The American Denial of Global Warming
Uploaded by: uctelevision
Video Description:
Polls show that between one-third and one-half of Americans still believe that there is "no solid" evidence of global warming, or that if warming is happening it can be attributed to natural variability. Others believe that scientists are still debating the point. Join scientist and renowned historian Naomi Oreskes as she describes her investigation into the reasons for such widespread mistrust and misunderstanding of scientific consensus and probes the history of organized campaigns designed to create public doubt and confusion about science. Series: "Perspectives on Ocean Science" [12/2007] [Science] [Show ID: 13459]
Tags for this video: global Naomi Oreskes warming
Find more videos in the "Education" category
See more videos uploaded by uctelevision
| Al Gore Debates Global Warming | Global Warming: Point of No Return? | AL GORE: Global Warming Testimony @ Congress 3.21.07 |
 |  |  |
| Global Warming | Global Warming | GLOBAL WARMING HOAX? |
 |  |  |
Share This Video:
Comments for this video: Show || Hide
Tell a friend:
The sources are not as diverse as you believe them to be, and there isn't a universal recognition of anthropogenic warming. Also, both, physics and chemistry apply to the relationship between CO2 and temperature. Economic damage isn't linked to global warming, and you are making claims that have not yet been proven. You are discussing the affects of something that has not been proven to be the result of mans' actions.
THERE YOU GO AGAIN SAYING
" given the human and economic devastation already experienced by recent warming - floods, excess hurricane deaths, crop failures, and impoverishment, among other afflictions"
in the above there in NOTHING that is out of the normal, you are looking at the whole world for examples and come up with nothing but normal stuff
The direction of causality is simply ignored by the MMGW crowd. But there is no possible way that CO2 has caused the Earth's temperature rise. The current CO2 rise is due to the TEMPERATURE rise of 700-1000 years ago.
Check out the medieval warming period.
Follow the money. If you want funding, you bow to AGW.
The lag between CO2 and temperature has to do with sequestered CO2, which is generally given off by vegetation 70 to 80 years after temperature begins to rise. Our alkaline oceans absorb much of the planet's CO2, and begins releasing the CO2 as temperatures rise. The oceans are responsible for a 700 year lag between temperature and CO2.
I know that it is argued about on youtube, but my point was that it is also discussed/debated within the scientific community. I would also like to know what "journals" contain "extensive" evidence. You can claim that the relationship between CO2 and temperature is solely physically based, but that wont change the fact that chemistry plays a role as well. You also need to realize that "saturation" is based on many factors, one of which is the chemical/molecule itself.
100's of 1000s of log books are being analyzed from shipping in the 16th,17,18th centuries thy show no differences from the weather then and the weather now, if anything worse then, difference is we can cope better now, with better crops, only problem is where man chooses to live. don't build houses on water meadows.
The sequestration process is completely overlooked by the dweebs who think Global Warming is man-made, or even influenced.
The direction of causality in the real universe is that if A is 'possibly' the cause of B, then A MUST occur BEFORE B. Not EVERY event before B causes B. But ANY event that DOES cause B MUST occur BEFORE B.
CO2 NEVER rises in advance of temperature rise in the historical data. CO2 therefore CANNOT be the cause of the Earths global climate cycles.
This includes so-called peer-review scientific journals. Scientists are no less subject to their bias and fear of opposing opinions. And Global Warming science at this point, is subjective opinion. The magic phrase is 'determined by consensus'.
That is a common fallacy though. We may not know what causes the initial temperature increase, but CO2 does magnify the initial temperature increase. It is a series of cycles, not just a one step process. However, people don't realize that the claim of man causing global warming is a fallacy as well. They also ignore the fact that most people pushing the theory only claim an accuracy of approximately 80%, and a range of error as high is 20% is outstanding for the scientific community.
Imagine an insulating layer around the Earth. This is the whole crux of the 'green house' warming theory. The CO2 captures and collects the radiant energy from the Sun and therefore, causes Temperature to rise.
The CO2 may ONLY act as a collector if the Sun is producing energy at the same, or higher, rate. IF the green-house warming theory were accurate, once elevated, the temperature could ONLY go up, while a constant solar energy was input into the system.
That just has not happened.
Feel free to address the direction of causality, whereby Temperature rises and falls 700-1000 years before the matching CO2 change, and the proposed or assumed mechanism CO2 employs to mystically affect Temperature 700-1000 YEARS before the lagging change.
Rational people can readily see that CO2 cannot possibly be the Temperature driver.
I know the factors affecting the planets climate/temperature. There are many different things that affect temperature, and CO2 is one of them. However, people claiming that man is responsible for global warming choose to ignore the cycles of the Earth and sun. If you monitor solar cycles, then you can see why temperature eventually begins to fall.
I think the current hysteria regarding man-contributed CO2 is largely a subterfuge for attacking capitalism and Western Civilization, whether consciously or subconsciously.
With Sun Spot cycle 24 having bee so late, it will be interesting over the next 5-10 years to see whether the cooling is sufficient to gather the attention of the 'warming-only' crew.
The cold fact is that CO2 has no memory of who released it, or how. Natural sources do not mark the molucules for later conspiratorial collection of the anthropogenic atoms into evil roaving gangs.
You need only look at eGore's stage wide curve to see that WITH CO2 at it's peak, Temperature gleefully falls 700-1000 years B4 CO2.
Well, we have been seeing minor temperature increases and decreases lately. We have been coming out of an ice age for quite some time, and we will continue to see oscillations in temperature until we begin to enter the next ice age, which should occur recently.
AngryAussie is the YouTube user covering all these comments. He has from 7 to 13 YouTube accounts with which he clicks the thumbs down button until comments are censored. He also sends many complaints to YouTube about the people who post comments he does not like so to have those commenters accounts suspended.
It's all done by one person, AngryAussie. You can see him in video here in YouTube, he's made many videos of himself