Search the Community

This Opening Post (OP) intends to summarize earlier topics, FDR podcats and FDR videos on the subject of "Antropogenic Global Warming" (AGW) or, as it is framed more recently due to the absence of that supposed warming for over a decade, "Climate Change". I will use the abbreviation AGW to make the text more compact. Topics are sorted by popularity (# of replies) Podcasts are sorted chronologically (newest to oldest) Forum topics on AGW Richard Muller, Converted Climate Skeptic - 04-12-2015 - 38 replies Climate Change Series, Thoughts? - 18-05-2014 - 25 r Global Warming Hoax - 16-11-2015 - 24 r Greenpeace Co-founder is an Anthro-Climate Change Skeptic - 24-03-2015 - 24 r Is a Mini Ice Age on the Way? - 10-07-2015 - 18 r Please Review My AGW Global Warming Argument For Soundness and Offer Critique - 11-11-2015 - 10 r CO2, the Good News - a Scientific Report by Past-IPCC Member - 12-10-2015 - 7 r Climatologists Admit Modelling Not So Great - 12-04-2015 - 7 r Antarcticas Ice Growth Contradicts Climate Change Model - 24-11-2014 - 5 r Climate Fraud Updates - 29-01-2015 - 4 r Why I Changed My Mind on Climate Change - 03-11-2015 - 3 r Climatist Hysteria Attacked by Schiller Institute Conference - 12-09-2015 - 3 r The Climate Change Solution No-one Will Talk About - 10-02-2015 - 3 r America's Energy War: Fossil Fuels, Ethanol & Industrial Progress - Alex Epstein & Stefan Molyneux - 30-01-2016 - 2 r The Psychology of Climate Hysteria - 17-01-2016 - 2 r Ongoing Climate Engineering for SRM - 14-09-2015 - 2 r Inconvenient Facts About Global Warming - Alex Epstein & Stefan Molyneux - 30-11-2015 - 1 r Statistical Analysis of IPCC - 30-11-2015 - 1 r Climate Alarmist Caught in Largest Science Scandal in US History - 05-10-2015 - 1 r FDR podcasts on AGW America's Energy War: Fossil Fuels, Ethanol & Industrial Progress - Alex Epstein & Stefan Molyneux - 30-01-2016 - 1:01:11 A Fetish for Conspiracy - 08-01-2016 - 2:40:32 - last part (2:15:20 onwards) is about AGW Inconvenient Facts About Global Warming - Alex Epstein & Stefan Molyneux - 30-11-2015 - 48:03 Why I Changed My Mind on Climate Change - 03-11-2015 - 25:09 The 97% "Consensus" - Global Warming Unmasked - 20-06-2015 - 33:18 Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming - 14-02-2015 - GOLD File The Climate Change Solution No-one Will Talk About - 10-02-2015 - 10:50 The Science of Climate Change - a Conversation with Dr. Patrick Moore - 26-09-2014 - 46:26 Climategate - What They Aren't Telling You - 17-05-2014 - 15:11 The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change? - 22-02-2013 - 8:46 Climate Change in 12 Minutes - The Skeptic's Case - 22-02-2013 - 12:42 Global Warming Skepticism - the FDR Interview with Warren Meyer - 15-01-2010 - 1:10:44 True News: Ecohypocrisy! - 11-12-2009 - 9:32 True News: The Case Against Climate Change - 29-11-2009 - 21:59 FDR videos on AGW & YouTube Playlist

Stefan, I have some questions about your climate change skepticism. But firstly I have to say that I agree with you that bigger government isn't going to solve the problem, if there is one. I'm wondering if you deny desertification, carcinogenic smog, hypoxic dead zones in the ocean, ocean acidification, record breaking droughts and wild fires, etc. From my understanding of biology I recognize that humans, and most organisms on earth (except for the little bastards living off the chemicals spewing from sea floor vents) require the functioning of various environmental conditions which are very specific. Take for example phyto plankton, these little guys require a specific ph for their habitat. These humble creatures are the source of about 50% of our atmospheric oxygen. Our activities of heavily polluting the atmosphere and by leaving so much shit to run off into the oceans, we've begun to fiddle too much with the oceans conditions. Or lets take carcinogenic smog. It's likely that you've seen 'made in china' hundreds of times in your life. Chinas air pollution is horrific, I'm sure you've seen the photos. I say we don't need government to solve these problems, in fact, they make these problems considerably worse. What we need is personal responsibility for our economic demand, awareness of the effects of our purchases. Since I was born, something like 40% of species have gone extinct. I recognize that humanity is creating a new geological epoch on this small planet, we have megalopolises outstretched across our continents, and 40% of the earths land mass is now farmland. I know that in an ecosystem, all organisms are connected to each other. The earth is mostly a closed system and we're disrupting the fragile conditions our species relies on for survival. And I don't mean the people who can have their food grown and synthesized in labs. Regardless of your position on global warming/climate change, do you understand the effects of environmental pollution and degradation on other people and sentient organisms? Thanks for reading, I'm interested in your thoughts on this. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FJUA4cm0Rck

Thought I would post this here; http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2015EA000154/epdf New publication regarding questioning the largely proposed sensitivity of the climate's equilibrium. Thought it would be good sauce for those who can parse it. Maybe a good guy to bring on the show in between the immigration blitzes.

Stef and I are on the same page on just about every issue except for climate change. This video really brings all of my criticisms into one nice presentation thanks to youtuber PotHoler54. I'd like to see some lively debate in the comments!

(Yeah I know "converted" is a bad way of putting it, but you know what I mean) So, I just found an interesting guy. Physicist and climate skeptic who heavily criticizes the politication and misuse of science for the sake of alarming people without (or despite) facts. After finding that the important climate data has been tampered with (i.e. the climategate scandal) he founded his own research group with an open information policy to go over the data and do the calculations again. He still found a clear warming trend and correlation between CO2 and the warming trend. Unfortunately there aren't that many videos of him on youtube, but those that are there are very worthwhile watching for any skeptic as he addresses a lot of the commonly raised points. I know a lot of people on this board are just as skeptic about the whole thing as I am (or was I guess), so, I think you'll find these presentations very much worth your time and well argued. Let me know what you think (also I think he'd make a great guest for an interview either way)

So, apparently even the IPCCs own statisticians reject the model the other devisions use to claim that "significant" temperature increase. All in all a great read, as it also explains the core problems of statistical models in general (which is a problem in a lot of fields of science today). Very enlightening. Enjoy http://www.informath.org/AR5stat.pdf

Hey folks, here's a video that addresses a lot of the points made by Stefan and others who doubt the very existence of global warming. It's beautifully sourced in the description. I'd love to know if anyone has evidence to contradict the claims made here. I also think it's interesting that Derek does no catastrophize the phenomenon.

1. Global CO2 levels fluctuate between .036 -.038% of total planetary atmospheric gasses. 2. Advocates of AGW hypothesis support lowering plantery levels of CO2. 3. CO2 is essential for plant metabolism. 4. If planetary CO2 levels fall nearer to 0%, then the metabolism of naturally occurring flora will be challenged. 5. Therefore, advocates of AGW hypothesis support challenging plant metabolism on a planetary scale. (Obviously, there are other natural sources of CO2, and it would be unlikely for planetary CO2 levels to ever fall to 0% -- but it's a way of pointing out to the "anti-carbon zealots" that as CO2 lessens from it's already trace amounts, plant life on a planetary scale will suffer.)

It's the Daily Mail, so yeah, but does anyone have more info on this? http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2738653/Stunning-satellite-images-summer-ice-cap-thicker-covers-1-7million-square-kilometres-MORE-2-years-ago-despite-Al-Gore-s-prediction-ICE-FREE-now.html

http://www.news.com.au/national/coalition-claims-victory-in-clive-palmer-plan-to-support-policy-to-repeal-the-carbon-tax/story-fncynjr2-1226966637743 A couple of evil billionaires plotting to exploit ignorant Australians I dare say. Politics is getting pretty crazy down under. Palmer has shown a talent for the big gesture and "feeding the chooks". Nothing like a Parliament House stunt with Al Gore on the eve of a well-publicised meeting with the Prime Minister – a meeting where Abbott is on a hiding to nothing. Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/business/comment-and-analysis/what-al-gore-needs-to-know-about-clive-palmer-20140625-3asku.html#ixzz35hkavuu2

http://www.michaelcrichton.net/essay-stateoffear-whypoliticizedscienceisdangerous.htmlHere's an excellent article written by Michael Crichton on why politicized science is dangerous. (Another lesson to learn from the tale is why blind faith in scientific consensus is dangerous.) The article was published in the back of his book, State of Fear.

Is misinformation about the climate criminally negligent? My girlfriend is taking a critical thinking class through the philosophy department at the Rochester Institute of Technology. The general theme of the course is about pseudoscience (astrology, cryptozoology, UFOs, etc.). It appears that global warming skepticism (or "denialism", as the professor is putting it) has made the list. The above link is to a blog post written by another professor within RIT's philosophy department advocating for criminal sanctions against organized global warming skepticism. Read the blog post; it isn't long. So the professor (of a critical thinking class, remember) is proceeding under the assumption that global warming skeptics are in the same category as astrologists, and the discussion is currently focused on whether criminal sanctions are justified for those who speak out against the narrative. How would you all respond to something like this? I haven't had a detailed discussion with her about this just yet. I got the email this morning, so I apologize for shooting from the hip. I'll be back with more information about the classroom content. For now I'm just looking for reactions to the blog post, and how you would respond to it if you were in that class.

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/gaps-in-data-on-arctic-temperatures-account-for-the-pause-in-global-warming-8945597.html Thoughts?