bugzysegal Posted November 16, 2015 Posted November 16, 2015 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.
Matthew Ed Moran Posted November 17, 2015 Posted November 17, 2015 "It would be better for all species on the planet, and cheaper for us, if we reduced C02 emissions now" I found the video entertaining. I liked the back and forth format. I don't have counter-information to the points, but I am going to research the topic a bit more tonight because I'm interested. However, I don't understand how his last claim, which is clearly the most important claim, can just be tacked on to the end of the video without a strong argument as to why we should reduce C02 emissions. The overwhelming trend is that the increased use of fossil fuels and the increased emissions in C02 have correlated with an decrease in climate deaths that is unparalleled before they were introduced. So why would we assume to stop or reduce using that which has been the most successful in reducing climate deaths in the history of humanity? Edit: Some stats from Alex Epstein, who wrote the book Why You Should Love Fossil Fuels - From 1870-1940, climate temp. has increased by about half a degree: from 1940 to present, climate temp. increased by half a degree despite use of fossil fuels - Since 1920s, climate deaths have decreased by 98%
Will Torbald Posted November 17, 2015 Posted November 17, 2015 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. The debate is not about "the very existence of global warming". It's about how intense it is, how worried we should be, and whether we should do anything at all about it. Like the video I post explains, the real fraud is in the estimated feedbacks, which when actually measured in the real world it shows a decrease in warming rather than a catastrophic increase. So much for predictive power of a politically manipulated model.
RCali Posted November 17, 2015 Posted November 17, 2015 It's not as good as you might thing. I'll address one thing that I remember from watching this before: the effects of CO2. Not only does it strengthen plant life throughout the globe (greener plants), it makes it so plants can grow where they couldn't before. Plants LOVE more CO2. Another point about the warming of the planet (even though it's false that we have the most influence in this) is that it is good for us. Warmer planet means less low temperature related deaths. And this is only a direct relation, there are many more reasons why global warming will be good for us. Further about temperature: there's much more that influences temperature, and not simply anthropogenic sources. The main source of temperature is very obvious: the sun. Changes in the sun make huge changes here. That's what mainly affects the globe's temperature. The atmosphere has a large influence, of course, but it hasn't changed enough for it to have catastrophic influence on the temperature. If you research enough about past CO2 and temperature, you'll see it doesn't correlate to what the global warming alarmists are saying. Besides the obvious "the arctic will melt very soon" - it doesn't melt when they say - repeat several times. They clearly don't know about what they're doing. So far, the increase in CO2 has only benefited the globe. Now for what REALLY is bad: concentrated CO2, among other sources of pollution, and deforestation. These things are the problem. It's a problem that whole cities are permanently covered in smoke, which destroys human health, and it's a problem that whole regions of forest, throughout the world, aren't being tended. They destroy the whole region, and don't care that it will grow at a decent rate, or at all. I don't know exactly what effect this will have in the general environment, but I love nature, and it absolutely disturbs me that they destroy it in this manner. Just like it greatly disturbs me when animals are hunted for fun, or there are genocides for a tiny bit of the animal's body. These things are where the problem is. CO2 is good. And when the temperature may be too high, for whatever reason may be, we will use the "cloud whitnening" method, and we will manipulate the temperature to the best of options. 1
Anuojat Posted November 17, 2015 Posted November 17, 2015 Edit: Some stats from Alex Epstein, who wrote the book Why You Should Love Fossil Fuels - From 1870-1940, climate temp. has increased by about half a degree: from 1940 to present, climate temp. increased by half a degree despite use of fossil fuels - Since 1920s, climate deaths have decreased by 98% Does he cite any sources himself? I think it would be important to look at those more than the book...
ProfessionalTeabagger Posted November 17, 2015 Posted November 17, 2015 You can type climate change or Global warming into the FDR search bar and find plenty to refute this stuff. The funniest part of this nonsense is when he says "in balance" like "in balance" is some good thing. 2
Donnadogsoth Posted November 17, 2015 Posted November 17, 2015 A RESOLUTION TO DEFEND THE LIVES OF BILLIONS OF PEOPLE: We Say NO to the Paris COP21 CO2 Reduction Scheme http://larouchepub.com/other/2015/4244resolution_co2.html
Matthew Ed Moran Posted November 17, 2015 Posted November 17, 2015 Does he cite any sources himself? I think it would be important to look at those more than the book... He cites the reduction in climate deaths in his debate with Bill Mckibben, I believe at the start of his second round. I don't know the source of the first number, but I thought it might be in his book so that's why I mentioned it. BTW Professional Teabagger is exactly right. A particularly good source is Stefan's interview with Patrick Moore.
Torero Posted November 17, 2015 Posted November 17, 2015 In the past I've contributed some things on "human-induced" "global" "warm(onger)ing": - recently on the taxation fraude - https://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/45681-please-review-my-agw-global-warming-argument-for-soundness-and-offer-critique/?p=417869 - when I started, much more elaborated why this "hypothesis" (it's political, not scientific!) is non-sense - https://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/40032-climate-change-series-thoughts/?p=389331 Please stay away from falling for the trapping narrative that this "Antropogenic" "Global" "Warming" (or any label they gave because the warming just doesn't want to happen...) is something scientific. It is not; it is a purely political scheme. Climatology is still a serious natural science. It is infected by a lot of fund-spoilt "research" and vast propaganda and the "peer review" on publications is far from free, fair, balanced and honest. But the root science is ok. Serious scientists do not fearmonger, yet even if corrupted towards "humans are to blame" cautious. It's the politicians and the show boys who doomingly spread this anti-scientific virus*. There are so many traps set by these people in the narratives they use. It's infected in every brainwashed school kid's head and that is the scariest of it all. Let us all be crystal clear on this: - CO2 is part of the Earth since the beginning (loooong loooong loooong before us) and will be there until the end (let's say some 3.333.333.333 years after us) - you, me and every other living organism is breathing out CO2 every second of the day - we (all) drink sodas and beers, some go for sparkling wines. This is just CO2, normal carbon dioxide - CO2 is not (a) pollution/polluter and it will never be - CO2 cannot be avoided, stopped, nullified, sequestrated, canned, trapped; it's completely natural and if not concentrated harmless (like most gases) Paying tax for air/a gas we all breathe. Every second. Mán, not even in the sickest sci-fi-comedy-cheap-a$$-movie they could come up with such a plot and get away with it. Well, very "well" ** paid... * the nature of the "research" is by definition anti-scientific because none of their models have (shown) any predictability, the very foundation of a scientific model itself; it means all the science is anti-science; politics, propaganda. Call it MengelismTM ** not a moral "well". More of a poisoned "well" 3
Anuojat Posted November 18, 2015 Posted November 18, 2015 He cites the reduction in climate deaths in his debate with Bill Mckibben, I believe at the start of his second round. I don't know the source of the first number, but I thought it might be in his book so that's why I mentioned it. BTW Professional Teabagger is exactly right. A particularly good source is Stefan's interview with Patrick Moore. A debate is not a source, scinetific paper or study would be. And ill try to see if books sources are cited without byuing it...
A4E Posted November 18, 2015 Posted November 18, 2015 It would be better for all species on the planet, and cheaper for us, if everyone watered their plants less now, and helped limiting rain water on plants and trees now. And if everyone defecated less now, (deposits of manure away from plants are ok). And if everyone let plants have less sun now by helping to build man made shadows, so that plants and trees don't get as much sunlight. We need to do this in order to save our planet. Either you are with us, or you are with the plants - animals - humans - ecosystem. It has become a blatant attack on prosperity through taxation funded deceptive propaganda. Another religion to put you down in your illusory place, and you who believe it are falling for it at your own peril.
Tweety Posted November 18, 2015 Posted November 18, 2015 Another point about the warming of the planet (even though it's false that we have the most influence in this) is that it is good for us. Warmer planet means less low temperature related deaths. And this is only a direct relation, there are many more reasons why global warming will be good for us. Warming is not only good for us or the plants. High temperatures cause a significant increase in human death rates, from southern to northern latitudes. Particularly old and ill people are at risk. And it is not only temperatures that are in the 40's that count: already some days when temperatures are above 23 celsius degrees at northern latitudes has been shown to increase mortality by 3-7%. The same increase more to the south requires higher temperatures (above 30's) because people are adapted to higher temperatures. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_European_heat_wave
Donnadogsoth Posted November 18, 2015 Posted November 18, 2015 Warming is not only good for us or the plants. High temperatures cause a significant increase in human death rates, from southern to northern latitudes. Particularly old and ill people are at risk. And it is not only temperatures that are in the 40's that count: already some days when temperatures are above 23 celsius degrees at northern latitudes has been shown to increase mortality by 3-7%. The same increase more to the south requires higher temperatures (above 30's) because people are adapted to higher temperatures. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_European_heat_wave There are more car crashes at the beginning of Winter then there are later on, because people are unused to the conditions. Once people get used to higher temperatures, if any come, the death rates will level out.
RCali Posted November 18, 2015 Posted November 18, 2015 Warming is not only good for us or the plants. High temperatures cause a significant increase in human death rates, from southern to northern latitudes. Particularly old and ill people are at risk. And it is not only temperatures that are in the 40's that count: already some days when temperatures are above 23 celsius degrees at northern latitudes has been shown to increase mortality by 3-7%. The same increase more to the south requires higher temperatures (above 30's) because people are adapted to higher temperatures. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_European_heat_wave This is irrelevant. We aren't speaking of heat waves, but of constantly higher temperature.
Matthew Ed Moran Posted November 18, 2015 Posted November 18, 2015 A debate is not a source, scinetific paper or study would be. And ill try to see if books sources are cited without byuing it... No, I mean the source was cited at that point in the debate verbally. It's.. Historical Statistics of the World Economy by Angus Madison, 2008.
Anuojat Posted November 19, 2015 Posted November 19, 2015 No, I mean the source was cited at that point in the debate verbally. It's.. Historical Statistics of the World Economy by Angus Madison, 2008. I see. And hey i finally found the direct source for the met OFFICE. Really interesting stuff everyone. Take a look: http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcrut4/HadCRUT4_accepted.pdf And this directly corrolates with GISS aswell, which at first seems like only 1 c of warming but it is actually much more since every single time the numbers are on the positive its the mark of warming for that year as far as i understand. http://climate.nasa.gov/system/internal_resources/details/original/647_Global_Temperature_Data_File.txt http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/ Ill throw in the NOAA link in aswell: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/data-access/marineocean-data/extended-reconstructed-sea-surface-temperature-ersst-v4 Now again this is merely about temperatures. Not how muhc humans have effect ect. Just posting important and useful facts foreveryones mind to know
RCali Posted November 19, 2015 Posted November 19, 2015 *zip* I can't really trust government sources about something they clearly have interest on being such a way - whether it coincides with empiricism or not.
Somewhere Posted November 19, 2015 Posted November 19, 2015 There's a great deal wrong with this video. As a busy person who actually does useful things in the real world and who isn't paid to do this, it's going to take me time to get to all of the points, but to start with point 2, "The globe's not warming" he proposes an incorrect trend line and says that it's incorrect (straw man) he says "13 of the 14 hottest years have occurred this century" (not relevant to the trend) he says the graph is "old" and "if you take satellite data into account" the warming reappears. This is apparently a reference to Cowtan and Way (2014) in which the authors look at ways of correcting HADCRUT4, one of several global temperature series, for its lack of arctic coverage. HADCRUT4 has run cooler than the other global temperature series in recent years, and there has been a lot of warming in the arctic. One of the ways they propose to correct HADCRUT4 is to use satellite data, hence the reference to satellite data in the video. Even without getting into the details of Cowtan and Way, this is a proposed correction to just one of several global temperature series. The RSS satellite temperature series shows no warming for 18 years 9 months, the UAH series shows no warming for almost as long, and the heavily-adjusted surface temperature series (of which HADCRUT4 is one) show an average 1.1°C per century rise over the same period. This is for a period over which about 1/3 of all the anthropogenic CO2 ever generated has been released.
Anuojat Posted November 19, 2015 Posted November 19, 2015 I can't really trust government sources about something they clearly have interest on being such a way - whether it coincides with empiricism or not. Thats fine and i can undertant that. Howeve its important not that the book "Why you should love fossil fuels" cites metoffice data which corrolates with nasa and NOAA's data and which are sources whom critis and advocates of climate change and global warming cite. If you dont have the boo0k then maybe my comment is moot on you though.
RCali Posted November 19, 2015 Posted November 19, 2015 Thats fine and i can undertant that. Howeve its important not that the book "Why you should love fossil fuels" cites metoffice data which corrolates with nasa and NOAA's data and which are sources whom critis and advocates of climate change and global warming cite. If you dont have the boo0k then maybe my comment is moot on you though. Don't have it, but it's still interesting to know. Thanks.
bugzysegal Posted December 4, 2015 Author Posted December 4, 2015 The debate is not about "the very existence of global warming". It's about how intense it is, how worried we should be, and whether we should do anything at all about it. Like the video I post explains, the real fraud is in the estimated feedbacks, which when actually measured in the real world it shows a decrease in warming rather than a catastrophic increase. So much for predictive power of a politically manipulated model. Actually many on this board doubt it's very existence. Read above. Also, he talks about a 3 degree change and an increase in storms and other natural disasters to happen in the future. I skipped around in that video. Does he call into question the same statistics (studies) Derek sites? I can't really trust government sources about something they clearly have interest on being such a way - whether it coincides with empiricism or not. So it's merely conspiracy? Because it would have to be. There's a great deal wrong with this video. As a busy person who actually does useful things in the real world and who isn't paid to do this, it's going to take me time to get to all of the points, but to start with point 2, "The globe's not warming" he proposes an incorrect trend line and says that it's incorrect (straw man) he says "13 of the 14 hottest years have occurred this century" (not relevant to the trend) he says the graph is "old" and "if you take satellite data into account" the warming reappears. This is apparently a reference to Cowtan and Way (2014) in which the authors look at ways of correcting HADCRUT4, one of several global temperature series, for its lack of arctic coverage. HADCRUT4 has run cooler than the other global temperature series in recent years, and there has been a lot of warming in the arctic. One of the ways they propose to correct HADCRUT4 is to use satellite data, hence the reference to satellite data in the video. Even without getting into the details of Cowtan and Way, this is a proposed correction to just one of several global temperature series. The RSS satellite temperature series shows no warming for 18 years 9 months, the UAH series shows no warming for almost as long, and the heavily-adjusted surface temperature series (of which HADCRUT4 is one) show an average 1.1°C per century rise over the same period. This is for a period over which about 1/3 of all the anthropogenic CO2 ever generated has been released. He doesn't set up a straw man, he argues a position the opposition actually holds. That's the point of the back and forth of the entire video. Are you also suggesting his source doesn't provide an adequate argument or interpret the evidence correctly? "It would be better for all species on the planet, and cheaper for us, if we reduced C02 emissions now" I found the video entertaining. I liked the back and forth format. I don't have counter-information to the points, but I am going to research the topic a bit more tonight because I'm interested. However, I don't understand how his last claim, which is clearly the most important claim, can just be tacked on to the end of the video without a strong argument as to why we should reduce C02 emissions. The overwhelming trend is that the increased use of fossil fuels and the increased emissions in C02 have correlated with an decrease in climate deaths that is unparalleled before they were introduced. So why would we assume to stop or reduce using that which has been the most successful in reducing climate deaths in the history of humanity? Edit: Some stats from Alex Epstein, who wrote the book Why You Should Love Fossil Fuels - From 1870-1940, climate temp. has increased by about half a degree: from 1940 to present, climate temp. increased by half a degree despite use of fossil fuels - Since 1920s, climate deaths have decreased by 98% I wonder if the climate deaths figure factors in increased prevalence of storms, floods, etc? If so this statistic would be interesting indeed. Humans are made for the sub-tropical climates, so it's not all to surprising to be honest. I do wonder about the effects on other species and if through the food chain that might affect us at some point. You can type climate change or Global warming into the FDR search bar and find plenty to refute this stuff. The funniest part of this nonsense is when he says "in balance" like "in balance" is some good thing. Are you saying the sources he sites are addressed in this forum somewhere? It's not just the claims he made, but what evidence he based those claims on that is important to me. Many of the models Stefan criticize that had crazy claims and predictions didn't factor in satellite data as I recall. If by "in balance" he means a homeostasis that has kept out climate stable for the past 800,000 years, I would say that may be a good thing. 1
bugzysegal Posted December 4, 2015 Author Posted December 4, 2015 To be precise, the major claims he makes are that there will be a 3 degree rise in temperatures and that this will lead to increase in floods, storms, etc. 1 1
TheRobin Posted December 4, 2015 Posted December 4, 2015 I think this might be one of the best (but certainly one o f the better) talks about climate I've seen so far
Aaron727 Posted December 4, 2015 Posted December 4, 2015 Here is a video of a nobel prize winning scientist addressing most of the things talked about in your video. Just pointing out the nobel prize to let you know there are mainstream scientists that don't buy in to man made global warming. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TCy_UOjEir0
TheRobin Posted December 6, 2015 Posted December 6, 2015 Here is a video of a nobel prize winning scientist addressing most of the things talked about in your video. Just pointing out the nobel prize to let you know there are mainstream scientists that don't buy in to man made global warming. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TCy_UOjEir0 I'm only 10 minutes in, but so far he basically does the same as the alarmists, except in reverse. He doesn't even criticize the methodology, or the data, or the model, but uses adjectives to deride the position instead. Also, he doesn't seem to understand the difference between a model describing a multi-decade trend and a single decade worth of data. Same later, when he quotes the warmest and coldest Greenland years (which are kinda irrelevant for a statistical average) I mean it's great that he shows how some of the untrue hysteria is, well, untrue(like the tornado stuff). And there's definitely a lot of merrit to question the narrative of "every warming is negative", but I'm not quite sure what exactly he's trying to proof false (or maybe that's just cause the title of the video has "Global Warming Hoax" in it which was probably not the name of the presentation he gave.)
Recommended Posts