Dark

Climate Science and the Myths of Renewable Energy - FOS Steve Goreham

Friends of Science
Views 443 822
83% 8 095 1 625

Steve Goreham is a speaker, an author, a researcher on environmental issues, and an independent columnist. He’s the Executive Director of the Climate Science Coalition of America, a non-political association dedicated to informing about the realities of climate science and energy economics. Steve gave this presentation at the Friends of Science 'Climate Dogma Exposed' event in Calgary on May 9th 2017. He says "contrary to what your political leader, professor, and newspaper tell you, global warming is dominated by natural factors. As a result, thousands of climate and energy laws across hundreds of nations, all summed together, are not going to have a measureable effect on Earth’s temperatures."

Science & Technology

Published on

 

Jul 1, 2017

Share:

Link:

Download:

Loading link...

Add to:

My playlist
Watch later
Comments 5 779
Rollin Shultz
Rollin Shultz 21 hour ago
The entire renewable game runs on cheats. It was never intended for any one type of system to be large scale such as solar farms for example. Back in the 60s and 70s when we back yard engineers were developing renewables for homes, it was always intended to be homeowner produced and hybrid systems that took advantage of site specific resources. The idea was to make homeowners (homesteaders) free of public utility bills and self sustaining. Renewables a.k.a. alternative energy producers, were never proposed to eliminate other methods such as the common millennial long fireplace. All types of energy production and alternative building initiatives were on the table. So what happened? The mega energy corporations lobbied (bribed) congress and DOE to steal all the research grants so that they could develop methods that would keep those bills and profits going. The entire subject has become corrupted beginning in the 80s to present.
Jon Smith
Jon Smith Day ago
Don't believe this crap, it's all lies being spewed by dishonest people. Friends of Science is working largely for the Fossil Fuel Industry and they don't care about us. If you believe this then you truly are a sheep.
Margaret Handley
Margaret Handley 2 days ago
If biomas is carbon neutral why arent coal and fossil fuels? They were life sources that collected and stored carbon and we are now releasing the carbon back into the world whoch is literally starving for CO2.
SwiftlyTiltingPlanet
How high should we go? C02 molecules accumulate in the atmosphere and can remain there for over a century, re-radiating heat back to earth to a degree that can radically alter climate. In the dinosaur days, 1000 ppm of C02 caused enough warming to melt the polar ice caps, which flooded Canada and the United States with a 1000-foot-deep ocean, which remained there for millions of years. (The Western Inland Sea.) Today millions of homes and businesses line the world's coastlines and are already fighting increased high tide flooding. It has doubled in the last 30 years along the southeast coast and is up 75% in the northeast, according to NOAA. Humans thrived with C02 levels substantially lower than today. The last time C02 was this high, HUMANS DID NOT EXIST.
Margaret Handley
Margaret Handley 2 days ago
Its all the other crap we put into the air that we need to eliminate and reduce. The aeresols, the particulates, the lead, the mercury, the sufur compounds, etc are the pollutants of our atmosphere that we need to clean up.
SwiftlyTiltingPlanet
It's all of the above, including C02. Reduce only aerosols and not C02 and warming increases.
Gary Walker
Gary Walker 2 days ago
FRIENDS OF SCIENCE? FUCKING PSEUDOSCIENCE LIARS. FUNDED BY OIL AND COAL YOU ARE SPREADING LIES THAT ARE EATING AWAY AT OUR ABILITY TO CORRECT THIS PROBLEM.
SwiftlyTiltingPlanet
Thank you, Gary. Voices of reason are often outnumbered here, so your post is more than a welcome sight.
ATGS TECH
ATGS TECH 6 days ago
This is a conspiracy theorist hub not science (I mean you guys not Gore, he's cool, he did his homework.)
SwiftlyTiltingPlanet
Nearly everything they present in the video is a misrepresentation of the science. The Glacier Girl story sucks most people in. Unfortunately the Friends of "Science" (actually Friends of the Oil Industry is more accurate) neglects to mention that ice sheets and glaciers are continuously melting from the bottom, no matter what the temperature, due to the enormous pressures, which year by year would bring the lost airplane down hundreds of feet. Lies of omission.
ADARSH SHUKLA
ADARSH SHUKLA 7 days ago
Overpopulation of human species is a much severe problem than global warming and pollution. Our dominating and curious nature is causing threat to 8.1 Million species on the planet.
SwiftlyTiltingPlanet
All of the above. There are too many of us consumed with consumption and burning up resources.
SwiftlyTiltingPlanet
Beware of oil industry propaganda. This video is loaded with misleading data that climate scientists vociferously refute. Steve Goreham uses cherry-picked data, verbal sleight of hand and lies of omission to confuse the unwary. Go to SkepticalScience and get all of your questions and suspicions answered by actual climate scientists, not oil industry shills.
The Guru of Kang
The Guru of Kang 15 days ago
When talking about the rise of the sea level, I wonder of the next information gets calculated in the model : The more biomass (especially trees) the landmass loses together with the effect of straightening rivers etc., so that the water stays less long on the land, the higher the sea level will be. Therefore, if you do the opposite : plant very much trees, slow down some rivers and create lakes or swamps where you can do this with a good logical plan, the lower the sea level will be. I'm telling you that the biomass is a big sponge. Besides, we need a lot of nature which has plenty of biodiversity, so start calculating please.
David Marx
David Marx 16 days ago
Back in the 80s we used to joke about the government taxing the air we breath.
SwiftlyTiltingPlanet
Investigations by Drexel University and the Union of Concerned Scientists reveal that the oil industry has funded (with over $500 million documented) nearly 100 climate change denial sites across media platforms. These sites are bankrolled to present a slanted view of climate science, often misrepresenting data through lies of omission and verbal sleight of hand. This video, presented by the Heartland Institute and Friends of Science, is one of them. Heartland is the same PR organization hired by the tobacco industry to sow seeds of doubt about the link between smoking and lung cancer. Their "science" advisor, Jay Lehr, was convicted and sentenced to prison for defrauding the EPA. Climate scientists refute virtually every "fact" in the video. For actual, peer-reviewed data, visit SkepticalScience.
Dan Basler
Dan Basler 17 days ago
For all the clue less the poles have shifted. A natural earth orbit cycle. The Sky Changed Earths Axis Has Shifted - Inuit Elders Issue Warning To NASA ruvid.net/video/video-kJgncvo2-7M.html
SwiftlyTiltingPlanet
The peak warming of the last Milankovich Cycle occurred 8000 years ago and we should be cooling now. We were riding a long-term cooling trend for a little over 1800 years when it suddenly stopped and reversed course. It reversed course after humans started spewing greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere. THIS IS NOT A NATURAL CYCLE.
Josef Stahlhirn
Josef Stahlhirn 20 days ago
www.geoengineeringwatch.org/?s=contrail+lie Refuting the "its just condensation trails" official lie is easily done if specific fundamental facts are understood and remembered. The short article and 7 minute video tutorial below provide essential information for debunking the "condensation trail" false narrative. ruvid.net/video/video-mRjmzy9XcaY.html We are told by all "official sources" that the sun blocking weather disrupting jet dispersed trails we see in our skies are only "condensation trails". The "condensation trail" official narrative is perhaps the greatest lie the power structure has ever perpetrated to pacify the masses into ignoring the immense threat posed by climate engineering operations occurring over our heads on a daily basis. Without knowing any of the related science facts on this issue, anyone with a sense of reason should be able to determine the fact that our skies are being sprayed. Trails that are turned on and off, grid patterns one day and nothing the next (in spite of often identical atmospheric conditions). Witnessing one jet leaving a trail from horizon to horizon adjacent to another jet at a similar altitude that leaves virtually nothing. Trails of completely dissimilar compositions and colors. There are misaligned plumes behind some jets (usually lower flying military tankers) that do not match the alignment of the engines themselves. This causes some of the sprayed dispursion trails to shoot out slightly to one side of the aircraft (not parallel due to misaligned nozzles). There is also of course the fact that all climate science circles and governments around the globe are clamoring for climate engineering to be deployed (though none in these communities will yet admit to the truth, geoengineering was fully deployed decades ago). Our society has been well trained to accept the official narrative on countless issues which is how those in power hide their crimes in plain site. The fact that official explanations for what we see in our skies are completely contrary to deductive reasoning and the laws of physics has, so far, seemed not to matter to the majority of the population. www.geoengineeringwatch.org/the-contrail-lie/
Josef Stahlhirn
Josef Stahlhirn 19 days ago
+SwiftlyTiltingPlanet ... Your head is addled with naive sheep thoughts.
SwiftlyTiltingPlanet
Go rinse your head off in cold water. It's addled with conspiracy theory nonsense.
Scott Bennett
Scott Bennett 20 days ago
This guy needs to go back to school and get his understanding of climate science sorted. He is making so many mistakes and misrepresentations of the data
SwiftlyTiltingPlanet
I encourage you to keep posting. The forum badly needs balance from better-informed viewers like you. +Scott Bennett
Scott Bennett
Scott Bennett 18 days ago
+SwiftlyTiltingPlanet Ah! that would explain it! Really helpful background information on the guy. Thanks for that. I should have guessed. It is such a shame that so many people will watch this and be persuaded. I hope lots of people who watch this read your comment so they can see through the nonsense x
SwiftlyTiltingPlanet
It's on purpose. He's a representative of the Heartland Institute, long bankrolled by the oil industry. Nearly every "fact" presented in the video is a misrepresentation of the science. But it's no surprise. Heartland used the same tactics---lies of omission, verbal sleight of hand , cherry-picked data---when they worked for the tobacco industry, sowing seeds of doubt about the connection between smoking and lung cancer. Good for you for calling out his bullshit.
SwiftlyTiltingPlanet
AL GORE NEVER SAID FLORIDA AND NEW YORK WOULD BE UNDERWATER NOW. In Inconvenient Truth, he pointed to West Antarctica and said if it fell into the sea tomorrow, sea level would rise 20 feet. And it would. It was an illustrative comment, not a prediction. He said the same thing about Greenland ice. And let's bust some more Gore myths. In Inconvenient Truth, he said about Arctic ice, verbatim: "There are now two major studies showing that within the next 50-70 years in summertime it will be completely gone." In SUMMERTIME. In later speeches he gave two projections, one in which ice in summer would be gone now, and one in which it wouldn't be gone until 2030---IN SUMMER. So if you're going to quote Gore, check your facts. The oil industry has spent millions on destroying his reputation through propaganda, lies of omission and verbal sleight of hand. See his documentaries for yourself before making a judgement call. You'll be amazed by just how accurate he was.
SwiftlyTiltingPlanet
+Wonderdust Just in case you didn't notice, the video you watched was produced the Friends of Science and the Heartland Institute, the PR firms for the oil industry. Everything they present in the video is dishonest.
SwiftlyTiltingPlanet
Parts of Antarctica or Greenland can receive massive snowfalls, especially at high elevations in the interior, while the peripheries lose ice. These are huge land masses. Snowfall accumulation in one area does not represent the whole. The net loss of ice for both places, according to numerous surveys, is far larger than the net gain. +Wonderdust
Wonderdust
Wonderdust 21 day ago
+SwiftlyTiltingPlanet explain why the US had to mount their camp on Jacks to jack it up over here in Antarctica cuz the ice keeps building and buried their last two camps?
SwiftlyTiltingPlanet
The ice that is raising sea level IS OVER LAND, NOT WATER. Greenland is land. You knew that, right? Antarctica is an archipelago. You knew that, right? That ice melts and flows into the ocean, you get sea level rise. Go make yourself a drink on the rocks and rethink your brilliance. +Wonderdust
Wonderdust
Wonderdust 21 day ago
Melt some ice in a glass, see how much the water level goes up, let me know.
Fabio NL
Fabio NL 22 days ago
"PATTERNS OF FAILURE A very distinct pattern has emerged repeatedly when policies favored by the anointed turn out to fail. This pattern typically has four stages. STAGE I. THE "CRISIS": Some situation exists, whose aspects the anointed propose to eliminate. Such a situation routinely characterized as a "crisis," even though all human situations have negative aspects, and even though evidence is seldom asked or given to show how the situation at hand is either uniquely bad or threatening to get worse. Sometimes the situation described as a "crisis" has in fact already been getting better for years. STAGE 2. THE "SOLUTION": Policies to end the "crisis" are advocated by the anointed, who say that these policies will lead to beneficial result A. Critics say that these policies will lead to detrimental result Z. The anointed dismiss these latter claims as absurd and "simplistic," if not dishonest. STAGE 3. THE RESULTS: The policies are instituted and lead to detrimental result Z. STAGE 4. THE RESPONSE: Those who attribute detrimental result Z to the policies instituted are dismissed as "simplistic" for ignoring the "complexities" involved, as "many factors" went into determining the outcome. The burden of proof is put on the critics to demonstrate to a certainty that these policies alone were the only possible cause of the worsening that occurred. No burden of proof whatever is put on those who had so confidently predicted improvement. Indeed, it is often asserted that things would have been even worse, were it not for the wonderful programs that mitigated the inevitable damage from other factors." Thomas Sowell
SwiftlyTiltingPlanet
Under intense protest, similar to climate change deniers' cries today, we passed the Clean Air Act and from 1970 to 1990 alone, saved an estimated $22 trillion in health care costs, according to the EPA. The "anointed" are those who are educated. They protect the rest of us from selfishness and stupidity.
Fabio NL
Fabio NL 22 days ago
"What is intellectually interesting about visions are their assumptions and their reasoning, but what is socially crucial is the extent to which they are resistant to evidence. All social theories being imperfect, the harm done by their imperfections depends not only on how far they differ from reality, but also on how readily they adjust to evidence, to come back into line with the facts. One theory may be more plausible, or even more sound, than another, but if it is also more dogmatic, then that can make it far more dangerous than a theory that is not initially as close to the truth but which is more capable of adjusting to feedback from the real world. The prevailing vision of our time - the vision of the anointed - has shown an extraordinary ability to defy evidence. Characteristic patterns have developed among the anointed for dealing with the repeated failures of policies based on their visiorn. Other patterns have developed for seizing upon slatistics in such a way as to buttress the assumptions of the vision, even when the same set of statisties contains numbers that contradict the vision. Finally. there is the phenomenon of honored prophets among the anointed who continue to be honored as their predictions fail by vast margins, time and again." Thomas Sowell
SwiftlyTiltingPlanet
Over 120,000 climate change studies and counting. There is no "resistance to evidence." It is the evidence. The counter evidence emanates from videos like the above, produced and bankrolled by the oil industry's PR firm, the Heartland Institute, the former PR firm of the tobacco industry.
Craig
Craig 23 days ago
They have a recycling nightmare coming when all those panels and wind turbines start failing.
Bryan Kirk
Bryan Kirk 20 days ago
Yay! Free metal and Carbon Fiber
Mark Peter
Mark Peter 25 days ago
Here's a listing of a number of the 1,300 peer-reviewed papers by scientific experts in the field of climate change to refute the false narratives and fake science perpetrated by the alarmists. Review and impacts of climate change uncertainties (Futures, Volume 25, Number 8, pp. 850-863, October 1993) - M. E. Fernau, W. J. Makofske, D. W. South Atmospheric CO2 residence time and the carbon cycle (Energy, Volume 18, Issue 12, pp. 1297-1310, December 1993) - Chauncey Starr Temperature dependence of silicate weathering in nature: How strong a negative feedback on long-term accumulation of atmospheric CO2 and global greenhouse warming? (PDF) (Geology, Volume 21, Issue 12, pp. 1059, December 1993) - Michael Anthony Velbel On the scientific basis for global warming scenarios (PDF) (Environmental Pollution, Volume 83, Issues 1-2, pp. 125-134, 1994) - Richard S. Lindzen Climate Dynamics and Global Change (Annual Review of Fluid Mechanics, Volume 26, pp. 353-378, January 1994) - Richard S. Lindzen Science does not support consensus' on climate change (The Electricity Journal, Volume 7, Issue 1, pp. 78-85, February 1994) - Henry R. Linden A Critical Appraisal of the Global Warming Debate (New Zealand Geographer, Volume 50, Issue 1, pp. 30-32, April 1994) - C. R. de Freitas Interpreting the Global Temperature Record The roles of carbon dioxide and water vapour in warming and cooling the earth's troposphere (Spectrochimica Acta Part A: Molecular and Biomolecular Spectroscopy, Volume 51, Issue 3, pp. 415-417, March 1995) - Jack Barrett Earth rotation, ocean circulation and paleoclimate (GeoJournal, Volume 37, Number 4, pp. 419-430, December 1995) - Nils-Axel Morner Global Temperature Deviations as a Random Walk (Journal of Climate, Volume 9, Issue 3, pp. 656-658, March 1996) - Olavi Karnel Why Carbon Dioxide Emissions Should Not Be Limited (PDF) (Thermal Engineering, Volume 44, Number 2, pp. 85-89, 1997) - V. V. Klimenko Can increasing carbon dioxide cause climate change? (PDF) (Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Volume 94, Number 16, pp. 8335-8342, August 1997) - Richard S. Lindzen The continuing search for an anthropogenic climate change signal: Limitations of correlation-based approaches (Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 24, Number 18, pp. 2319-2322, September 1997) - David R. Legates, Robert E. Davis On the climatic implications of volcanic cooling (PDF) (Journal of Geophysical Research, Volume 103, Issue D6, pp. 5929-5942, March 1998) - Richard S. Lindzen, Constantine Giannitsis Analysis of trends in the variability of daily and monthly historical temperature measurements (PDF) (Climate Research, Volume 10, Number 1, pp. 27-33, April 1998) - Patrick J. Michaels, Robert C. Balling Jr., Russell S. Vose, Paul C. Knappenberger Climate Variations and the Enhanced Greenhouse Effect (Ambio, Volume 27, Number 4, pp. 270-274, June 1998) - Wibjorn Karlen Analysis of long-term European temperature records: 1751-1995 (PDF) (Climate Research, Volume 10, Number 3, pp. 193-200, December 1998) - R. C. Balling Jr, R. S. Vose, Gerd-Rainer Weber Climate Chaotic Instability: Statistical Determination and Theoretical Background (Environmetrics, Volume 8, Issue 5, pp. 517-532, December 1998) - Raymond Sneyers Human Contribution to Climate Change Remains Questionable (PDF) (Eos, Transactions American Geophysical Union, Volume 80, Issue 16, pp. 183-183, April 1999) - S. Fred Singer Rate and Magnitude of Past Global Climate Changes (Environmental Geosciences, Volume 6, Number 2, pp. 63-75, June 1999) - John P. Bluemle, Joseph M. Sabel, Wibjorn Karlen Geologic Constraints on Global Climate Variability (Environmental Geosciences, Volume 6, Issue 3, page 152, September 1999) - Lee C. Gerhard Climate change in the Arctic and its empirical diagnostics (Energy & Environment, Volume 10, Number 5, pp. 469-482, September 1999) - V. V. Adamenko, K. Y. Kondratyev, C. A. Varotsos An assessment of validation experiments conducted on computer models of global climate using the general circulation model of the UK's Hadley Centre (Energy & Environment, Volume 10, Number 5, pp. 491-502, September 1999) - Richard S. Courtney Evidence Delimiting Past Global Climate Changes (Environmental Geosciences, Volume 6, Issue 3, pp. 151, September 1999) - John P. Bluemle, Joseph M. Sabel, Wibjorn Karlen Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide (PDF) (Climate Research, Volume 13, Number 2, pp. 149-164, October 1999) - Willie H. Soon, Sallie L. Baliunas, Arthur B. Robinson, Zachary W. Robinson The cause of global warming (PDF) (Energy & Environment, Volume 11, Number 6, pp. 613-629, November 2000) - Vincent Gray Evidence for decoupling of atmospheric CO2 and global climate during the Phanerozoic eon (Nature, Volume 408, Number 6813, pp. 698-701, December 2000) - Jan Veizer, Yves Godderis, Louis M. François Sources of global warming in upper ocean temperature during El Nino (Journal of Geophysical Research: Oceans, Volume 106, Issue C3, pp. 4349-4367, March 2001) - Warren B. White et al. Does CO2 really drive global warming? (PDF) (Chemical Innovation, Volume 31, Number 5, pp. 44-46, May 2001) - Robert H. Essenhigh Modeling climatic effects of anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions: unknowns and uncertainties (PDF) (Climate Research, Volume 18, Number 3, pp. 259-275, November 2001) - Willie H. Soon, Sallie L. Baliunas, Sherwood B. Idso, Kirill Ya. Kondratyev, Eric S. Posmentier * Modeling climatic effects of anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions: unknowns and uncertainties. Reply to Risbey (2002) (PDF) (Climate Research, Volume 22, Number 2, pp. 187-188, September 2002) - Willie H. Soon, Sallie L. Baliunas, Sherwood B. Idso, Kirill Ya. Kondratyev, Eric S. Posmentier * Modeling climatic effects of anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions: unknowns and uncertainties. Reply to Karoly et al. (2003) (PDF) (Climate Research, Volume 24, Number 1, pp. 93-94, June 2003) - Willie H. Soon, Sallie L. Baliunas, Sherwood B. Idso, Kirill Ya. Kondratyev, Eric S. Posmentier Do deep ocean temperature records verify models? (PDF) (Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 29, Number 8, April 2002) - Richard S. Lindzen Problems in evaluating regional and local trends in temperature: an example from eastern Colorado, USA (PDF) (International Journal of Climatology, Volume 22, Issue 4, pp. 421-434, April 2002) - Roger A. Pielke Sr. et al. When Was The Hottest Summer? A State Climatologist Struggles for an Answer (Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, Volume 83, Issue 5, pp. 723-734, May 2002) - John R. Christy Are observed changes in the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere really dangerous? (PDF) (Bulletin of Canadian Petroleum Geology, Volume 50, Number 2, pp. 297-327, June 2002) - C. R. de Freitas Reconciling observations of global temperature change (PDF) (Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 29, Issue 12, pp. 24-1, June 2002) - Richard S. Lindzen, Constantine Giannitsis Global Climate Models Violate Scaling of the Observed Atmospheric Variability (PDF) (Physical Review Letters, Volume 89, Number 2, July 2002) - R. B. Govindan et al. Statistical analysis does not support a human influence on climate (Energy & Environment, Volume 13, Number 3, pp. 329-331, July 2002) - S. Fred Singer Global Warming: Myth or Reality? The Actual Evolution of the Weather Dynamics (Energy & Environment, Volume 14, Number 2-3, pp. 297-322, May 2003) - Marcel Leroux The "Greenhouse Effect" as a Function of Atmospheric Mass (Energy & Environment, Volume 14, Number 2-3, pp. 351-356, May 2003) - Hans Jelbring Global Warming (PDF) (Progress in Physical Geography, Volume 27, Number 3, pp. 448-455, September 2003) - Willie H. Soon, Sallie L. Baliunas Climate change: detection and attribution of trends from long-term geologic data (Ecological Modelling, Volume 171, Issue 4, pp. 433-450, February 2004) - Craig Loehle Estimation and representation of long-term (>40 year) trends of Northern-Hemisphere-gridded surface temperature: A note of caution (PDF) (Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 31, Number 3, February 2004) - Willie H. Soon, David R. Legates, Sallie L. Baliunas Altitude dependence of atmospheric temperature trends: Climate models versus observation (PDF) (Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 31, Number 13, July 2004) - David H. Douglass, Benjamin D. Pearson, S. Fred Singer Key Aspects of Global Climate Change (Energy & Environment, Volume 15, Number 3, pp. 469-503, July 2004) - K. Y. Kondratyev Nonlinearities, Feedbacks and Critical Thresholds within the Earth's Climate System (PDF) (Climatic Change, Volume 65, Number 1-2, pp. 11-38, July 2004) - Jose A. Rial et al. Climate change: Conflict of observational science, theory, and politics (PDF) (AAPG Bulletin, Volume 88, Number 9, pp. 1211-1220, September 2004) - Lee C. Gerhard
SwiftlyTiltingPlanet
And have you also seen the rebuttals to those papers? Lindzen, Morner, Soon, Singer, and Christy have been widely refuted. See CLIMATE MISINFORMATION BY SOURCE for more information. See also www.ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming
erasemeable
erasemeable 27 days ago
The problem ... the main problem is that the ipcc is getting money to prove that us humans are causing the problem. That is the problem. I find it funny as the ice recedes .. they are finding civilizations. But ... they did find a brochure of that 1403 hummer. Who knew .. sheepskin interiors! Prue ... arrogance. .. that humans can change climate. And 150 years of data? Earth been around for 4 and half billion years. ... good sample. Now ... it's changing to pollution. No correlation to climate change. And we move on...............
SwiftlyTiltingPlanet
You're right, the planet doesn't give a flying F about us. Which is why when C02 reaches the point it was during the dinosaur days (we're well on our way), all of the polar ice caps will melt and flood Canada and the United States with the same 1000-foot-deep ocean (the Western Inland Sea) that was there with T-rex and his buddies, only this time around billions of people will have to get out of the way. +erasemeable
erasemeable
erasemeable 16 days ago
There is climate change. It revolves...we are along for the ride. Give me one of these software models. I want to predict tomorrow's Jays game. We are getting better at we do because the market and a little from society. . Wants us to. Let's look at what we got and improve on it. And my favorite phrase ... save the planet ... the blue marble doesn't give a damn about us.
SwiftlyTiltingPlanet
The climate has changed throughout earth's history, triggered largely by Milankovitch cycles and the natural release of greenhouse gasses. That's obviously common knowledge among climate scientists. So why do you think they would insist this warming is different than what happened in the past? 1. In one famous study (the Pages study), scientists from around the world gathered proxy data to chart the climate from the past. When the data was finally compiled and analyzed, several lines of evidence showed that we experienced a cooling trend for nearly the last 2000 years. That makes sense, because we're now 8000 years removed from the peak warming of the last Milankovich Cycle and WE SHOULD BE COOLING. But something happened a little over a century ago to give the scientists' pause; the 2000-year cooling trend suddenly stopped and reversed itself. The reversal coincided with the advent of our greenhouse gas emissions. 2. Solar irradiance is at its lowest level since 1978, and we should be cooling from that as well. We're not. NASA has monitored temperatures in earth's outer atmosphere for decades and finds that it has, in fact, COOLED. Yet our inner atmosphere continues to WARM. Evidence of a greenhouse effect? If the outer atmosphere is cooler, where is the inner warming coming from? The poles are also warming at a much greater rate than the equator, the exact opposite of what happens with direct solar heating. More evidence of a greenhouse effect? The C02 in the atmosphere is accumulating. (C02 molecules can remain up there for over a century.) Methane, an even more powerful greenhouse gas, is also accumulating and compounding the heat-trapping blanket effect. C02 further amplifies the heat-trapping nature of water vapor. With every one degree rise in temps, the air is able to hold 7% more moisture. So we have several compounding factors at work. We also know the excess C02 up there is ours. Scientists measure the ratio of carbon 12, 13 and 14 to determine the molecules' sources, from nature, volcanic eruptions, or from human activity. Scientists read this unique signature clearly; the excess C02 is from the burning of fossil fuels. The methane is from a variety of sources. C02 molecules re-reradiate heat back toward earth. Using spectroscopy, scientists can measure exactly what source this radiated heat comes from. After water vapor, the largest sources are clearly identified as C02 and methane. C02 and warming always track together. Raise the C02 and the earth warms. The pattern repeats throughout millions of years of history. In the dinosaur days, C02 was over 1000 ppm, and the earth was so warm that ALL of the polar ice caps melted and flooded CANADA and the United States with a 1000-foot-deep ocean (the Western Inland Sea) that remained there for millions of years. Last year, NOAA measured the highest ocean temperatures on record. The peak of the last Grand Solar Maximum occurred sixty years ago. That slightly warmer sun could not today be adding to the ocean's warming, and the oceans do not warm by themselves. Over land, record hot days are now outpacing record cold days by a 2 to 1 margin. In a stable climate, those numbers should come close to matching. The average global temperature, in fact, is rising year after year. That's verified by every major climate and meteorological agency around the world. Sea level rise (from Greenland and Antarctic ice melt) has doubled the incidence of high tide flooding up and down the east coast in the last 30 years, according to NOAA. Cities are already spending billions to mitigate the damage and prepare for future damage. By 2100, flood damage alone will be in the trillions of dollars. Climate change? It's already here. If you don't see it outside your door, you're among the lucky ones. +erasemeable
erasemeable
erasemeable 16 days ago
I love climate change. I'm in Toronto. I would be under a kilometer of ice. Climate changes ... are we doing it ... umm ... still waiting. Arrogance is all about us.....always follow the money.
SwiftlyTiltingPlanet
The proxy climate data goes back hundreds of millions of years.
Mark Peter
Mark Peter 27 days ago
The organizers of this presentation, Friends of Science did a thorough analysis of Cook et al's study that concluded that there's a 97% Consensus. It's actually, 0.5%
SwiftlyTiltingPlanet
You're repeating Rick Santorum's inaccurate reading of one climate study and his remarks are completely discredited by FactCheck.Org. See SANTORUM'S CLIMATE CONSENSUS CLAIMS, (FactCheck, Sep 2, 2015 ) Several studies involving thousands of scientists come to the same 97% conclusion. It is not 77 scientists, no matter how many times it is repeated across the Internet, the number has no basis in reality. Patrick Moore is a paid spokesman for the nuclear, oil and coal industries. His remarks have been widely refuted in climate science circles. The co-founder of the Weather Channel, who is dead and had no climate science training (his degree was in journalism), was even more widely refuted than Patrick Moore. He was replaced at the Weather Channel after the first year with someone with an actual weather and climate background. 95% of the Arctic's oldest, thickest ice is now GONE, its volume rapidly vanishing for decades, according to all surveys by NASA and national snow and ice data centers. You can see for yourself at NASA TIME LAPSE VIDEO OF ARCTIC ICE. Antarctica has lost far more ice in the last 40 years than it has gained in interior snowfall. Antarctica, in fact, is now losing hundreds of gigatons of ice every year, which is contributing to sea level rise, as is the rapid melting in Greenland. Polar Bear numbers are increasing because we signed a pact with several northern countries, including Russia, to sharply limit hunting. Prager University is not a university. Not even remotely. Here are all the predictions Gore made in Inconvenient Truth that have come true: 1. Increasing temps. Record hot days now outpace record cold days by a 2 to 1 margin. In a stable climate, those numbers should come close to matching. 2. Increasing epic rainfalls. (The EPA has tracked a steady increase since 1958.) 3. Continued melting of the Arctic. The oldest, thickest ice in the Arctic, along Russia, broke up last summer, allowing ships to pass without icebreakers for the first time in history. 4. Increasing sea levels. The latest comprehensive surveys from NASA and 90 scientists from around the world show sea levels rising 3.2 mm per year and accelerating. The total average rise by 2100 will be 26 inches. 5. Increased high tide flooding. High tide flooding has doubled along the southeastern coast in the past 30 years, according to NOAA. It's up 75% along the northeast. Boston broke its flooding record in 2017 and had its highest tide ever, which flooded part of its downtown, in a storm in 2018. Part of Annapolis, Maryland flooded 63 times in 2017, closing streets and shops. Parts of Queens, NY are fighting a losing battle with chronic high tide flooding. Miami has moved buildings and raised many of its streets two feet to fight the rising tide. This flooding is happening all over the world, costing billions. By 2100, the flooding damage in the United States alone will reach into the trillions. Continued glacial retreat. Glaciers are in rapid retreat all over the world. The slowing of the Gulf Stream. It is indeed slowing, according to the latest studies. There is no credible data proving climate scientists "wrong." Lots of oil industry propaganda but no peer-reviewed scientific papers. Vet your "experts" before you quote them. +Mark Peter
Mark Peter
Mark Peter 26 days ago
Cook's study was the most comprehensive study looking at 11,000 papers and only 77 supported the climate change alarmism. UNIPCC member Dr. Einhoff stated, " it is political and has little to do with science or the environment." 1,300 peer-reviewed papers by climatologists, meteorologists, atmospheric scientists, oceanographers, geologists et all question the seriousness of the alarmists contention that manmade CO2 emissions. Founders of Greanpeace Dr. Patick Moore along with the founder of the Weather Channel concur. NASA'a satellite photos indicate that the Artic Poles are increasing and decreasing. The same with the polar bear populations.depending upon the species. Watch the documentary, "Climate Hustle" PragerU videos and read "Politically Incorrect Global Warming." Gore's documentary has 9 major flaws. His predictions have always proven wrong. Myriads of books, scientific papers, documentaries all present evidence that the alarmists are wrong.
SwiftlyTiltingPlanet
The consensus is 97%, validated by seven different studies. Get over it. That's why the entire world is on board. Get over that, too. The consensus is supported by 78 Nobel Laureates, 80 academies of science, 200 major scientific institutions worldwide, NASA, NOAA, the American Meteorological Society, every meteorological agency on earth, the Union of Concerned Scientists, the Department of Defense, The Department of Homeland Security, and every nation on the planet except Syria. No scientific institution of national or international standing rejects the consensus. But you, very much like a trained clapping seal, cheer the oil industry's propaganda and never question once who made the video you watched or wether it was accurate or not. It wasn't. It was produced by Friends of Science, who is sponsored by the Heartland Institute, the PR firm long bankrolled by ExxonMobil and Koch Industries and the former PR firm paid to lie about the connection between smoking and lung cancer for the tobacco industry. Heartland's "science" director, Jay Lehr, was convicted and sentenced to six months in jail and fined $250,000 for defrauding the EPA. Always vet your sources before you quote them.
Kyle Erickson
Kyle Erickson 28 days ago
The dangers of RUvid education
SwiftlyTiltingPlanet
You got that right. There needs to be a propaganda/misinformation police force on here.
Bimal Mishra
Bimal Mishra Month ago
The witchcraft of environment. The science ruvid.net/video/video-ny_OpnCe4_w.html
RelaxGamingBrainz 007
Great presentation! Talking about waking up... Also watch Jesse Lee Peterson if you want to wake up on a personal level.
Mike W Ellwood
Mike W Ellwood Month ago
Convincing, but I don't think he said what actually _does_ cause sea levels to rise, did he?
SwiftlyTiltingPlanet
Not convincing at all once you hear the rebuttals from actual scientists. Nearly every "fact" served up by Goreham is a misrepresentation of climate science. They do it by withholding information like this: glaciers and ice sheets melt constantly from the bottom, no matter the temperature, which is exactly what put the Glacier Girl airplane 268 feet below the ice.
nekeke
nekeke Month ago
👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏
nekeke
nekeke Month ago
Check the videos on my list, please. They show that CO2 is about 1/3 of the GHG. The vast majority of GHG is water vapor. CO2 is very good for the crops all over the world. Never we have had such a good crops that have allowed to almost eliminate hungry all over the world. As I said, Climate alarmists are just looking for one thing: our money through taxes. If they were telling the truth, they would fully support nuclear energy, but they don't. Climate alarmism is a lie, but I fully support clean air, so we must go full nuclear, because it is SAFE, CHEAP, CONSTANT, CLEAN. Wind turbines and solar panels are EXPENSIVE, NON CONSTANT, TAKE A LOT OF SURFACE AND VERY CONTAMINANT, SINCE MANUFACTURING TO DISPOSAL AFTER 20 YEARS.
SwiftlyTiltingPlanet
It helps to know history. Back in the 60s we were spewing masses of sulfate aerosols (from burning coal) into the atmosphere. Aerosols reflect sunlight and in sufficient volume, cool the planet. Even though the majority of scientists were warning of global warming, even then, a handful of scientists, concerned about our increasing aerosol pollution, warned of cooling and got the lion's share of media attention. The worry came to an end when we passed THE CLEAN AIR ACT in 1970, which sharply reduced those aerosol emissions, leaving C02 and methane to become the dominant pollutant and increase warming. Both sets of scientists were correct. Neither of them were crazy or fickle. At no time in the last 2000 years has the climate been warmer. The last time C02 was this high, HUMANS DID NOT EXIST. In the dinosaur days, C02 was over 1000 ppm and it was indeed very warm.The C02 was produced by the epic tectonic and volcanic activity that was breaking up the super continent of Pangea. (Which broke apart into the separate continents we know today.) It was so warm, in fact, that ALL of the polar ice caps melted and flooded Canada and the United States with a 1000-foot-deep ocean (the Western Inland Sea) that remained there for millions of years. Harmless then. But today we have billions of human beings in harm's way, and most of them living along coastlines, vulnerable to soon-to-be catastrophic sea level rise. +nekeke
nekeke
nekeke Month ago
+SwiftlyTiltingPlanet Climate hell is a LIE. Look at Time magazine 1977 portrait saying just the opposite: the Earth was entering a cooling period and in 1990's saying the contrary. Climate hell is a religion not backed by real science. The Earth has been warmer in the past without human intervention. In fact, right now it's getting cooler instead of warmer. Look at the POD cycles that perfectly matches the variations in global temperatures. Don't get brain washed by politicians that just want to steal your hard earned money.
SwiftlyTiltingPlanet
Complete nonsense. Nearly half of Republicans were elected from oil industry money. But you don't have a problem with that. Take a look at your double standards. +nekeke
nekeke
nekeke Month ago
+SwiftlyTiltingPlanet Just do one thing: find out who will benefit of all the money that this enormous LIE is trying to confiscate from the people (not from the rich): yes, politicians.
ExtraVaganza
ExtraVaganza Month ago
It snowed today where I live and people are still saying global warming is real..
SwiftlyTiltingPlanet
Local weather has nothing to do with global climate.
John
John Month ago
Fuck yeah, what if we cleaned up the planet for nothing? What a waste of time, just to stop wearing our gas masks in the cities. Get behind your local oil dealer, so one day we can be as filthy rich as these guys! I really like the part about nature, .mc Donald's love this too so much, they right behind getting more cows. Climate science never said water vapour is a contributor. You distort the facts, cherry pick examples almost to like a religious perspective on god, and a few dumb asses believe this so you keep making money.
Rory Derbyshire
Rory Derbyshire Month ago
Awesome
SwiftlyTiltingPlanet
Awesome, but completely wrong. Almost every "fact" the video gave is a gross misrepresentation of the actual science. But what would we expect by a video by "Friends of Science," long funded by the oil industry?
J and C Gaming
J and C Gaming Month ago
It's cold out today. So much for global warming am I right
SwiftlyTiltingPlanet
If you're utterly uninformed about climate change, you'll believe a cold day is proof that global warming is on a par with fairy dust. Local weather is not global climate. It will always be cold somewhere. It will always snow somewhere. Global warming is not going to change that anytime soon. Here's a true indicator for you, according to NOAA: Days of record-breaking heat are now outrunning days of record-breaking cold by a 2 to 1 margin. In a stable climate, those numbers should come in very close together. According to three separate studies released last year, extreme heat days are increasing worldwide. For every one degree in temperature rise, the air is able o hold 7% more moisture. That's precisely why epic rainstorms are also increasing worldwide, since 1958, according to the EPA.
J and C Gaming
J and C Gaming Month ago
The bible says that oil is there only for exploitation and that filthy lying libtart environmentalists should die
SwiftlyTiltingPlanet
That's a brilliant contribution to the debate. What about conservative environmentalists? Should they die too? 62% of Republicans believe in climate change now. Are they retarded as well?
SwiftlyTiltingPlanet
Glacier Girl explanation. Hint: glaciers and ice sheets melt continuously from the bottom, no matter the temperature.
SwiftlyTiltingPlanet
Yes, the ocean is another melting factor. But an ice sheet or glacier doesn't need any source of warmth to cause melting from the bottom because the enormous weight (imagine one to two miles of mass on top of you) constantly weakens and breaks up the molecular bonds of the ice. +5060northernmama
5060northernmama
Would they melt faster if the ocean is warmer? Saw a neat picture of a glacier with an expected big hole. If the common knowledge is that glaciers melt from below, every icesheet/glacier known to man today will have a huge cavern under it. It's all"floating" of course. I found this very interesting to learn. In other words, at what point did we discover that glaciers melt from the bottom - how much science happened before they started to measure UNDER the glacier?www.popularmechanics.com/science/environment/a26092076/nasa-found-a-giant-underground-cavern-in-antarctica-almost-the-size-of-manhattan/
Torsten Lange
Torsten Lange Month ago
Great talk, thanks!
SwiftlyTiltingPlanet
Nearly everything in the video is dishonest. How did the Glacier Girl airplane end up 268 feet under Greenland ice? What they didn't tell you is that glaciers and ice sheets melt not only from the top but from the BOTTOM. The bottom is continuously melting, no matter the temperature, because of the enormous pressure from above (1-2 miles of ice). With every bottom layer that melts, the plane drops further and further down. Winter snow each year covers it, compacts, and freezes. Numerous surveys, including NASA satellite topography measurements, show that the ice is melting over Greenland at an unprecedented rate. Enough ice has melted from Greenland since the mid 90s to drown Australia in knee-deep water, which is contributing to sea level rise. C02 is harmless? It's not a pollutant? Why do you think NASA has C02 scrubbers in all their manned spaceships and space stations? Because at 1000 ppm, C02 begins to cause brain fog. It's a serious indoor pollutant. Outdoors, C02 traps heat in the atmosphere, which is why we're warming. With every one degree rise in temperature, the air is able to hold 7% more moisture. That's leading to epic rainstorms, which the EPA says have increased since 1958. It's also increasing damage from hurricanes. 9 of the 10 costliest hurricanes in American history, after adjusting for inflation, all occurred after the year 2000. In the past, the worst damage came from wind. Today it is from Biblical rain and flooding, a direct result of a warmer atmosphere. The last time C02 was this high, HUMANS DID NOT EXIST. Globally, today, we are warmer than the Medieval warming period and all other warm periods in human history. The Medieval warm spell was caused by a period of very low volcanic activity (aerosols from volcanoes can cool the planet for years), high solar activity, and other known factors that have no relation to our warming today. Today's warming is directly attributable to the burning of fossil fuels and other human activity. The Medieval Warm period had far lower C02 than today, according to ice core data. By contrast, the Little Ice Age was caused by unusually high volcanic activity, which spewed sun-blocking aerosols into the atmosphere, cooled the surface, which in turn caused ice sheets to expand and increase reflection of sunlight, triggering a cooling feedback loop that continued for years. The video mentioned none of these factors, nor any of the latest research into these historical time periods. It was warmer in prehistoric times. That's true. Some periods were warmer. Back in the dinosaur days, C02 levels were over 1000 ppm, which caused so much warming that all of the earth's ice sheets melted and created a new 1000-foot ocean that ran over Canada and down over the United States---called the Western Inland Sea. That sea remained over the United States for millions of years. Harmless back then. But today we have billions of human beings in harm's way, and even a fraction of that kind of flooding would be catastrophic. These are just a few of the things the video misrepresented. They misrepresented them because "Friends of Science" has long been funded by the oil industry and they want you to believe that burning fossil fuels has nothing to do with today's warming. But all evidence says that it does. Climatologists study the climate over long periods of history and project it into the future. They are specialists in global warming trends, for example. Climatologists are PhDs. Meteorologists, who predict short term weather patterns, usually only have bachelors degrees. +Torsten Lange
Torsten Lange
Torsten Lange Month ago
+SwiftlyTiltingPlanet What exactly was wrong and are all climate scientists of the same oppinion? Is climate scientist a profession or rather meteorologist?
SwiftlyTiltingPlanet
Totally inaccurate and refuted by climate scientists, but very entertaining!
Val Brooker
Val Brooker Month ago
These AGW zealots should read the story about King Canute.
bulletsholes
bulletsholes Month ago
Or just go shoot themselves in the head. Either way would be great...
Volker Miesek
Volker Miesek Month ago
Sounds like very compelling evidence. But we may just be missing an element unknown to us at this stage. One thing is for sure, we cannot continue as we have in the past some 200 years. Our resources are limited and our planet is taxed heavily by our civilisation. And we are seriously thinking about going to Mars? Even acknowledging CO2 not being the main culprit in global warming, global warming is here. We should play it safe tone down exploitation of the planet. Time will prove one or the other hypothesis wrong. We can only gain by transforming our economy towards sustainability rather then a further exploitation of earth at the pace as we have in the last 200 years. Curbing population growth should be one of the key measures if we don't want to see mankind back at the stage of 1820. If one believes or does not believe in global warming, we must learn to adapt to the changes.
SwiftlyTiltingPlanet
Climate scientists refute nearly every "fact" in this video, produced by the Heartland Institute, the same PR firm that worked with the tobacco industry to sow seeds of doubt about smoking and lung cancer. Heartland has been supported for years by donations from the oil industry. One quick fact check for you to illustrate how the video deceives by leaving out vital information. Glaciers and ice sheets melt from the top and the bottom, which Steve Goreham chose not to share with his audience. With every lower layer of ice melt, the Glacier Girl airplane would drop a bit further down, to be covered by new snow each winter. It wouldn't take long to drop over 250 feet with continuous bottom melting. Virtually everything in the video is misrepresented in the same way. I will quickly add, though, that I agree with everything you said. It begins and ends with population control.
Patricia Simon
Patricia Simon Month ago
People talk about money, who is being paid, if you follow the money it is the warmists who are being paid to produce the " right" research and the money is also in the green taxes..that is who is being paid, those supporting the so called warming
SwiftlyTiltingPlanet
Reality check: According to investigations by Drexel University, the Union of Concerned Scientists and Greenpeace, the oil industry has donated more than a billion dollars to nearly 100 climate change denial organizations across media platforms. The video you watched was produced by the Heartland Institute, which for years served as a PR firm for the tobacco industry. They were paid to sow seeds of doubt about smoking and lung cancer. Today they're paid by the oil industry to sow seeds of doubt about climate change. Virtually every "fact" presented in the video is a misrepresentation of the actual science. EXAMPLE: Did the narrator share with you that glaciers and ice sheets melt from the bottom as well as from the top? That's precisely why the "Glacier Girl" airplane ended up more than 250 feet down into the ice. The bottom layers of ice sheets, in fact, are constantly melting. New snow each winter simply covered the airplane and compacted as it dropped. Greenland has been surveyed by hundreds of scientists. It is losing ice at an unprecedented pace and is contributing to accelerating sea level rise.
Anima Clothing Co.
Ever heard the quote 'the quality of your thinking makes it so'? The only reason we don't have renewable energy is because our society has the mindset of consuming and expansive thinking, i.e. who can make the most money at the expense of raping and pillaging the earth. Do some research into scientists like Nikola Tesla, Henry Moray, and Thomas Bearden, in the case of Tesla his funding for renewable, resourceless energy was cut after JP Morgan found out he would lose billions to Tesla's new invention. Amazing how one pathetically greedy man has held humanity back at least 100 years.
w4csc
w4csc Month ago
ruvid.net/video/video-ErSNgEIDC5g.html My idea of renewable energy. You turn it on and it just works!
inscrutable
inscrutable Month ago
How does this logical explanation helping wake people up to a world wide Ponzi scheme get downvoted? I guess it really is easier to lie to someone than convince them they've been lied to. Stop buying government propaganda if you want them to stop selling it
SwiftlyTiltingPlanet
You put the shoe on the wrong foot. The video you watched was produced by the Heartland Institute, long bankrolled by ExxonMobil and Koch Industries. Virtually every "fact" in it is a misrepresentation of the actual science.
Dameon1970
Dameon1970 Month ago
The main argument is, "Is Al Gore a liar?" - your answer will illustrate which camp you live in
SwiftlyTiltingPlanet
+Dryst Krab Which ones have been wrong?
Dryst Krab
Dryst Krab Month ago
+SwiftlyTiltingPlanet he has been making nostradarmus predictions and a lot of them hv been wrong. so yes, he is a liar.
SwiftlyTiltingPlanet
Unless nearly every prediction he made in Inconvenient Truth turns out to be true, right? We're measuring science here, not politics or character, correct? Because if SCIENCE is the criteria, nearly everything he said in his original documentary has or is coming true. Increasing warming, ice sheet and glacial retreat, sea level rise, increased high tide flooding, extreme heat days (verified by three different studies last year); epic rainstorms (increasing since 1958 according to the EPA), the slowing of the Gulf Stream, and more. We measure the science by peer-reviewed scientific papers, not by political publications, blogs, oil industry propaganda sites, hot air from talking heads and NON-scientists, but by actual science from reputable outlets. Be careful here, because I have the documentary right in front of me and I know exactly what Gore said and what he didn't. If you repeat the same old distortions and mythologies of what he said, then I'll know exact;y where YOU stand politically.
Margaret Newton
Margaret Newton Month ago
What would solar be in Australia?
Michael Collins
Michael Collins Month ago
If we all voluntarily give more money to the governments of the world we might be able to save the planet. Or I have another thought. If you want to destroy the planet give more money to the various governments of the world.
Sébastien Cormier
climatefeedback.org/evaluation/friends-of-science-video-promoted-by-youtube-presents-long-list-of-climate-myths-steve-goreham/?fbclid=IwAR2MuvvT4Q4pAaNy_q7_T-aXOHyyiNXxTxri9JDcaSGi2RuBrIu52GzerO4
Sébastien Cormier
when scientists review the "scientific" statements
Caractacus Potts
Hahaha hippies I know are asking me to protest the climate next week. Useful idiots.
Caractacus Potts
+SwiftlyTiltingPlanet I wrote it like that intentionally. You make your mind up which one I meant hehe :)
SwiftlyTiltingPlanet
Protest the climate? Or protest climate change?
Mikael Winroth
Mikael Winroth Month ago
Great presentation. Thanks!
SwiftlyTiltingPlanet
A great presentation but completely dishonest. The video you watched was actually funded by the oil industry. Virtually every fact in the video is refuted by climate scientists. I'll give you just one: how did Glacier Girl end up under over 250 feet of ice? They didn't want to share with you that ice sheets and glaciers melt from both the top and the bottom. With each bottom layer that melts, Glacier Girl drops down a little further and then is covered by winter snowfall. Every survey by teams of scientists from around the world find that Greenland ice is melting at an unprecedented pace. Enough water has run off since the 90s to drown Australia in knee-deep water, in fact, which is one of the reasons sea level is rising. Google Heartland Institute, who sponsored the video, and check their history of lies with the tobacco companies. It is not pretty. They tell lots of lies. But what would you expect when their "science" director was imprisoned and fined for defrauding the EPA?
H de Boer
H de Boer Month ago
we just seem to need the feeling that we are to blame..hybris the wrong way
SwiftlyTiltingPlanet
You're approaching a rickety bridge with your children. 97 bridge engineers tell you the bridge is dangerous, don't cross. 3 engineers tell you it's fine, go ahead and cross. As you consider your options, you ask the 3 engineers what their qualifications are. They answer: "Oh, we're not bridge engineers, we're train engineers." And there's your trouble. This video was sponsored by the Heartland Institute, long bankrolled by Koch Industries and ExxonMobil. Virtually every "fact" they presented is a gross misrepresentation of what the science actually says. Heartland is a PR firm. They're paid to lie about climate change the same way they were paid to lie about the link between smoking and lung cancer for the tobacco companies. (Check Wikipedia for their history) But it gets so much worse. The "science" director for Heartland, Jay Lehr, was actually convicted and sentenced to six months in prison for defrauding the Environmental Protection Agency, and his organization was fined $200,000. These people make videos to protect the oil industry, not the environment. Visit SkepticalScience and see just how cleverly this video duped you.
ydely Suarez
ydely Suarez Month ago
Trump definitely got us out of that faulty climate accord hoax. Thank God.... I’m very Skeptical about world leaders asking their citizens for more 💰. Money is what they want...
SwiftlyTiltingPlanet
Unfortunately, Trump has been corrupted by the oil industry. 78 Nobel Laureates, 80 academies of science, over 200 major scientific institutions, the U.S. Military, NASA, NOAA, the American Meteorological Society, every meteorological agency on the planet, 97% of all climate scientists who are working in the field and have published, and over 120,000 peer-reviewed scientific papers, along with virtually every nation on earth, disagrees with Trump's "gut" feeling. Would you allow someone to perform heart surgery on "gut" feelings alone? Or should you require that the surgeon have a medical degree first?
Ari Feliciano
Ari Feliciano Month ago
Bad science does not contradict good science. Stating that "there is no empirical evidence" is simply wrong. The Chicago example only demonstrates that the speaker does not understands Glpbal Warming. Some places might stay constant and other might even decrease, but the Global effect is the TOTAL OF THE GLOBE rising.
SwiftlyTiltingPlanet
Thankyou. Rational, scientific responses are welcome here!
chuck money
chuck money Month ago
I completely agree with you and your submissions about the myth of the extent of Man made global warming, but stating these facts to those that in general understand that this is the case will not get us any further than where we are now. Both sides of the argument will need to be put in the same room on TV across the world and deliver their argument, this will not happen because vested interest - to the tune of the mentioned 250bn pa is making a very few people a pretty penny. Even Trump is having a hard time getting this message out
Jon Atkinson
Jon Atkinson Month ago
A very convincing presentation if you choose to trust him. Alternatively you can do minimal research of your own: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surveys_of_scientists%27_views_on_climate_change
solomon bizzo
solomon bizzo Month ago
& I bet all the commenters in comments really do want to see the money being spent on humanitarian efforts rather than feeding a false narrative. This is insane that humans could retort to destruction with no conscious & no consequent. Does the media really have this much influence on society & why? The global warming epidemic is turning more people into zombies everyday. People really have been brainwashed, that's my only explanation...
SwiftlyTiltingPlanet
You do know that you just watched a propaganda video paid for the oil industry, right? Climatologists refute virtually every fact they present. Look up the video's sponsors, the Heartland Institute. They are a PR firm, paid to lie about climate change, the same way they lied about the link between smoking and cancer for the tobacco industry. Go to Wikipedia and check them out. Then check out their "science" director, Jay Lehr, who was convicted and sentenced to six months in jail for defrauding the Environmental Protection Agency. Quick fact-check. The video showed the World War II airplane buried under over 250 feet of ice. They let you conclude that it was simply buried, without explanation. The truth is, glaciers and ice sheets melt from the bottom as well as from the top. With every bottom layer that melts, the airplane drops down a few more feet, to be covered in snow each winter. They didn't want to share that because that would have spoiled their message that Greenland has more ice than ever, when in fact, every study from scientific teams around the world clearly show that its current pace of ice loss and melt is unprecedented in recorded history.
solomon bizzo
solomon bizzo Month ago
& it is creeping into every cavity of human conscience; this cant be good, I cant see any thing good out of dividing the population with lies.
The Flying Dropbear
40:46 sorry to break it to you, but the reason why the entire state of South Australia was blacked out, was because there was a small number of Tornadoes during the worst storm in 50 years, I would also like to point out, that at least one of those tornadoes knocked over the transmission towers, which helps transmit the produced energy around the state. without critical infrastructure to transmit that energy, it doesn't matter how you produce that energy, you cannot distribute said energy, maybe a bit of research in the situation would be a nice idea before mentioning it, just makes you look foolish there were people who had solar panels at the time, even they were blacked out, I would know this because I am from South Australia, some parts of the entire state didn't have electricity for nearly 4 days after the storm.
Marcus Vespasian
It’s not about long term climate fluctuations. It’s about a very rapid rise in temperature, releasing millions of tons of methane gas 25 times more potent than C02. This will occur in 50-100yrs resulting in 10C plus rise, extinction of marine life, then humans will quickly follow. Who is this pillock talking? People please wake up...it’s almost tool late.
wade5941
wade5941 Month ago
+Marcus Vespasian I have a scientific background too and I recently researched your claims and could find no scientific basis for your claims.
SwiftlyTiltingPlanet
Absolutely right, Marcus. The disaster unfolding before us worldwide is about so much more than rising C02. There are simply too many of us for the earth to reasonably sustain without widespread degradation, pollution and stripping of resources. We are consumed with consumption, like piranhas on a carcass. That can't go on forever without serious consequences. +Marcus Vespasian
Marcus Vespasian
I have a scientific background, I have recently researched climate change/ecological/ extinction events in detail. The shocking truth is undeniable. 7.6 billion people now, 9.8 billion 2050. 76% loss of flying insects in the the last 30yrs. The 6th extinction event is occurring before our very eyes. Loss of topsoils worldwide, extensive prolonged droughts. I’m not scared, I’m deeply saddened...I’ve lived for over 50yrs. It’s my children I care about. I will be dead probably in the next 20-30yrs. It’s the terrible legacy our generation has left for the young of today that has left me very ashamed tbh. I will do my best to inform and correct my generation in the few years left. It is already too late for this civilisation in its current form , I’m sorry to say.
SwiftlyTiltingPlanet
+wade5941 That would certainly be the worst of worse-case scenarios. A new study published by the American Geophysical Union warns that methane has risen sharply and mysteriously in the last 4 years. Methane is 28 times more potent than C02 in trapping heat, so that's something to watch carefully. Methane comes from so many natural and anthropogenic sources that we'd have a much tougher time stopping it than C02.
wade5941
wade5941 Month ago
Ah, yes, it's the rate of rise. Run Marcus, run for your life. 10C? Obviously you have not kept up.
Ivan Posa
Ivan Posa Month ago
Oil is "renewable" energy. It is continually being created and there is plenty of it.
SwiftlyTiltingPlanet
The planet is fine. Absolutely right. Earth doesn't give a shit about us. Nor does the universe. ;)+Ivan Posa
Ivan Posa
Ivan Posa Month ago
No mate, you are missing the point. The Planet is fine and can look after itself, its the Human race circling the drain in its arrogance and headed for oblivion.
SwiftlyTiltingPlanet
+Ivan Posa Clearly missing the point. End of thread.
Ivan Posa
Ivan Posa Month ago
oil hasn't run out, not even close. What makes you think the Human race will exist in 10 million years? No chance, be lucky to see out this century if someone pushes the Nuke buttons.
SwiftlyTiltingPlanet
+Ivan Posa What is relevant in our national debate is what we can use today, not ten million years from now.
Linda Edwards
Linda Edwards Month ago
Nobody mentions the lag of several hundred years between temperature going up and CO2 going up. The medieval warm period was several hundred years ago.
SwiftlyTiltingPlanet
+wade5941 As a science writer, I'm familiar with how often studies are overturned by contrary evidence. Science works in fits and starts. Two steps forward, one step back. That's why I tend to only trust multiple studies that use various methodologies involving independent scientists to arrive at the same conclusions. One example: satellite altimeter data tracks with tide gauges on the surface to come up with the same sea level rise numbers. That's something that I must seriously consider. There is a lot out there in the world that cannot be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. But it's sometimes reasonable to extrapolate with logic and common sense. I can't prove that there isn't green cheese inside the moon. But I'll go out on a limb and bet good money that there isn't. Nobody is totally sure how gravity works, but we can say with confidence that it exists and see its effects. There are factors with gravity that we can measure and predict, despite having holes in our knowledge about it. My preference is to go with peer-reviewed data published in reputable science journals over oil-industry-funded blog sites. When even Chevron and ExxonMobil executives acknowledge the human-produced C02 and warming connection, I add that to my level of confidence. But all the while, I think about one of my all-time favorite books, THE EXPERTS SPEAK, which chronicles the many times "experts" have been proven wrong in the last 100 years. It's always at the back of my mind when measuring the value of any one study. :)
wade5941
wade5941 Month ago
+SwiftlyTiltingPlanet Ah, we have studies explaining it. And we know that the studies are always correct. Right?
SwiftlyTiltingPlanet
A great place to start is at the SkepticalScience site. Enter "C02 LAGS WARMING" into the search box and a detailed explanation with links to the original studies should pop up. +Linda Edwards
Linda Edwards
Linda Edwards Month ago
+SwiftlyTiltingPlanet Can you supply links to the studies please? I understood the lag to be to do with ocean warming and CO2 release.
SwiftlyTiltingPlanet
There are several studies explaining the C02 lag. A Milankovitch Cycle initiates warming, causing the melting of ice sheets and permafrost, which in turn releases masses of trapped C02 and methane into the atmosphere. The change in earth's orbit, axial tilt or wobble begins the warming phase but it is C02 and methane that puts the warming into 2nd, 3rd and 4th gears and ultimately becomes the driver. The Medieval warm period's warming had nothing to do with today's rapidly rising C02 and is unrelated.
Linda Edwards
Linda Edwards Month ago
The comment about South Australia at 40:46 is rubbish. The whole state was blacked out but it had nothing whatever to do with renewables. It was caused by massive storm damage and a system designed to shut down to prevent further damage. A stupid design but nothing to do with the source of the power. (I live in South Australia.)
The Flying Dropbear
And if I remember correctly the transmission towers were knocked over like dominoes by a small number of Tornadoes, which is a rare occurrence for South Australia, I have always stated, that it doesn't matter how you produce energy, if the means of transmitting that energy is damaged in anyway, then there is no way you can deliver that energy to the customers.
SwiftlyTiltingPlanet
All of his comments are rubbish.
perry chartrand
perry chartrand Month ago
What they are saying is that we must believe their bs in order to buy larger mansions 🇨🇦 crooked politicians Alberta’s 2019 winter is the coldest in the last 40 years !
SwiftlyTiltingPlanet
+wade5941 Absolutely nobody working as a climate scientist or science writer working with climate change would say such a thing. Climate change is measured globally over a span of years. It is not local or seasonal.
wade5941
wade5941 Month ago
+SwiftlyTiltingPlanet LOL! if it had been Alberta's warmest winter in 40 years you would be touting global warming.
SwiftlyTiltingPlanet
Local weather has no relevance to global climate. 20,000 peer-reviewed studies, over 80 worldwide academies of science, 200 major scientific organizations, 72 Nobel Laureates, NASA, NOAA, the Department of Defense and 97% of climatologists working in the field agree that climate change is happening and is man-made. Here is the official public position of the American Meteorological Society on climate change: "It is clear from extensive scientific evidence that the dominant cause of the rapid change in climate of the past half century is human-induced increases in the amount of atmospheric greenhouse gasses." You can believe the video you just watched, which is funded by the oil industry, or you can believe science. Virtually every fact presented in the video is refuted by actual climate scientists.
David Burton
David Burton Month ago
Steve Goreham’s presentation is mostly excellent. I do disagree with a couple of things he said. Unfortunately, at 16:38 he got punked by some jerk who made a fake Time magazine cover. The Newsweek article is real, but the Time magazine cover is a fake. (I’ve just emailed Steve Goreham to tell him.) Here's a copy of the 1975 Newsweek article: www.burtonsys.com/newsweek_old.htm Here's a Time Magazine article which is _not_ fake: www.burtonsys.com/climate/Time_6-24-1974.html
SwiftlyTiltingPlanet
+David Burton The Greenland ice sheet melts from the top and bottom, exactly as a glacier does. The weight of one to two miles of ice breaks up ice at the molecular level; the molecules do not stay bound with that amount of pressure. The airplane moves down with every lower layer that melts, while continuing snowfall covers it year by year and compacts into ice. Ask any glaciologist. Water pockets can also form inside ice sheets, and Greenland has one the size of West Virginia. These pockets of meltwater can contribute to movement of an object like Glacial Girl. "THE GREENLAND ICE SHEET IS MELTING AT AN ASTONISHING RATE" ---LiveScience, Jan 21, 2019 'GREENLAND'S ICE IS MELTING FASTER THAN IT HAS IN 350 YEARS" ---National Geographic, Dec 5, 2018 In any given year or two or three, snowfall accumulation in an ice sheet's interior can outpace melting and calving along the sheet's edges. But statistically significant climate changes are measured over decades. Every study on Greenland ice shows net loss of ice is far greater than net gain from interior snowfall. Greenland just had a couple of big years of snowfall, due to unusual local conditions, but it's important to always look at the big picture. Between 2003 and 2011, for example, 234 billion tons of ice were lost each year. According to the Danish Meteorological Institute and Polar Portal as of October 2018, "The neutral mass change in the last 2 years does not---and cannot---begin to compensate for these losses." Meanwhile, warming surface temperatures and reduced sea ice in the sea adjacent to the Antarctic Peninsula is resulting in increased moisture availability, which allows for greater snowfall. A study released last year showed that interior snowfall was increasing. Other studies show that it isn't. But assuming the snowfall increase is confirmed, it is still being outpaced by melting around the edges, according to the latest study. (FOUR DECADES OF ANTARCTIC ICE SHEET MASS BALANCE FROM 1979-2017---Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, January 22, 2019.) According to the study, "Antarctica now sends six times more ice plunging into the sea each year than it did in 1979. During the 40-year period of study, Antarctica added 13.8 mm to sea level rise, with the majority coming from West Antarctica. The study which showed increased snowfall in the interior also calculated what that extra snow means to sea level rise. Assuming the increase is correct, it would reduce sea level rise by only 0.04 mm per decade, hardly putting a dent in Antarctica's overall contribution to rise. See SkepticalScience for a rundown of studies and findings, with links to papers on Greenland And Antarctic ice. Any substance that causes environmental damage can be classified as a pollutant. But let's not argue semantics. Every degree of warming allows the atmosphere to hold 7% more moisture, which is already resulting in more epic rainstorms, according to EPA statistics. Those epic storms wash away topsoils and fertilizer and decimate crops. But in addition to storm-damage to crops is damage from the C02 itself: "ASK THE EXPERTS: DOES RISING C02 BENEFIT PLANTS? CLIMATE CHANGE'S NEGATIVE EFFECTS ON PLANTS WILL LIKELY OUTWEIGH ANY GAINS FROM ELEVATED CARBON DIOXIDE LEVELS" ---Scientific American, January 23, 2018 'RICE BECOMES LESS NUTRITIOUS AS C02 LEVELS RISE" ---Science Daily, May 23, 2018 "AS C02 LEVELS CLIMB, MILLIONS AT RISK FOR NUTRITIONAL DEFICIENCIES." ---Science Daily, Aug 27, 2018 ("Rising levels of carbon dioxide from human activity are making staple crops such as rice and wheat less nutritious and could result in 175 million people becoming zinc deficient and 122 million becoming protein deficient by 2050.") 'RISING C02 LEVELS WEAKEN PLANT DEFENSES AGAINST HUNGRY INSECTS" Nat Geo, March 25, 2008 Crops grown inside a greenhouse are protected from insects. Growers also add the nutritional deficiencies they lose to high C02. I've been a science reporter for 40 years and know climate data as well as anyone. The sources you gave are not all reliable nor are some of them current. Prager U? Yikes, is all I can say. The best and easiest place to check up on the credibility of science is SkepticalScience, which presents only peer-reviewed data from credible science journals and provides links so you can check them for yourself. If you get your science from Wattsupwiththat, Tony Heller, the Friends of Science, Prager U, Patrick Moore, the Heartland Institute, the Cato Institute, from outdated sources, or from the roughly 100 other climate science denial sites bankrolled by the oil industry, you're not getting legitimate science.
David Burton
David Burton Month ago
​+SwiftlyTiltingPlanet you've believing lies. Despite the airplane's name, it landed on the Greenland Ice Sheet. (Maybe "Ice Sheet Girl" didn't sound as good.) The ice sheet does not melt from the bottom. Nothing melted beneath that airplane. The reason _Glacier Girl_ was buried under 268 feet of ice & snow (mostly ice) is that *_about 3500 feet of snow_* accumulated above it, over fifty years. It is also not true that "multiple surveys show that Greenland and Antarctic ice is melting rapidly." It isn't. Antarctic ice accumulation & loss are actually in almost perfect balance. Some studies show it is gaining ice, some show it is losing ice, but all show that the net rate, whether positive or negative, is so tiny that it could cause less than 3 inches of sea-level change per century. That is not "rapidly." Antarctica averages well below -40°, so a few degrees of warming can't possibly melt that ice. (In fact, by increasing snowfall, such warming might increase ice accumulation on the ice sheets.) Based on ICESat and ERS Zwally et al (2015) found Antarctica is gaining ice. Here's an article about it: www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/nasa-study-mass-gains-of-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-than-losses Here's the paper: sealevel.info/zwally2015.pdf Based on CryoSat, McMillan (2014) found Antarctica is losing 79 to 241 Gt/yr of ice, though that was based on only 3 years of data. Based on GRACE, Shepherd (2012) concluded that Antarctica ice mass change since 1992 has averaged -71 ±83 Gt/yr, which means they couldn't tell whether it's actually gaining or losing ice mass. Based on ICESat, Zwally (2012) found that Antarctica is gaining ice mass: +27 to +59 Gt/yr (averaged over five years), or +70 to +170 Gt/yr (averaged over 19 years). The range from those various studies, with error bars, is from +170 Gt/yr to -241 Gt/yr, which is equivalent to just -0.47 to +0.67 mm/yr sea-level change, i.e., *_less than 3 inches of sea-level change per century._* In other words, though we don't know with certainty whether Antarctica is gaining or losing ice, we do know that the rate, either way, is very slow, and much slower than common coastal processes like erosion and sedimentation. Greenland, OTOH, is definitely losing ice, most years. (It didn't lose any in either of the last two glaciological years.) But even there the average rate of ice loss is glacially slow. At the current pace, to lose the entire Greenland Ice Sheet would take 90-150... ‍‍‍‍‍‍ ‍‍ you thought I was going to say "years," didn't you? Nope. Not years. Not decades, either. It's 90-150 centuries -- compared to an anthropogenic CO2 pulse which will last only a few centuries. CO2 is not a pollutant. At levels which are even remotely plausible outdoors it does not impair cognitive performance or have any other negative effects on humans or animals. Elevated CO2 is extremely beneficial for crops outdoors. In fact, where there is threat of drought, it is even *_more beneficial_* outdoors than in greenhouses, because it makes plants more water-efficient and drought-resistant. (Unfortunately, outdoor CO2 levels have only increased by about 130 ppmv, which is a small fraction of the approx. 800 to 1100 ppmv by which commercial greenhouse operators typically raise daytime CO2 levels in their greenhouses.) Nor does eCO2 make crops more vulnerable to pests. Nor does eCO2 make crops significantly less nutritious, except under contrived circumstances. If you really believe the propaganda about eCO2 making plants less nutritious, then why do you suppose that food grown in greenhouses with eCO2 is just as nutritious as food grown outdoors? You've obviously been listening to untrustworthy sources. If you want to remedy that, here's a short list of trustworthy sources, to learn about climate change: tinyurl.com/learnmore4
SwiftlyTiltingPlanet
Virtually every "fact" Steve Goreham presents in this video is refuted by actual climate scientists. A few examples: He conveniently neglected to tell viewers that glaciers melt from the bottom as well as from the top, which would easily bring the Glacial Girl airplane down more than 250 feet. Multiple surveys show that Greenland and Antarctic ice is melting rapidly. He says C02 isn't a pollutant. But it is. That's why NASA has C02 scrubbers on all their manned space vehicles and stations. Excessive C02 impairs thinking and performance, according to numerous studies. It also traps heat in the atmosphere. For every degree rise in temp, the air can hold 7% more moisture, leading to the epic rainstorms that have been increasing worldwide, according to the EPA. Epic rainstorms wash away topsoils and fertilizer, decimating crops. Extra C02 is great for plants in a greenhouse but not so much in the outside world. Extra C02 depletes crops of their natural defenses against insects, making them vulnerable to attack and consumption. Extra C02 also depletes them of zinc, iron and protein, making them less nutritious for humans. Goreham didn't want to tell you the history of the Ice Age scare back in the 70s. Contrary to popular belief, most scientists back then were warning of global WARMING. But it was the handful of scientists who warned of COOLING that got the lion's share of the attention. Here's why: Back then we were indeed cooling and spewing masses of sulfate aerosols into the atmosphere from burning coal. Sulfate aerosols actually reflect sunlight and can cause cooling. The concern was that if we continued to spew increasing aerosols into the atmosphere, we may indeed begin to cool even more. In 1970 we strengthened the Clean Air Act, sharply limiting sulfate aerosol pollution. With the threat of cooling gone, C02 remained as the dominant pollutant, trapping heat, and causing worldwide warming. Beware, it's what Goreham leaves out of his presentation that is dishonest, and most viewers simply aren't going to know what that is.
Lorenzo Blum
Lorenzo Blum Month ago
All those scientists not agreeing is because each one thinks he knows better... ego. Old story. Couldn't they consider that each one of them hold some truth because absolute truth does not exist. Isn't what science has demonstrated since the invention of the wheel. Isn't it what science is all about. The truth is everywhere and nowhere. There are many issues many physical chemical phenomenons involved and they should ALL be taken in consideration. I have listened to a few theories. And it seems almost obvious they are correlated. Often aspect are left aside. One being the exponential effect. Because there are many consequences and everything being somehow intricate. Everyone has heard of the butterfly effect. Couldn't scientists stop their childish quarrel and start making sense? More objectivity less ego. Unless it's a scam to keep the ignorant people like me busy not focused on other issues...!? Ps. Is man responsible reminds me of the debate which came first the egg or the chicken? Taking about food, who needs to add salt to your scrambled eggs if you are going to have bacon along? Or do you take your salt shaker on the beach?
SwiftlyTiltingPlanet
YOU JUST WATCHED A PROPAGANDA VIDEO FUNDED BY THE OIL INDUSTRY. Contrary to what you saw here, 72 Nobel Laureates have publicly agreed with the 97% consensus on climate change. They are joined by over 80 academies of science worldwide, in addition to the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the American Association of State Climatologists, the American Astronomical Society, the American Chemical Society, the American Geophysical Union, the American Institute of Physics, the American Meteorological Society, the American Physical Society, the American Quaternary Association, Association of Ecosystem Research Centers, Australian Bureau of Meteorology, Australian Institute of Marine Science, Australian Institute of Physics, Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society, British Antarctic Survey, Canadian Association of Physicists, Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences, Canadian Geophysical Union, Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society, Ecological Society of America, Ecological Society of Australia, Environmental Protection Agency, European Federation of Geologists, European Geosciences Union, European Physical Society, European Science Foundation, Federation of American Scientists, Geological Society of America, Geological Society of Australia, Geological Society of London, Institute of Marine Engineering, Science and Technology; International Alliance of Research Universities, International Arctic Science Committee, International Council for Science, International Research Institute for Climate and Society, International Union for Quaternary Research, International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics, International Union of Pure and Applied Physics, NASA, National Center for Atmospheric Research, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Research Council, National Science Foundation, Natural Environment Research Council, Oklahoma Climatological Survey, Pew Center on global Climate Change, Royal Astronomical Society, Royal Meteorological Society, Royal Netherlands Institute for Sea Research, Royal Society of Canada, Royal Society of Chemistry, Royal Society of the United Kingdom, Science Council of Japan, Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research, Scientific Committee on Solar-Terrestrial Physics, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, Woods Hole Research Center, World Meteorological Organization and many more. NO SCIENTIFIC BODY OF NATIONAL OR INTERNATIONAL STANDING MAINTAINS A FORMAL OPINION DISAGREEING WITH THE 97% CONSENSUS. Everything you hear otherwise is likely oil-industry-generated propaganda.
SwiftlyTiltingPlanet
+wade5941 Can you name a propaganda video produced by the government? It's good to check up on claims like that. Climate research is carried out independently, with thousands of scientists working, not by order of the U.S. government to confirm the consensus, but to GATHER DATA, whether that data confirms climate change or not. That data then must be confirmed by other corroborating studies, preferably using different methodologies. The data is then reported in various INDEPENDENT JOURNALS, not controlled by the government, AND THE CLIMATE COMMUNITY THEN ARGUES OVER THE FINDINGS. I would add that a video can't be considered propaganda when it is factual and backed up by peer-reviewed science, unlike the oil-industry-funded propaganda sites, which have not only been debunked by actual scientists but proven to be funded by big oil.
wade5941
wade5941 Month ago
Now I will go watch a PROPAGANDA VIDEO FUNDED BY THE GOVERNMENT. Balance is good thing.
SwiftlyTiltingPlanet
Consensus isn't science. But the over 20,000 peer-reviewed scientific papers on climate change is a far more significant body of evidence than what the oil industry offers. You're approaching a bridge with your children. 97 bridge engineers tell you the bridge is dangerous and warn you not to cross. 3 engineers tell you it's fine, take your kids across. Do you cross the bridge? +Linda Edwards
Linda Edwards
Linda Edwards Month ago
Since when is consensus considered science?
DrRestezi
DrRestezi Month ago
Over 97% of climate scientists disagree with what this walking turd of glib misinformation is saying. Make as much fun of global warming science as you want but your kids and grandkids will not find it the least bit funny.
SwiftlyTiltingPlanet
+DrRestezi It's marketing 101. Repeat, repeat, repeat. Do it enough and people start believing. Look at Trump and Fox. Facts don't matter there. Repeating your message over and over again is what ultimately penetrates. That's why I fight the futile feeling and carry on. :)
DrRestezi
DrRestezi Month ago
+SwiftlyTiltingPlanet I would but it's f*cking futile. Sometimes idiocy is irreversible.
SwiftlyTiltingPlanet
Informed voices of reason are needed on this forum. Please post again to counter-balance the people talking out of their asses here. ;)
Clay Turnbull
Clay Turnbull Month ago
Steve Gorham, the speaker in this video, could do brain surgery on you just as good as he knows climate science. His degrees are an M.S. In Electrical Engineering and Masters of Business Administration. An electrical engineer with a business degree. I agree with an earlier commenter, "Looks like the annual gathering of the Dunning-Kruger society."
SwiftlyTiltingPlanet
Go to a reputable scientific site like SkepticalScience and you'll see virtually every "fact" in this video is refuted by peer-reviewed data. The lies of omission are priceless. Goreham neglects to tell his viewers, for example, that glaciers melt from the bottom as well as the top, which over a few decades would easily bring the Glacier Girl airplane down to a depth of over 250 feet.
Lamont James
Lamont James Month ago
Gorham is not a real scientist and does not know what real science is about. His material is conservative garbage and is not backed up by real science. www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2013/may/20/heartland-institute-scientists
SwiftlyTiltingPlanet
This video was brought to you by the Heartland Institute, long bankrolled by Koch Industries and ExxonMobil. If you think you learned something about climate change in it, you didn't. Just as they did with the tobacco industry in spreading misinformation about smoking and lung cancer, Heartland is now a PR propaganda machine for big oil. Actual climate scientists refute virtually every "fact" in this video. Go to SkepticalScience for real answers to your climate questions and see just how much Steve Goreham duped you.
Groper 1
Groper 1 Month ago
+SwiftlyTiltingPlanet yup !!!! Your right smart guy !!! Have a great life..... I know I am !!!!! See ya
SwiftlyTiltingPlanet
You have zero understanding of climate change, and clearly you're beyond enlightening, even a little, but no surprise from someone's whose brain is so full of shit icons. ;) +Groper 1
Groper 1
Groper 1 Month ago
+SwiftlyTiltingPlanet yup. so now that there's ice caps in the south that are increasing record cold in the U.S. and Canada with massive snow in Europe. What's the .0005 temp increase doing. Nothing. Where's the incredible sea rise. CNN should be covering this BIG STORY (fair & balanced news) they say. Funny haven't herd 💩 from Jim Acosta on it... must be having real affects on our planet for them to have missed the signs..... you must be the only one with ALL the facts on Gore's unbelievable story he's been pushing. Big $$$ behind his scam. Keep believing bud you'll fix it. Can wait for Diesel Snowmobiles !!!!! Com'on Arctic Cat get @ it..... roll some coal @ 10.000 ft !!!!!
SwiftlyTiltingPlanet
+Groper 1 Sure, we had lots of C02 back in the dinosaur age. And it was so warm that ALL of the polar ice caps melted and flooded Canada and the United States with an ocean a thousand feet deep that remained there for millions of years. But ignorance is bliss, isn't it Cummins?
Groper 1
Groper 1 Month ago
+SwiftlyTiltingPlanet how bad can it be..... life on earth thrives with more Co.... doesn't it ?? Warmer is better !!! Be happy it's not an ice age rolling in on ya... oh that's right we're in a "little ice age" right now. Ice cap is growing bud know your shit before ya yap it it up 💩💩 head
Daniel Knezacek
Daniel Knezacek Month ago
The earth is not a solid rock! Tides increasing can be the result of the sea levels rising OR it can be the result of the earth sinking! There are many areas of the planet where the coastlines are sinking! Holland, Venice and New Orleans are excellent examples of this! The coastlines are still rising in arctic areas!
Hopefawn Levenson
Do you want a better understanding of the intense weather events we are seeing around the world? This vid is VERY informative, but BEWARE: I do think his stance is slanted toward Nuclear energy which is a ridiculously dangerous point. Without another power source to cool it, how do you protect from power outages? (hurrcanes, typhoons, earthquakes, volcanoes, solar flares...) The budget problem with renewables is that the uber riche are invested in coal and oil/natural gas and are pushing the "established" technologies of nuclear energy. (More cancer and radiation anyone?) They could cut some of the top salaries to help the world get on the right track, but the bottom line is the actual point. smh... As I think about it, There's a noticeable spike in sea level at 1945...I wonder if others coincide with heavy nuclear activity? Also, isn't Carbon Monoxide still a deadly toxic pollutant? Why isn't that addressed? Understand that our climate is changing due to the cycles of the sun. But we are also doing detrimental harm to the environment and our health, with pollutants like Carbon Monoxide, Nitrous Oxide, Volatile Organic Compounds and others.
Blogengezer
Blogengezer Month ago
Following the Hiroshima 'event', Scientists used modeling [not very accurate apparently] to claim it uninhabitable for lifetimes to come. Check Hiroshima today. Have you seen the videos coming out of Russia's little Ukrainian pile of rubble? [Chernobyl caused by more vodka on the job, than usual btw] The animals noted on cameras, that have moved in and are thriving? The human squatters [poverty brings on a certain daring] are not shown, because they are fairly reclusive, the perimeter guards have knowledge of their forays.
Hopefawn Levenson
There's a noticeable spike in sea level at 1945...I wonder if others coincide with heavy nuclear activity?
Groper 1
Groper 1 2 months ago
Bullshiters.... buy your Diesel 3500's !!!!!! Great trucks. Don't be fooled it's a tax grab. What's in Suzuki's bus... Diesel. Hypocrite.🇨🇦🇨🇦 trust me it's still cold up here. Rivers are frozen over !!! Don't believe there shit
SwiftlyTiltingPlanet
Gore NEVER said Miami or New York or anywhere would be underwater now. I have both of his documentaries and his speeches on my laptop. Here's what he said: "If Antarctic or Greenland ice were to all melt and fall into the sea tomorrow, Florida and New York would be underwater." And they would. He was making an illustrative point about melting ice sheets, which are rapidly vanishing and raising sea levels. Check out Chesapeake Bay. Several islands there are already underwater from sea level rise and more are threatened. Miami has raised its streets two feet to fight high tide flooding. The City Dock neighborhood of Annapolis, Maryland flooded 63 times in 2017, closing streets and businesses. A Stanford University study found that the closed businesses lost an estimated 3000 customers that year. 1 in 5 residents of Portsmouth, Virginia report having property damage from flooding. According to NOAA, the average number of days with high tide flooding has more than doubled across the Southeastern United States since 2000. In the northeast, it has jumped 75%. Similar high tide flooding is occurring around the world, with five Solomon islands already vanishing and the Marshall Islands and others under grave threat. Check out the Mekong Delta in Vietnam and Bangladesh. They're already experiencing widespread damage from flooding. It is happening worldwide, increment by increment, just as Al Gore warned it would.
SwiftlyTiltingPlanet
Produce counter data? Of course they do. They're funded by the oil industry. Nearly all of the major anti-climate change sites on the Internet are funded by the oil industry. The video you watched here was presented by the Heartland Institute, long-funded by ExxonMobil and Koch Industries. Heartland is the same PR firm the tobacco industry paid for years to spread seeds of doubt about smoking and lung cancer. THEY ARE PAID TO LIE. According to investigations by Drexel University, the Union of Concerned Scientists and Greenpeace, the oil industry has donated over $1 billion to nearly 100 anti -climate change sites. Some of the spokesmen they pay to appear on conservative TV and radio are paid $1 million or more a year to spread the industry's propaganda and make you believe it's really the scientists who are dishonest and greedy and not the other way around. By your posts, they've done a very effective job. You're actually NOT thinking for yourself. You see a video like the one presented here and never question it. Google the Heartland Institute and see what you find. Then multiply their work by another 100 "institutes" and "think tanks" and you'll begin to see the corruption the scientific community is up against. +Groper 1
Groper 1
Groper 1 2 months ago
+SwiftlyTiltingPlanet what happened to Gore's unbelievable sea rise.... Miami / New York / LA / Seattle all under water ??? WOW that's quite a story. Don't here mùch about that now I guess he made his hundreds of millions off his climate round ?!?!? Now it's AOC (nutt case from new york) run @ it with the Green New Deal. Round 2...... 12 yrs and she's all over ?!?!? EH
Groper 1
Groper 1 2 months ago
+SwiftlyTiltingPlanet yup.... your right. The media is in on too.....they need to get there agenda out. Why is the 🇨🇦 government giving the media (which they choose) 650 million ish ?? There's all kinds of climate scientist's that have come out with counter data. The guy who started Green Peace for 1..... lay off the cool aid..... climb out of your mom's basement & start thinking for yourself bud !!!!
SwiftlyTiltingPlanet
Your conspiracy sickness has overtaken your critical thinking skills. Seriously. Thousands of people all making shit up, forging studies, corroborating each other's work with swaths of bullshit, the government check-marking their bullshit, the media going along with the bullshit, and not a single soul coming forward from the trenches and admitting it's bullshit? You actually believe this scenario? Come out from under the Diesel fumes, my friend. You've got a nasty case of hypoxia. +Groper 1
SwiftlyTiltingPlanet
Human-produced C02 has stopped the current Milankovich glacial cycle. 8000 years after the peak of Holocene warming, we should be continuing to cool and glaciers should be expanding. This normal cycle has happened for millions of years and is predictable. The sun is also exhibiting its lowest activity in decades, which should also cause cooling. But we're continuing to WARM. This is neither natural nor normal, despite how cleverly this propaganda video tries to convince you otherwise.
SwiftlyTiltingPlanet
As the oil industry-sponsored video above spews its propaganda, several islands in Chesapeake Bay have either vanished underwater or are on their way to oblivion. Tide gauges show that the bay's sea level has risen a foot in the last century and, according to NASA satellite data, is accelerating. Tangier Island off Virginia will be swamped in 25-50 years, according to the Army Corps of Engineers. David Schulte, a scientist with the Corps reports that the island is "literally one storm away from being wiped out." The City Dock neighborhood of Annapolis, Maryland flooded 63 times in 2017, closing streets and stores. A study by Stanford University found that the area's businesses lost 3000 customers that year. According to NOAA, the average number of days with high tide flooding has more than doubled since 2000 across the southeastern U.S., while in the Northeast, it has jumped 75%. Miami has moved buildings and raised many of its streets two feet to fight increasing flooding. 1 in 5 residents in Portmouth, Virginia have already reported property damage from flooding. Some villages on South Pacific islands have relocated to higher islands or are in the process of doing so. Five Solomon Islands have already vanished underwater. Islands in Micronesia have also disappeared. More, including Palau, Fiji and Kiribati are being rapidly swallowed up. At the current sea level rise, coastal flooding in Europe alone is estimated to cost $1 trillion per year by 2100, with the UK, France and Norway suffering the highest levels of damage. Coastal property values up and down the east coast of the U.S. have already lost 7% of value, due to higher flood insurance and the re-drawing of floodzones. You may not see it in your neighborhood. Sea level rise is like watching a slow-drip. It appears benign. Until you come back a year later and see your bathtub overflowing.
Ultra4
Ultra4 2 months ago
Oh America..... our children will be typing in this type of platform in Chinese instead of english, you can thank Trump and idiots like this. You went from top science reference to the laughing stock
SwiftlyTiltingPlanet
Agreed. But watch for the anti-science faction of our government to dwindle significantly in the next elections. The idiot-in-chief will be the first to be shown the door. His Dunning-Kruger stupidity and arrogance have no place in the running of our country. As Tangier Island off of Virginia increasingly continues to vanish underwater, Trump reassures residents that their island will still be around hundreds of years from now because, he asserts, climate change is a hoax. And unfortunately, THEY BELIEVE HIM, blaming their engulfing sea level rise solely to erosion. They're following the braying leadership of an ass.
Joe McCaffery
Joe McCaffery 2 months ago
If you rely on fat fuk’n idiots like Chris Christie for your facts you really should stay the fuk out of pretty much any discussion ever, the guy is an undoubted moron, he’s the a-typical stupid corrupt low level politician that lies about doing just enough for the voters to get by all whilst making a fortune from doing real favours to big business the rest of the time.
polka
polka 2 months ago
Climate models are physics simulations. Simulations are the best way to predict the future. They are used for everything! Cars, rockets, nuclear processes, stars, sun, traffic, buildings, ...
morninboy
morninboy 2 months ago
Who pays these morons to spew their dribble. Brainiac here is smarter than the collective scientific community and is capable of out computing the supercomputers. Cherry picking relevant factors and dismissing the obvious realities of physics is a good way to get on the talking circut but will do little to stave off our dire future
Andre Fransen
Andre Fransen 2 months ago
I have been ridiculed for years for saying that man made climate change is bunkum. That said, cleaner air, rivers and consciousness for the need of particle pollution reduction is a small benefit from this hysteria.
SwiftlyTiltingPlanet
There has always been climate change. Of course. You do know PhD-level climatologists are aware of that, right? The issue is the SPEED of warming. It has never warmed this quickly. Nature does not work this fast. THAT is what has gotten scientists' attention. The Exxon scientists do believe it but have kept their memos secret. Those memos weren't released to the public, they were secretly leaked. You sound as if you're unaware of the hundreds of millions of dollars ExxonMobil, Koch Industries and others have donated to climate change denial groups, (who make the videos like the one you watched) as uncovered in tax records by Drexel University, the Union of Concerned Scientists and Greenpeace. The ozone hole has shrunk because we banned CFLs. Remember? We call global warming "climate change" for really sound reasons. When you have the flu, you don't tell people you have a fever. You tell them you have the FLU. The flu encompasses fever, coughing, body aches, fatigue, etc. "Climate change" encompasses warming, increased rainfall, changes in air and oceanic circulation, ice-cap melting, sea level rise, and more. It's far more fitting that simply "global warming." +Andre Fransen
Andre Fransen
Andre Fransen 2 months ago
SwiftlyTiltingPlanet , strange you should say that climatologists believe in climate change. So do I. THERE HAS ALWAYS BEEN CLIMATE CHANGE. Also find it amusing that in one reply you state that Exxon scientists believe in it, and in the next they only expound propaganda. Another interesting thought......What happened to global warming and the ozone hole?
SwiftlyTiltingPlanet
Are you aware that every single "fact" presented in the video is disputed by actual scientists? Steve Goreham works for the Heartland Institute, a PR organization long bankrolled by ExxonMobil and Koch Industries, two of the biggest producers of C02 in the country. The tobacco industry paid Heartland for years to spread seeds of doubt about the link between smoking and lung cancer. They are paid to lie. The oil industry has spent over $1 billion to pull the wool over your eyes about climate change, with videos here and across the Internet; with blogs; with forums; with phony science sites; with an army of PR people who saturate conservative news with misleading science. Your comments clearly illustration the power of their indoctrination talents. 97% of CLIMATOLOGISTS working in the field and who have published in the field believe in climate change. THAT'S the consensus. No scientist outside of climatology is qualified to make a judgement. You don't go to a dermatologist for a heart problem, right? Or to an astronomer for a biology question? And the Exxon memos are widely known. Just Google them. +Andre Fransen
Andre Fransen
Andre Fransen 2 months ago
SwiftlyTiltingPlanet Have you watched the video on this subject. There are countless others that are similar with the same conclusions. Where is your proof of the Exxon scientists statements? There are also several RUvid’s that state that 0.05% of scientists believe in “man made” climate change. They obviously all work for Exxon!
SwiftlyTiltingPlanet
That's my question. What part of man-made climate change is bunkum? Even Exxon scientists have admitted our role in warming in their private memos. And your evidence pointing otherwise is...what? +Andre Fransen
Andy Hodchild
Andy Hodchild 2 months ago
I did post - why is he referring to ipcc 2001 3rd report in 2017 when we have The Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) was finalized between 2013 and 2014. It provided the scientific input into the Paris Agreement.
Andy Hodchild
Andy Hodchild 2 months ago
I seem to have some posts missing.
Andy Hodchild
Andy Hodchild 2 months ago
Just remember these people probably already got plans to build en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elysium_(film) And leave us in the shit hole they made of our planet.
Andy Hodchild
Andy Hodchild 2 months ago
Fake News, suck it up!
Andy Hodchild
Andy Hodchild 2 months ago
Funded by exxon Mobil, what can you say? Post your accounts online?
SwiftlyTiltingPlanet
Donations by ExxonMobil, Koch Industries and others to the nearly 100 climate change denial organizations out there probably exceeds $1 billion, according to investigations by Drexel University, the Union of Concerned Scientists and Greenpeace. Phony science sites and conservative media have produced a population of science-ignorant automatons, mindlessly parroting conspiracy theories, unaware that they've been manipulated to do so. These people have been so deeply indoctrinated, they prefer to believe that it's thousands of independent scientists who are on the take while the oil industry sits innocently nearby. One lesson the oil industry has learned well: when the canary in the coal mine gasps, eat it.
Andy Hodchild
Andy Hodchild 2 months ago
exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.php?id=183
Andy Hodchild
Andy Hodchild 2 months ago
Needs to zoom in to changes over last 250 year en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Bairoch.svg
Andy Hodchild
Andy Hodchild 2 months ago
Again no reference to 1500 year temp graph until he adds thermometer record so I can check this but nothing else is checkable.
Andy Hodchild
Andy Hodchild 2 months ago
Graph is meaningless due to scales, how does he account for NASA pictures of receding polar ice? It massive!
bulletsholes
bulletsholes 29 days ago
LAMO Anything with "CNN" attached to it is a PILE OF SHIT from the get go... Even you brainwashed Euro-pinheads should have that figured out by now...
Andy Hodchild
Andy Hodchild Month ago
+bulletsholes I don't agree amp.cnn.com/cnn/2019/01/14/world/climate-change-antarctica-ice-melt-twin-studies/index.html and in any case what are you saying, that it is OK to continue to 'spew' our waste and pollution into our environment?
bulletsholes
bulletsholes Month ago
No, it isn't, in fact the South Pole has grown a great deal. Google it and get your facts before you spew...
Andy Hodchild
Andy Hodchild 2 months ago
The Chicago temperature graph has no reference?
Andy Hodchild
Andy Hodchild 2 months ago
Why does he refer to 3rd ipcc report from 2001 when talking in 2017? We have The Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) was finalized between 2013 and 2014. It provided the scientific input into the Paris Agreement.
Gabor Burcsa
Gabor Burcsa 2 months ago
What if fossil fuels are not fossil?
Robert Hayes
Robert Hayes 2 months ago
RED ALERT RED ALERT Science will not save us from Science. We need to save ourselves from GLOBAL WARMING. If the U.N. had a plan it would start something like this. 1. The world’s total population would have to accept to not bring children into this world for the next 20 years. ( there are plenty of children that need love and a home ) 2. People that would likre to end their lives should be legally and socially accepted.( euthanasia) (a persons dignified right)😀 3. All wars must stop today. ( people get to go home to live in there own places ) 4. The automobile industry must stop producing Fossil Fuel Powered social vehicles ending 2017. ( people get to still have a job in the motor industry building alternative vehicles ) 5. All countries that can ,will need to produce their own products (reducing ocean travel fuel burn)( sustain a work force) 6. All global business will need to move investment to full blown Renewable energy supply. ( they and their investors still make money ) 7. All countries will need to grow billions of tons of Indian Hemp. The hemp will provide for a huge carbon store by making everything you can from it. Replacing all petrochemical products. (diversity will create contentment and PEACE and UNDERSTANDING. ) 8. Socially all drug addicts will be supplied with there drug of choice at a place of convenience. At a cost that will cover the cost. ( social rest,the end of the black market and the decline in overall drug use and deaths.) 9. The amounts of Fossil Fuels (burnt) in the countries that will still need them will be calculated so as to keep the atmosphere stable as the gasses are reduced. ( the second and third world people will still have their first world comforts and thus we all become one world people accepting all cultures.) Sounds great hey. 10. Understanding that there is a lot more to UNDERSTAND and DO to save LIFE. The Scientific COMMUNITY have a colossal job in helping to do this. We need all of us to DO this, ALL OF US. And the list goes on. (Patience and faith in one another) Imagine the UN achieving that, when they can’t even stop the ethnic cleansing that happens daily.
SwiftlyTiltingPlanet
GLACIER GIRL EXPLANATION: Steve Goreham neglected to share with his viewers that glaciers melt not only from the top, but FROM THE BOTTOM, due to the immense pressure. It's called pressure liquefaction. As the bottom of the glacier melts, the top layer moves steadily down, taking the airplane down with it. Subsequent winter snows bury the plane as it descends. But there's more. Researchers at the Geological Survey of Denmark and Greenland have discovered "an aquifer the size of Ireland" under the Greenland ice, with water reaching 160 feet deep. The pocket of water doesn't freeze but flows out through systems of vertical pipelines, crevasses and moulins, further bringing down the top layer of any ice above it. "You get this aquifer in areas where there is a lot of melting and a lot of snowfall," says Jason Box, of the Geological Survey in a published report of the new finding. It's important to know ALL the facts before blindly accepting oil industry propaganda in this very deceptive video. Greenland ice is melting at an unprecedented pace in the historical record and is contributing to sea level rise.
Johan Fouche
Johan Fouche 2 months ago
Must be the imaginary hole in the ozone layer.....Wonder who's company they pushed forward & who's they sunk with THAT CFC agenda, which gave rise to what we are experiencing today. They saw the world change their deodorant based on a lie they told & used the same naivety to push all the earth friendly BS we've been fed today. Now what pisses me off, apart from the fact that I now have to pay $4 for a light bulb, is that I knew this was absolute BS, when I was but 19 years old, with basically NO knowledge, no instruments, using my mere perception of the temperature.. If I could do this & call the BS, why couldn't my fellow man ???? why did YOU!!!!! mess this all up world wide by being chicken little ?????
SwiftlyTiltingPlanet
"I need not information." Says it all. And you illustrated your breadth of retardation with every post. +Johan Fouche
Johan Fouche
Johan Fouche 2 months ago
+SwiftlyTiltingPlanet RUN CHICKEN LITTLE!!! RUN!!!!! THE SKY IS FALLING!!!!!.....Just run past this point where we tax you for breathing & I'm the uninformed ? maybe you just believe incorrect information, i do not. I need not information. You need the ability to tell bullshit from facts.
SwiftlyTiltingPlanet
+Johan Fouche So beyond uninformed, I'm not bothering to respond. The arrogance of ignorance, squared.
Johan Fouche
Johan Fouche 2 months ago
+SwiftlyTiltingPlanet actually einstein was an idiot. He has paradoxical issues re. time & space. BNow I wouldn't call it more brilliant, but lets face it, those fuckers are like priests all believing in a certain book. They own the religious entities world wide & they also state the book is true. Why would you say they do THAT ? I wonder how many roman catholic bishops there are, etc,etc....Prob 10000 bishops in 500 religious organizations on this planet all have reached consensus. Moses DID!!! lead his people out of egypt. God DID!!!! push over jericho's walls. Its simple enough to notice the weather & notice how it does not change. its simple enough to understand the planet's properties regarding carbon, how we harvest it, & what its impact on plant life is. Simple enough to look @ a thermostat or another part of the planet's readings, to realize there is no apparent change. Simple enough to see the sea levels not rising. Simple enough to look @ the dryas period's warming, the last ice age's end & how the planet follows an observable pattern regarding temperatures. YOU!!!! on the other hand, think because a book is labeled as something by someone, there is no hidden agenda or just basic human need to conform to certain aspects regardless of legitimacy, or completeness of their findings. Shame the fuckers don't want to be shunned by the scientific community. Maybe do some research re. newspaper clippings from as much as 130 years ago. You will see they started falsely predicting the BS 140 years ago.
SwiftlyTiltingPlanet
You have "BASICALLY NO KNOWLEDGE" yet you're more brilliant than all the PhDs in climate research. More brilliant than the 2000 members of the IPCC; the over 80 academies of science; the over 200 scientific organizations worldwide; nearly every government on earth; ALL of the world climate centers, who pooled their data to reach their consensus; and NASA, who has launched hundreds of satellites and space probes and successfully landed men on the moon. Someone as brilliant as you, Johan, should have your own TV show. You're clearly right up there with Einstein.
Reg Thribb
Reg Thribb 2 months ago
So the climate deniers seem to be saying that either the scientists have made mistakes, OR its a conspiracy to deceive. The deniers cant decide which because there is no evidence for either. Are the deniers expecting us to believe that every single scientific agency in the world have been hoodwinked ? The Pentagon are extremely concerned about the security implications. Are they ''in on it'' as well ? Is it a coincidence that when greenhouse gasses were released in the past , the planet warmed ? As it is again, but this time over 2 hundred years not 20 thousand. OR Are lies and misinformation spread by fossil fuel companies ? Like big tobacco firms did over lung cancer. Exxons OWN scientists warned about warming 40YEARS ago, and it was quickly hushed up. - www.scientificamerican.com/article/exxon-knew-about-climate-change-almost-40-years-ago/ Read about the merchants of doubt here -www.desmogblog.com/heartland-institute-exposed-internal-documents-unmask-heart-climate-denial-machine
SwiftlyTiltingPlanet
How dare you use facts to manipulate the people here? Surely you can manufacture some rationalization to show how thousands of independent scientists and hundreds of scientific institutions are all in cahoots with one another to rip us all off and/or take over the world with their globalist visions of power and grandeur? Red meat from sacred conspiracy cows is what sells here, Reg. Please dish out some nonsense to provide balance. :)
andrew tones
andrew tones 2 months ago
climate extremes, not its cold here today etc etc duhhh
Dana Lissy
Dana Lissy 2 months ago
I guess these are the same people who said that there would not be an economic crash in 2008...
Mexican Highlife
Mexican Highlife 2 months ago
I didn't watch this whole show yet but I believe climate friendly energy is compatible with our lifestyle, but probably not with the population that we have today. We have allowed our global population to grow to unmanageable proportions. The western countries have learned to control our populations but we have allowed our socialist governments to give us too many goodies. This in turn means that our "goodies" can only be maintained with high taxation and sufficient population for those taxes to be meaningful. We NEED to link aid to developing countries with population growth. The answer is not to import their excess populations into our countries and thereby destroy our cultures and provide these newcomers with the same lifestyle while they continue to breed. We HAVE to limit global population growth until we get to a level which is sustainable and we can enjoy all the benefits of our energy sources.
DIY Self Sufficiency
Build as many coal powered plants as you want. Won't run when you use up all the coal. The sun and wind will still be there.
DIY Self Sufficiency
+HeyTrueBlue Where do I assume that? Don't put words in my mouth. Costs can occur AFTER the use also. Clean up costs for oil can run into the billions.
HeyTrueBlue
HeyTrueBlue Month ago
DIY Self Sufficiency you assume people don’t want clean energy. Everyone wants clean energy but we also want it to be efficient and affordable, which it is not.
Liliane Dubois
Liliane Dubois 2 months ago
Mr. Steve Goreman of the Hartland Institute, I presume?
SwiftlyTiltingPlanet
Rejoining sounds like a great idea. With science attacked from all sides now, they need all the help they can get. +Liliane Dubois
Liliane Dubois
Liliane Dubois 2 months ago
+SwiftlyTiltingPlanet Well, yes, sigh..........don't we wish they would spend that money recapturing and cleaning their emissions instead? They would not need any of that. That reminds me, I used to belong to the Union of Concerned Scientists, better join again. Thanks for the reminder.
SwiftlyTiltingPlanet
You are correct. They are part of the over $1 billion ExxonMobil, Koch Industries and others have spent on sowing seeds of doubt about climate change, according to investigations by Drexel University, the Union of Concerned Scientists and Greenpeace. Their misleading videos, blogs, paid PR "scientists" and phony websites pepper the Internet.
Jon Phipps
Jon Phipps 2 months ago
Yet another non scientist talking like a scientist. Using micro exmples to desceibe macro phenomenon. Using incorrect graphs and misquoting people. But lets be honest, the people watching this are not the calibre that would spend any time fact checking anything. Bc in your minds you already know that you're right and since he agrees with you the matter is settled. Lol Finally at the end of the spiel we get to the real point. Conventional carbon power plants are the what we should be building. If you can bare the agony you might just piggy back off this fact checker.. www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2013/may/20/heartland-institute-scientists
Neil 1
Neil 1 2 months ago
This is great! I love this. It makes all of the valid points, and it touches on all of the reasons to be skeptical of the AGW religion. But it's kind of boring. I love FOS, but you need to polish this a lot. You need to get good looking young people, clever producers, flashy special effects to present this information to get through to more people. No one wants to watch this kind of boring stuff, honest and reasonable as it is. Get some snowboarders, or video gamers, or something to present this information if you want to reach an audience that matters.
SwiftlyTiltingPlanet
+Neil 1 Do you have any idea how many times I've heard this very argument, which you are parroting from one of the questionable sites I previously mentioned? This myth has been around for years and repeated many times. I will wait while you cite the peer-reviewed data in credible scientific sources that support your argument.
Neil 1
Neil 1 2 months ago
+SwiftlyTiltingPlanet Ha! You're a complete idiot. Greenhouse gases do not trap heat. Do you even know what the process is? Honestly, this is the fundamental process for which all is based upon and you don't even know the slightest thing about it? I'm betting you think greenhouse gases absorb all wavelengths of IR radiation. Right? WRONG! CO2, for example, only absorbs 3 bands of IR. Those are 2.7, 4.3, and 15 micrometers. The IR spectrum starts at 700 nanometers and goes all the way to 1 millimeter, so that is such a small amount of what you refer to as heat that it's laughable. But wait, it gets better. When the small amount of IR is absorbed by a CO2 molecule, it is re-emitted, almost instantaneously. A few femtoseconds, which is a very small fraction of a second. Yes some is radiated back toward the ground and it does cause a small amount of warming, but it does not trap heat, nor can it cause the kind of warming that we are constantly threatened with by you and your ilk. It is simply physically impossible for CO2 to do what your precious peer-reviewed scientists claim that it will. Also, once the three aforementioned wavelengths are completely redistributed by absorption, and re-emission, adding more CO2 will have no further effect, or otherwise known as absorption saturation. So fuck off.
SwiftlyTiltingPlanet
+Neil 1 That you defend Heartland and the Friends of Science tells me all I need to know. You haven't done your research. As a science writer for 45 years, I can spot you a mile away. C02 and methane trap heat and anything you spout otherwise must have peer-reviewed data published in a respected science journal to support your argument. If your information comes from a blog or a propaganda site on the Internet, it doesn't count. Cite your published sources and I'll take you seriously. I'm funded by NOBODY. And I hate to burst your bubble about ad hominem attacks, but that's my shorthand "heads-up" to the people on this forum who haven't a clue about the depth of deception that goes on. Throughout this forum, I've refuted virtually every "fact" the video presented. If you haven't seen my posts, I'll present them again. And then you can tell me if my ad hominem attacks are warranted. Are you aware of the nearly 100 climate change denial sites that pepper the Internet? Do you know how they're funded? Do you have any idea how they misrepresent science? If you did, you wouldn't have been in such a lather about ad hominem attacks. Heartland, by the way, is the same PR firm the tobacco industry hired to sow seeds of doubt about the link between cigarette smoking and lung cancer. They were literally paid to lie. For years. They're now paid to lie about climate change. Better do a little more research, Neil.
Neil 1
Neil 1 2 months ago
@SwiftlyTiltingPlanet How about you? Are you a climate scientist, or just a propagandist? Do you know anything? I have done my own research on the subject starting around 20 years ago, and what I have found suggests that the people you believe are all full of shit, and are liars. Who are you funded by? If their positions are so strong why do they need you to do attack dog work? If your'e trying to convince people of your side you're going to have to do better than ad hominem attacks, and appeals to authority. Both are logical fallacies. Do some of your own research. Start with the IR absorption spectra of CO2, and limitations of absorption, and go from there.
Casius CBU
Casius CBU 2 months ago
overthink problem detected
Next videos
China's Empty Cities
15:01
Views 1 800 000
NO GALAXY FOLD FOR YOU!
6:20
FACEBOOK MARKETPLACE
12:59
Views 1 036 114