Climate Change - Is CO2 the cause?- pt 4 of 4 Videos

TheRealArchAngel Says:

Oct 11, 2008 - *(And making a mess of it as I got my numbers wrong)*nothing wrong with that, I suck at math ;)But Google "AFTER TWO LARGE ANNUAL GAINS, RATE OF ATMOSPHERIC CO2 INCREASERETURNS TO AVERAGE, NOAA REPORTS"Not that they estimate 7 billion tons a yearNow lets say Humans are at fault,and Co2 is getting past the filtration system,and lets use 7 billion times 150 years as a standard fugure of how much human CO2 is up there105,000,000,000/5,000,000,000,000,000 =.000021% CO2,way below .002%

TheRealArchAngel Says:

Oct 11, 2008 - **105,000,000,000/5,000,000,000,000,000 =.000021% CO2**What's the 5000 trillion tons that the total CO2 humans supposedly released over 150 years is being diveded into you ask? Thats the weight of the earth's atmosphere.the Environuts and Alarmnist like to throw around numbers on tons of CO2 released but even with the most outragous amounts claimed,if humans could put CO2 into the system from burning fossil fuels, the numbers don't add up to what is happening extra Co2 leaking out of Ocean

frithwks Says:

Oct 11, 2008 - Yay Capermall Spot on!!

frithwks Says:

Oct 11, 2008 - Arch..Man is there no end to the babble?In all your calculations you allow no numbers for the natural uptake of C02 by plants and sprout numbers and conclusions that relate to nothing!Please 'stop' and let this discussion become relevant.

TheRealArchAngel Says:

Oct 11, 2008 - **Arch..Man is there no end to the babble?**lol**In all your calculations you allow no numbers for the natural uptake of C02**No, I am just pointing out the flaw in the assumptions of how much CO2 humans are causing....it it were true,burning fossil fuels doesn't even make anywhere near how much CO2 is spueing into the maunaloa Weather station from the Volcano...er.."up there" in the air

TheRealArchAngel Says:

Oct 11, 2008 - *Please 'stop' and let this discussion become relevant*Okay,In the end all my babbling & all this discussion means nothing cause the UN scam to get taxing powers and establish a global Carbon tax using the IPCC report to convince world leaders failed.Why?In the Case of Bush voting no, even the "moron in the white house" asked the EPA if all those emmision claiming to be released were true and they said no,then asked Meteorologist in NAS if CO2 drives weather and climate & they said no

frithwks Says:

Oct 11, 2008 - Can any one here account for satellite measurements that show a decrease of long wave radiance leaving the atmosphere in line with IPCC predictions?As far as i can see this is the strongest argument for AGW.....Please no Archybabble!

capemall Says:

Oct 11, 2008 - clouds will cause less long wave radiation to leave the earth..they also increase the albedo of the causing more radiation to get reflected right back into space..so they change the composition of the energy leaving the earth...they also change the amount..which way is subject to argument

frithwks Says:

Oct 11, 2008 - Thanks Capemall...It's funny but deep down I knew this, thanks for reminding me....In spite of scientific institutions worldwide acknowledging AGW as real science. They seem unwilling to explain their case in simple enough terms for many to comprehend. I am not convinced either way but I am frustrated at getting to the truth. It seems we are to left to trust in fake polar-bear predicaments and jargon!I think Bobs theory of political bias and accumulative error has some merit!

capemall Says:

Oct 11, 2008 - I think too many people would be embarrassed for the somersaults they have put the world through for them to ever admit they were wrong at this point

soreronicam Says:

Oct 11, 2008 - Thank god for some straight no nonsense, aussie speak. Could do with a bit more here in the UK.Congrats, excellent series of videos.

ellwyn Says:

Oct 11, 2008 - that's because they're leftists with an agenda against free market nations. you won't hear them complain about damages to the environment in undeveloped or communist nations. the rest are useful idiot liberals who will parrot the leftists just to be trendy, to show they care.then there is gore, accurately parodied on south park as a megalomaniac on a quest to style himself as the savior of not only humanity but for all life on the planet.

DrDave953 Says:

Oct 11, 2008 - This should be viewed with an open mind by the warmists, however, I'm not sure they have minds to be opened.Dave.

Loewenherz27 Says:

Oct 11, 2008 - Thank you very much for that video. It says what had to be said long ago. Climate change is nothing to worry about. I wish Mrs Angela Merkel and the German Government as well as some hot temperated people at Greenpeace would have a look at it. Thank you so much. Greetings Andreas Stadler

Feiksma Says:

Oct 11, 2008 - Interesting, convincing and well backed up!!In the Netherlands, if not everywhere, this is more or less impossible to broadcast on national tv.This is because far too much money is made with the co2-scam.Politicians will not let, intelligent research and common sense, spoil the great eco-tax-party.Heroes like this scientist, will be generally ignored even if they are right (like he probably is). The co2-scam is not about the truth, it's about the money - it always is

christo930 Says:

Oct 11, 2008 - I think the whole climate change thing might be cover for peak oil. It's a great way to get the world off of oil without having to publicly admit we be producing less and less oil every year once the peak has past. Many experts believe the peak has past already and that we are on a plateau (which is true so far).Publicly admitting we are running out of oil is economic suicide, but convincing people that oil will kill us and we need to get off it as soon as possible will help ges us off it.

TheNextTurn Says:

Oct 11, 2008 - show me one scientific organization that says GW is not man made.

SpenzOT Says:

Oct 11, 2008 - Show me a scientific organization that would benefit from saying that man-made global warming is a myth compared as much as they would benefit from saying that it is fact.Don't forget that the IPCC reviews all scientific data submitted by scientists past their political advisers. Global warming = money and power. Just look at Al Gore for a good example.

TheNextTurn Says:

Oct 11, 2008 - SO you think the ENTIRE scientific community related to this science both in the US and internationally are corrupt.Not to mention internalization charities like WWF, green peace, amnesty international and the Nobel society.And the 181 countries that signed Bali.So the countries that didn't sign Bali like Congo, Iraq, Chad, Zimbabwe and Somalia are the ONLY countries that saw past the scam.What is the color of the sky in your world?

christo930 Says:

Oct 11, 2008 - First of all, I didn't say it was a fact, I said it might be possible. The worlds politicians can not state we are at peak oil without crashing the worlds economy. The ENTIRE scientific community does not agree on AGW, there are 10's of thousands of scientists that don't. Nevertheless, we need to get off of FF very, very quickly as the cost goes up and availability down. AGW makes a great cover story and if it's true or not doesn't matter. We need off of fossil fuels NOW or bad times R coming.

TheNextTurn Says:

Oct 11, 2008 - "there are 10's of thousands of scientists that don't"Who says this?Who do these scientics work for?WHy are these scientics not assiciated with any scientific organizations?Do you know... or you just beleive what poeple tell you?I can find 1000s of scientics that will say evolution is crack pot theory aswell. Of cource they come from religious colleges. And they are not hired by REAL scientific organizations which weed out the idoits.

soupdragon42 Says:

Oct 11, 2008 - Great work. Real science. People need to understand who is sponsoring the global warming scam, and the vast sums of money they are pumping into it. The mainstream media is controlled by a few. We need to deal with real environmental issues like polution and the rainfrests, instead of this elitist taxation scam.

JanLauGe Says:

Oct 11, 2008 - Look him up, he is member of the "New Zealand Climate Science Coalition", payed by ExxonMobil.orly?yarly!

malmswax Says:

Oct 11, 2008 - Sounds to me like the entire debate on this is a front for confusing the population, to divert their attention from something else. "The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary." H.L. MenckenExxonMobil now sponsors Public TV shows like NOVA and the Nightly Business Report. Or how about an EU report indicating sky high profits for power companies trading carbon credits?Scammed from both sides!

droogish Says:

Oct 11, 2008 - It seems that arguing against climate change caused by humans suffers from a "Proof by Burden of Proof" fallacy. i.e you are wrong because there isn't enough proof. Therefore my argument is right (please overlook the fact I have even less proof). There is a smorgasboard of evidence suggesting humans are chaing the climate. I challenge the skeptics to state what it would take for them to change their minds - are your beliefs falsifiable? This is an essential element of a scientific hypothesis.