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) • 258,111 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...

Megan Owen Shared on Google+ · 5 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!
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.
+Andrew Meir Sadly anyone can.  We are not as rational as we hope we are.
Haha bunch of nitwits, alarmists against africa
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)
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.
+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.
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? 
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.
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.
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.
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.
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. 
The world is changing but it is not us. So we should not be taxed to death for it.
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
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.
omg, the real life drama in the scientific world~
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.
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
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.
"August and September 2014 were the warmest August and September on the 134-year long record." With a 6 week delay  in Summer cause of Earths going a little slower on the longer parts of the more elliptical orbit with a speedy and sooner then expected winter as earth picked up speed during the spring/fall whiz by? Nothing unusual and long term  temperature trend variability is still within  the +3/-3 degree average for the last 10,000 years at +2 degrees P.S. long term temperature swing variability  takes 180 years so the "Climatologists" pushing for banning coal and fossil fuel are still short on even 1 cycle even when they claim their 29 year old political induced discipline has "150 years of history/science" to it  (there discipline doesn't even span a 33 year short cycle in temperature and  weather variability...or "Climate Change" as they have labeled it)
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.
d'abord la température augmente, ensuite c'est le co2 augmente, et pas l'inverse
Chris Campbell Shared on Google+ · 9 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)
Not only she is stupid and dishonest, she also has an horrible voice.
What are you trying to do here ?  Count all your thumbs up ?
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.
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.
Mizz K Shared on Google+ · 9 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)
Well it's been over 6 YEARS since this was posted and NO WARMING IN THAT ENTIRE TIME and even more no warming for over 17 years now
+busguy100 Just looked up the woodfortrees data. I used your example but I altered the dates on all 3 parameters to start from 1980. http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1980/plot/esrl-co2/from:1980/normalise/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1980/trend Now look at the graph! Long term trends are what are important.
+Rob Woolmer Again no warming at all for 18 years The warming since the end of the mini ice is welcome otherwise we would still be in the ice age.
Anyone else watching this for a Climate Change class at BYU-Idaho?
Is she wearing a wig? That "hair" looks unnatural. 
Her face looks unnatural too ... wig on a pig.
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.
Climate Change ~ all things to all Red Cabbages.
John Despujols Shared on Google+ · 9 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)
Only 3 dislikes in 4 months.
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!!!
+Eric Smith Send a Pig into a field of Diamonds and he finds the Red Cabbage.
+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.
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.
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.
+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.
+neglesaks I agree with you. I was having a go at busguy.
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.  
"What's the difference" Be the difference Peace Corps, Salvation Army, or UNICEF could use your help "the World as we know it is unsustainable and has no future anyway" People been saying that for as long as Humans existed...yet humans are still here depspite all the imagined doom and gloom "We are nearly on the verge of being a one government police planet" Im sorry, You really expect a "One world government" when they cant even get the Obamacare website to work let alone balance their budgets? You are overestimating the idiots we vote for abilities just so they wont have to get a job at Mc Donalds and screw up your order cause they are all talk,no talent "maybe destruction through global warming is a better alternative to the Orwellian World predicted for 1984" A  "global warming Apocalypse" like the media harped on from November 2007 to October 2008 every 20 minute...mostly cause Al Gore and IPCC won  political "peace prize"  (note prize in political diplomacy not Science,Physics,or mathamatics)...mosttlly cause they had nothing better to report? Its the whole "If you here it at least 3 times" thing....Media, because it is global and includes internet sources, suceeded in causing mass hysteria that effected voting and therefore economically destructive policy much to the anti-industrialist enviromentalists delight
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.
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.
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")
Robins view is very well expressed..its all a catch 22..on every level
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
+Harm10412 Sigh.... I actually was told on career day from a aptitude test that I'd suck as a teacher cause I lack the patience to try to elaborate on things in little words or in a way someone who doesn't understand what I'm trying to teach about can understand it And No, I actually stayed awake in class including Physics so I heard the part, "And this is why Chemical balancing doesn't apply to exothermic reactions"  and "And this is why "Green House effect was antiquated".  Of course this was before my last semester of my last year where I was actually voted out of my class in Economics cause I was "least productive" in one of those "break away focus groups" that I never heard of again until Obama took Office(wtf)....Took the same class the last semester from a professor that knew what the fuck he was doing and Aced the course . To this day I chuckle as my group just stared at each other until I asked them questions about the subject to start the group interaction(ungrateful bastards)  "Essentially you keep repeating that you don't have any evidence whatsoever for anything you claim" I keep on trying to explain to you 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 ANY VETD would show that the exhaust is mostly hot air with 97% of the hydrocarbon "gone" and 6-10% of the Oxygen "gone" because they were converted to thermal and light radiation with no where near the co2 and water "calculated" in error with chemical balancing that DOES NOT APPLY TO EXOTHERMIC REACTIONS no matter what the English teacher teaching Science or Liberal Arts teacher teaching Physics,Al Gore's pamphlet, or Environmentalists with Physics degrees like James Hansen says(Physics degrees are like English Degrees...useless,except for getting a job teaching it) If I had access to a VETD I would do a demonstration video and post it on youtube but I don't, so I cant. Unless you want to loan me $15,000 to buy one as no Service station in Hawaii has one cause Hawaii doesn't regulate emissions (so sad)
+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).
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
Yep, I was right....meanwhile the "Climatologists" are shocked and doing a "Yadda yadda Northern Vortex blah blah blah its colder because its warming" ass cover No, if it was uniformly warming there be mellow to almost no weather variance...like a desert day..not extremely hot summers countered by bitterly cold winters from regional heat exchange differentials from an inverse 2 year flip 
"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
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.
"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
"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"?.
"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
"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?
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"
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.
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?
You suffer from confirmation bias a well known trait amongst reality deniers.
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.
''seduction'' ~ yep the earth has moved after ''seduction'' has taken place all right ~ Bwaahhh.
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.''
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!
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?
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
Look up "Global Ocean Heat and Salt Content NOAA" Observe the graph and then try and tell us that the warming has stopped?!
''(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?
"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
"....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
"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)
''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.
"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)
BEST ???? that charlatan Muller ~ LOLOLOLOLTROLL ~ don't wind me up cretin.
Actually the answer to hunger, population growth and shortages is voluntary contraception and smaller family sizes. Nothing else needs to be done.
How far back does it go ~ I asked you that before and you ran away ~ Coward.
(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
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?
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?
How many times do you want to be put thru the grinder by RAA?
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?
"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.
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
"Where and when?" "Global" Sea Ice Extent is "now" 30 million hectares above average.
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"
"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
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.
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?!
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?
"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"
''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?
"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"
"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.
"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
"NOAA Ocean heat and salt content" graph. look it up, it will make you angry because it shows just how incorrect you are.
"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)
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
"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
"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
"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
"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
" 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
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.
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.
In the historical record, the 13C/12C ratios begin to decline dramatically just as the CO2 starts to increase — around 1850 AD. This is exactly what we expect if the increased CO2 is in fact due to fossil fuel burning.
Nature 429, 513-515 (3 June 2004) | doi:10.1038/429513a ''A dramatic historical episode of global warming seems to have been driven by the release of huge amounts of hydrocarbons. New evidence for what might have happened comes from the sea floor off Norway.''
"they can't explain how/why Popular Mechanics, Scientific American, Wired, Popular Science, Discover, National Geographic and all the other popular science magazines are conspiring" um, there is a difference with tabloid media and a Journak of Science which none of the MAGAZINES you mentioned are Nature MAGAZINE, and other MAGAZINES the IPCC Academics like writing Articles in are College periodicals and Academic sounding boards not Journaks of Science "AGW"has yet to be presented to a Journal
"totally down to the greenhouse effect " No Hansen is a ex-NASA mathamatican and a Enviromentalist hack with his "greenhouse effect" bullshit....it doesn't exist Heat isn't "stored in the Ocean or the Atmosphere it is constantly being converted to kenetic motion in the ocean as "Ocean current" or in the air as trade wind,wind,huricane,storms,clouds and rain The +2f they are reading is from increase heat being released into the ocean from Core flux that is also causing more earthquakes/EM flux
"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" Vehicle Emmision testing Device data showing co2 being created in amounts claimed by the chemical balancing formula accidently applied to combustion which is a exothermic reaction(matter is turning to heat and light) Stack Emmision testing device finding co2 being created Sattilite data showing co2% in air effects area with more heat vs less co2%
Actually I said that on average volcanoes cause net cooling due to their aerosol emissions which last a lot longer (up to 1 year) than the eruptions (a few weeks). try again. Do you hnestly believe that volcanic activity has increased 1000 fold in just 40yrs becuase that is what you keep suggesting. try again.
"otherwise I could equally claim that pluto did it." lol Unlike your College Academic Enviromental Activists "Climatolosists" that have noththing better to do then play with Climate Midels that worked exactly once in 1979? and write house of cards inter supporting papers in college periodicals about how we must ban "evil coal and tax evil oil and change Energy Policy "Or the world could end "...Im just mentioning what I read in Geology,Vulcanology,Oceanagraphy,and Meterology textbooks pre-70's
Show more Loading...
to add this to Watch Later

Add to