 Old Mcdonald had a farm E-I-E-I-O Yes you can modify weather and climate on purpouse Yes you can modify weather and climate by accident...but you can reverse it on purpouse(just not with taxes and "Energy Policy")
Report spam or abuse
Report spam or abuse
The importance of the information shared in this talk can not be overstated. My deepest thanks to Naomi Oreskes, California University and YouTube. I highly recommend everyone take the time to watch it in it's entirety.
Report spam or abuse
It likely goimg to be a very cold bitter winter because of the 2 year variability flip..one of the thousands of variables that isn't in Hansens "climate model" that worked exactly once back in 1978 when it accidently got a prediction right that ejecting volcanic ash into Stratosphere would cause some cooling Instead of a "snowless winter"  and "icefree pole" there is going to be record highs along with massive superstorms from the Temparate and Sub Tropic difference in tempature interaction(which wouldn't exist in "uniformed warming" the "Climatologists" claim they found) The key problem is Hansen's claim of fossil fuel c7 based co2 made from catalyst converters(not combuston) isnt found anywhere in the system...like the oil at the Horizon spill it falls to the ground and stays(likey sunk into the soil on the sides of the roads The "400ppm"(average) CO2 seen in air is circulating in air via the water vapour in air (aka humidity) and and varies by the second from 0ppm to 900ppm based in humidity,tempature,climate region,season,elevation,distance from ocean(humidity and co2 source), and nearby co2 asorbing life consentration Main reason the average has gone up at the Keeling observatory in Summer is because the 4% humidity increase from up to 2 degree warmer ocean bringing up more co2 from the co2 sinks and putting it into evaporation/percipitation cycle Even the IPCC overlooks the key flaw in Hansen's rehashed "Greenhouse effect" Fourier and Tyndall concluded it didn't exist even when "Greenhouse gases" did get ejected into the Stratosphere(where "Greenhouse gases" actuaully need to be to cause Fouriers' "lensing" on sunlight intake on earth)  Even Svante admited in his forward of his first Article on "A Greener Earth to solve population and Hunger" fancy(Scifi) that Fourier and Tyndall falsified out the "Green House effect"  and humidity and the hydrological cycle carries heat and regulates climate via convection with his tests showing the same thing but....just for fun lets do some calculations and imagine a better world
Report spam or abuse
Robins view is very well expressed..its all a catch 22..on every level
Report spam or abuse
This is another video that Skepticalscience.com use to promote the global warming fallacy. But go to 6:45 and listen to what this political prostitute says. According to her, without greenhouse gases, this planet would be cold, like the moon, or Mars. Well, whore, the temperature of the moon fluctuates by more than plus or minus one-hundred degrees centigrade. Like Skepticalscience.com this dumbass bitch would have you believe that the sun has no heating effect on the earth just like it has non on either the moon or Mars. Why is it then that a volcano that blocks the light of the sun would precipitate an ice-age. Surely, an erupting volcano would increase the heat in the atmosphere and that should cause the ice to melt even faster. And once again, no-one either raises or answers the question; How much of the human contribution to climate change is due to the military activity over the past few decades? Anyone? No, because that would mean that either global warmists like this lying cow would have to back away from the issue altogether or they would have to turn the environmental campaign against those who are paying her to lie to and cheat the citizens of this world out of what little wealth they may have.. And that would affect how people vote. So, in the same way that the government are protecting the thieves who brought about the financial collapse, they will hide the real polluters of the world and reward themselves with carbon taxes paid by the feeble-minded population who have allowed themselves to be hood-winked by the global warmists. So, let us be clear, until the global warmist community can point out exactly which human activity is killing the planet, they should shut the fuck up. Until the millions of tons of bombs and bullets that were dropped in the Middle East as part of the American crusade over the last twenty-odd years have been taken into consideration, shut the fuck up about what my little red light on my DVD player is doing to the environment. Until the effect of nuclear bombs being detonated below the sea and in the upper atmosphere have discussed as a possible cause of climate change - SHUT THE FUCK UP!!!
Report spam or abuse
+Eric Smith Send a Pig into a field of Diamonds and he finds the Red Cabbage.
Report spam or abuse
+Eric Smith I really am starting to think that you are one of 'them'; you seem quite willing to support 'them' no matter what. Which 'humans' are responsible for global warming? Whose fault could it be? Do you blame the humans that were forced into consumerism by global capitalism? Do you attach any blame at all to those who have become millionaires and billionaires as a direct result of massive pollution? These would be the same people, incidentally, who will profit from the green taxes that have been introduced under the ludicrous banner of saving the world. All I'm saying is if there is a problem, it was caused by your kind and I think that you should be made to pay for the mess you made. It's YOUR mess, YOU clean it up at YOUR expense.
Report spam or abuse
What I love about the new format of Google plus is I now can start linking documents to my posts For exampe my comment that combustion doesn't create co2, co2 and water is made in catalyst converters as part of the filtration ststem is supported in the first few paragraphs at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catalytic_converter It should be noted 15% of the exaust 1994 limit being co2 translated to no more then 19 ounces of co2 a gallon created allowed bt EPA though 1994 vehicles averaged about 4ounces co2 a gallon and emmision systems now in 2013  create around just 166ml a gallon average as emmision filtration technology advanced(Yet Enviomental Actibist pushing for UN Energy Policy claims 400ppm maka 2ppm rise", from us) Svantes paper thumped on by Hansen debunks Naomis claim of a cold moon  with no Atmosphere(45c average,Astronauts experienced up to 230f days in thier white insolated suits with heat insolated gold visors),Svamte clearly states water vapor is is the main conveyer of heat speaking of Tyndalls wotk ,and his excercises on co2 are Academically Speculative because of Tyndall's work and does not account for heat from Earth core cause he wants the "difference" co2 MIGHT cause not the conclusive Science stuff (old Ideas have a hard time dying...espiescially in the old sciences like Physics)http://www.rsc.org/images/Arrhenius1896_tcm18-173546.pdf
Report spam or abuse
+TheRealArchAngel Hey, just a friendly and frank note: I don't really care about your education experience (and I doubt that anybody else does). The matter of fact is:  I've shown you a calculation of how much energy you'd get out of the gasoline if all the carbon and hydrogen in that were "gone".  That doesn't calculation really need to include efficiency, because the resulting amount is so enormous, it would easily blow up the car (and much of it surroundings).  So if the calculation is wrong or does not match what you are trying to say, point it out! > that you cant have 1000f to 3000f of temperature in a vaporized gas from rapidly agitated atoms giving off black body thermal radiation and light radiation without atomic loss of  mass And I keep trying to make you actually do the math and see how much that loss of mass would be.  Hint:  mass defect does not mean atoms vanish. > ANY VETD would show Just a simple question:  How do you know?  You said you don't have access to one, so did you see it in some video or read it in some book or article?  Don't repeat yourself, simply post the source. > DOES NOT APPLY TO EXOTHERMIC REACTIONS Until you prove it, that's just plain wrong (or you are meaning something different by "exothermic reactions" than people usually do).
Report spam or abuse
"So, what is happening now is 400 times faster than what happened in the past." Yes, that is observable but thier is no "smoking gun" test they do to conclusively link the "rapid co2 rise" to car and factory emmisions over a fluke in the climate variability cycle or the verge of climate instability from natural means Even now co2 rise is only speculated to be from "evil fossil fuels" to push for energy policy but they wont (CANT!) demonstrate burning fossil fuels actually creates co2
Report spam or abuse
Seeing as it is I who is citing actual scientific papers, I would have to say that it is I who is grinding down his arguments. Please feel free to step up if you have something more substantial, and backed by science; to offer than blaming global warming on underwater volcanoes.
Report spam or abuse
"cause of ice on Mars...Mars is technically a "wet" enviroment thus why its harder to heat up as well" My mother's problem with her fish tank being to cold for her fish is a good example of waters ability to displace heat in on earth A 4ounce cup of water is warmer then a gallon of water or 10 gallons of water cause of suface area evaporation and because heat rises The deep end of a pool is colder then the shallow end Oceans are just a few degrees above freezing outside of heated currents
Report spam or abuse
"No amount of evidence will ever change his mind" Stop thumping on Articles in College periodicals and Avdademic Sounding boards full of Speculation and prediction basef on corralivetive "edivence" and show me the conclusive link of co2 rise to human activities and conclusive link of co2 rise to whacky weather and conclusive link between taxing and controlling whacky weather with taxes then Ill sign olff on it(Told Hansen the same thing) "He's a compulsive liar" What would I gain by "lying"?.
Report spam or abuse
"Differences in the Earth's orbit & axis between past periods & now can easily explain higher maximums in past periods" Except were it cant....like "Snowball" Earths in close orbit to sun and "Hellhole" Earths if far orbits Problem with M-cycle theory is the person that suggested it lived before it was understood that Earths core and mantle are molten...let alone before plate techtonics was understood Without plate techtonics venting heat from its center the earth could spontniously explode
Report spam or abuse
"Volcanoes do the opposite of what you want" I never really understood how the Academics can say with a straight face that it was releese of "Green house gases" from volcanos/plate basphalts//midrifts/subduction zone going haywire that caused run away global warming 300 million years ago and not the thousands of miles of mile high thousands of degrees lava everywhere Let me get this straight...it wasnst all that fucken molten lava everywhere causing heat..it was a trace gas in the air?
Report spam or abuse
This isn’t possible, since the total heat flow coming from the interior of the earth is much too small to cause significant warming. Scientists have extensively measured the flow of heat from inside the earth—it amounts to 0.075 Watts per square metre. Miniscule compared to the effects of GHG's. I'm tired of debunking your ever more unscientific claims.For a full run down of evidence for AGW see "AGW Observer"
Report spam or abuse
You or the USGS have no idea what is the total warming effect of volcanoes,so the only chasm here is the one between what you state as reality and reality itself.And when realworld data trumps the theory and yet you still repeat the same old memes,the same old drivel we know fanaticism is at work.
Report spam or abuse
If you truly think no CO2 is produced by burning fossil fuels you had better explain what you think is produced apart from water vapour?
Report spam or abuse
You suffer from confirmation bias a well known trait amongst reality deniers.
Report spam or abuse
So the IR saw a pumice island on the surface, not an underwater volcano why didn't you say that in the first place. p.s. did you not see this under the image: "This is the only image so far showing a thermal hot spot" So you think a thermal hot spot from 2012 from a single volcano caused warming from the 1970's. dear oh dear poor old p-dogged.
Report spam or abuse
''seduction'' ~ yep the earth has moved after ''seduction'' has taken place all right ~ Bwaahhh.
Report spam or abuse
Or this one c-ys ~ Oops . ''Giant Undersea Volcano Found Off Iceland Richard A. Lovett for National Geographic News 2008 A giant and unusual underwater volcano lies just offshore of Iceland on the Reykjanes Ridge, volcanologists have announced. The Reykjanes formation is a section of the Mid-Atlantic Ridge, which bisects the Atlantic Ocean where the North American and Eurasian tectonic plates are pulling apart. As magma wells up from the rift between the plates, it cools to form ridges.''
Report spam or abuse
Time to put p-dogged and archangel to bed: "In 2001, the amount of heat energy produced by volcanoes was 1000 times less than the energy consumed by the United States, the researchers report in the current issue of Geology" Robert Wright Geology (2004). try again!
Report spam or abuse
If you had understood what I wrote (which you didn't) you would have noticed that at no point did I say that volcanoes cannot heat the Oceans. I stated that the cooling effect of volcanoes aerosols outweighs their warming effect as stated by the USGS. Has it not occured to you that it would be highly unlikely that we suddenly have 1000 times more volcanoes appearing from the seabed in a period of just 40yrs? Do I really have to point out all the chasmic flaws in your argument?
Report spam or abuse
Atmospheric Data Analysis ISBN 0-521-38215-7 Physical Oceanography: Vol. I" LOC 551.46 D313P V1 1961 The Atmosphere: An Introduction to Meteorology ISBN 0321587332 / 0-321-58733-2
Report spam or abuse
Look up "Global Ocean Heat and Salt Content NOAA" Observe the graph and then try and tell us that the warming has stopped?!
Report spam or abuse
''(I did it while falling asleep). I'm outta here for now'' thank F for that ~ bored bored bored bored bored !!!! . Did all that bullshit negate the empirical evidence of past interglacials being over three degrees warmer than the present one?
Report spam or abuse
"Actualy there is because the isotopic carbon ratio from burning fossil fuels is different to that from natural sources" 20 tons of of co2 is not created from 1 ton of coal combustion turns the potential energy in the coal into heat and dispite the enviromentalists whinnimg to ban coal innstead of working on 100% recapture technology for what little fly ash/chemicals that does exist in "afterburn" since 1976, we have achieved 100% recapture and the stuff is turned into gypsum,road filler,etc
Report spam or abuse
"....provide some evidence " If you are serious here are the ISBNs to look up in the Liabrary Plate Tectonics : How it Works: ISBN 086542313X (0-86542-313-X) The Hydrological Cycle - Volume 1 ISBN: 978-1-84826-474-8 (Print Volume) The Hydrological Cycle - Volume 2 ISBN: 978-1-84826-475-5 (Print Volume) The Hydrological Cycle - Volume 3 ISBN: 978-1-84826-476-2 The Hydrological Cycle - Volume 4 ISBN: 978-1-84826-643-8 Atmospheric Tides, Thermal and Gravitational ... ISBN: 902770113
Report spam or abuse
"That of our sister planet Venus contains 96% CO2 & it has a surface temperature of 467 °C" Its 467c at its surface cause of vulcanisim not because of Hansen's imaginary "green House effect" Its because hes a mathamaticain that NASA repeatidly told him to shut up about his vendetta against "evil coal" and "evil oil" (that it takes a shit load of to make and maintain solar panels and windmills...at unsustainabe cost actually,just ask Germany)
Report spam or abuse
''Did the rifting of the Atlantic Ocean cause the Cretaceous thermal maximum?'' Christopher J. Poulsen . Nah mate c-ys says that underwater activity causes cooling ~ it is to laugh.
Report spam or abuse
"Evaporated water in the atmosphere is a GHG" Evaporation is the only way heat is convected into wind, and that humidity cools into clouds then rain as decompresion cools rising heated air the "geen house effect" doesn't keep Earth warm..the ocean redistributing heat via ocean current convection then it convecting into evaporation/percipitation is how geology works(and it is geology...not enviromental policy "soved" by politicains and enviromental activists)
Report spam or abuse
BEST ???? that charlatan Muller ~ LOLOLOLOLTROLL ~ don't wind me up cretin.
Report spam or abuse
Actually the answer to hunger, population growth and shortages is voluntary contraception and smaller family sizes. Nothing else needs to be done.
Report spam or abuse
How far back does it go ~ I asked you that before and you ran away ~ Coward.
Report spam or abuse
(Cont'd) So it not a matter of how much CO2 is as of a % of the total atmosphere, but how much it is a % of total GHGs Currently we do not have equilibrium in energy exchange between the Earth & Space or in the carbon cycle. Until new equilibria are reached the Earth will continue to increase it's energy retention in the oceans, atmosphere & on land In the interim climate & weather patters will change, with serious consequences for life on Earth, especially for it's top predator, humans
Report spam or abuse
Hey ladyboy talking of science do you support your buddies over on the other video who think the sun is not burning but only glowing? ~ well transtart? your take on that little hot potato?
Report spam or abuse
Listen to what BarfAngel and PDBreath say. The science is corrupt and they know *exactly* how it has been corrupted, but they're not going to do ANYTHING to fix it. Just like Morono, Singer, Spencer, Wattsuphisass, Bastardi, Inhofe and all the rest of the lying sacks of shit, they refuse to do anything to help prevent this global conspiracy from winning. A letter to a science journal citing evidence and testable claims is all it takes. Any of them could. Why don't they?
Report spam or abuse
How many times do you want to be put thru the grinder by RAA?
Report spam or abuse
Yeah yeah yeah and there are female hormones in every drop of water on the planet and Mercury in the fish too ~ yet people are living longer and life expectancy has increased ~ do you have Dooms Syndrome?
Report spam or abuse
"the "green house effect" doesn't keep Earth warm" GHG's including water vapour keep Earths tempertaures up to 30C warmer than they would be without. p.s. Geology is the study of study of solid Earth, the rocks , not climatology.
Report spam or abuse
No amount of evidence will ever change his mind. He's a compulsive liar. Proof? Ask him what specific evidence that climate scientists would have to produce in order to convince him that climate change is real and human caused. Watch the evasion and equivocation begin...because he's lying. He cares nothing about the science, he can't cite any specific problems with it, he just says it's a global conspiracy of climate scientists, universities, national academies, science journals and the press
Report spam or abuse
"Where and when?" "Global" Sea Ice Extent is "now" 30 million hectares above average.
Report spam or abuse
Center of the Iceland hotspot experiences volcanic unrest Einarsson et al "A volcanic eruption beneath the Vatnajökull ice cap central Iceland began on September 30,1996. The eruption continued for 13 days and produced ˜0.5 km3 of basaltic andesite. Meltwater accumulated beneath a floating ice shelf. The lake's ice dam was lifted off the glacier bed on Nov 4, and in the next two days more than 3 km3 of water drained out beneath the glacier and flushed down to the south coast's alluvial plain"
Report spam or abuse
"Svantes article,if you read it.says humidity heats,but lets pretend its GHG" Naomi even jokes about Svante thinking warming is a good thing in reference to his articles in Philosipy Today and Popular Science where he is saying that IF Greenhouse effect were true it could solve hunger and population problems by de icing places like Greenland for farmimg and housing She fails to mention in first few paragraph of base article he measured humidity's effect on air but decided to write Fantasies
Report spam or abuse
Bollocks c-ys the tiny increase in ocean heat if it actually exists and is not some remnant of high tech gizmos being misinterpreted by the idiots who only a few years ago admitted to LOSING half the Earths energy budget ~ you really are a true idiot that obviously has a lot invested in green bird killing alternative energy ~ shame on you.
Report spam or abuse
No, Tsunamis have not increased but our ability to detect them has. As stated the USGS says there has been no significant trend in Seismic activity over the last 40 years.Oh and you seem to be confusing underwater earthquakes with underwater volcanoes now?!
Report spam or abuse
Report spam or abuse
Does all your bullshit negate the empirical evidence that the scientific process works and that there is no global conspiracy out to make you look like the drooling moron you really are?
Report spam or abuse
"2) CO2's warming effect increases water vapour in the atmosphere, yes or no?" No More water vaour is riding the evaporation/percipitation cycle because of the added heat from accelerated plate techtonics in the subpolar and polar regions More co2 in the water vapor is from the warner seafloor and increased sea earthquakes dislodging co2 hydrate into the upper ocean water allowing for m ore co2 to ride the sea currents and evaporation/percipitation cycle via water vapor CO2 is a "passanger"
Report spam or abuse
''NASA defines the term as a cold period between AD 1550 and AD 1850 and notes three particularly cold intervals: one beginning about 1650, another about 1770, and the last in 1850'' . Just remind me when you IDIOTS start measuring the warm bit from? ~ Cherries for all Eh checkyourgusset?
Report spam or abuse
"He cares nothing about the science" Its prediction and speculation that has reach a Opinion of Consenses....step 3 in the Scientific method...now for 20 to 30 years of research by Hansen trying to disprove the corralative evidence (True Scientific method is when its own creator tries to disprove it as hard as can) "he can't cite any specific problems with it," Just the "solutions" of taxes, and economically destructive Energy policy,and the expectation that taxpayers/voters will "sacrifice"
Report spam or abuse
"Climate however is dependent on the composition of the atmosphere. That of our sister planet Venus contains 96% CO2 & it has a surface temperature of 467 °C" Haha Mars has the same percentage concentration of CO2 as Venus and yet it's much colder than Earth. Like you Venus' atmosphere is much denser. That is the key to it's higher temperature. If adding .025 % CO2 to Earth's atmos. will add 6 degrees C, by your logic adding 95.975 % should increase Earth's temp. by about 23,000 deg C.
Report spam or abuse
"they refuse to do anything to help prevent this global conspiracy from winning" What conspiracy? Its just UN looking for antother angle in pretenting its a "real government" Problem with ant Energy policy bill they draw up is China wont sign it and Obama doesn't have the constitutional power to sign it as 10th addmendment puts Energy policy as a power of the States or the People.to self regulate
Report spam or abuse
"NOAA Ocean heat and salt content" graph. look it up, it will make you angry because it shows just how incorrect you are.
Report spam or abuse
"OMG Global Sea Ice Extent is now 30 million hectares above average." Where and when? Ice melts in the summer months due to sea current acceleration breaking up ice while slower churning currents in winter lets ice grow back Wether thick or thin its just a cosmetiv feature of the 2 degree summer/-4 degree winter northern polar waters and -18 degree summer /-22 degree wintedr southern polar waters...ice spontaniously freezing from super cooled water(as anyone on a ship moving to fast knows)
Report spam or abuse
P.S. the honesty of the IPCC Academics predictions vs thier posted real world results is why the UN is trying to force policy by 2015.....its the year the Real World tempature map and Real world Co2 map using over 100,000 points on Earth via the Next Generation Weather Satilites and co2 measuring sattilites is completed to compare against the Computer model prediction ones UN are thumping on
Report spam or abuse
"I'm tired of debunking your ever more unscientific claims" Debunking? Is that what you call thumping on all the UN flunkies works? Unscientific? Right, taxing oil and coal, mitigating nin existant "co2 emmisions" and paying $600 a month electric bill from solar electric company vs $35 a month from coal electric company are "Scientific answers" to a imangined prolems Oh and since it takes oil and coal to make windmills and solar panels they make us run out faster,btw
Report spam or abuse
"Runaway and moist greenhouse atmospheres and the evolution of Earth and Venus". To be more specific on my last comment (Its the hydrosphere)....you might want to "check your sources" as the point of the paper is that co2 rise isn't enough to cause a "runaway greebhouse effect" cause of wter and water vapour role in heat distribution om earth...vs a "dry" enviroment like that on venus p.s. cause of ice on Mars...Mars is technically a "wet" enviroment thus why its harder to heat up as well
Report spam or abuse
"so easily disprovable its a joke." Actually the joke would be Hansen and the rest of the UN enviromental activists pretending that banning coal and taxing oil,gas,and jet fuel could stop whacky weather,drought,eathquakes and resulting tidal waves or subduction volcanos like the one in Iceland from re-awkening All of the above are from accelerated plate techtonic variability putting more heat into the system...not from a trace gas that happens to circulate more in the warmer conditions
Report spam or abuse
"Type in "heat flow from Earths interior" and note the multiple peer reviewed scientific sources on google scholar" you mean the ones that admit they cant measure the bulk of the ocean lithosphere or the ones were they are saying heat at the bottom of sea might be at least 32%or more then calculations cause of uncertainty in being unable to account for the bulk of the ocean floor(75% of earth has ocean floor)? Im a Scientis(retired), none of the papers you thump on even implies what you say
Report spam or abuse
" He's still convinced there's a global conspiracy to support Hansen's science.Hansen's published papers" I'd hardly call all of his speculation in collehe periodical articles and his computer model working exactly once(And I still say by accident) "Science" His articles have nice graphs and predictions but doesn't have the technical details,appedixes,or even the raw data he;s speculating on If he had presented his articles to a Journal of Science peer review would reject them as incomplete
Report spam or abuse
So why can't Australian climate scientists spot these simple errors? What about the French ones? Germans? Canadians? All too stupid to spot what you anti-science wackos can trivially produce? If you know so much, why haven't you gotten off your ass and challenged the science in the journals? Anyone can do it, all you've got to do is present solid evidence of error or deception. You never do. You just whine and cry on yt that they're all wrong, none of them are as smart as you.
Report spam or abuse
I repeat support your view that the earth is 30C warmer primarily due to tectonic activity rather than GHG's. Name a peer reviewed paper.
Report spam or abuse
Show more Loading...
Sign in to add this to Watch Later

Add to