Yes James E. Hansen is now emphasizing the Aerosol Masking Effect - you can sign up to get his emails - on his website. In other words a 40% decrease of sulfur particulates (mainly from burning coal) heats up Earth another 1 degree celsius global average! Kind of wild this still doesn't get mentioned in the corporate media - and yet now Hansen says it's the fastest cause of temperature increases.

@@voidisyinyangvoidisyinyang885Now the question is, should they add sulphur back to cargo ship fuel or not. Sulphur dims and cools the atmosphere. Maybe cloud seeding to reflect the heat?

@@after_midnight9592 Of course that's what the corporate-state elite are planning on doing but it will just make things worse. I discussed this with physics professor Raymond Pierrehumbert who is an expert on planetary climate. "If the world fails to achieve net zero carbon dioxide emissions, then each year’s emissions will add to the stock of atmospheric carbon dioxide, requiring ever-escalating ratcheting up any techno-fix and ever-escalating increase in the damage wrought by termination shock. And meanwhile, other dangerous effects of accumulating carbon pollution, such as ocean acidification, continue to worsen over time. If the world decarbonizes eventually but only after pumping out so much carbon dioxide that it renders the world lethally hot, then deploying sun-dimming as a survival tactic puts the world in a precarious state, one in which current and future generations would live in perpetual fear of sudden death by termination shock. " Michael Mann and Raymond Pierrehumbert are correct about this. "If we emit a trillion tons of carbon in the form of carbon dioxide before we decarbonize the economy (we’ve already emitted more than half that) it will cause about 2 degrees Celsius of warming, and most of that warming will still be around in 10,000 years." Raymond Pierrehumbert "What is the morality of committing 10,000 years of future humanity to maintaining an activity year in and year out without fail? What is our track record as a species of maintaining any technological activity for more than a century or two? Oliver Morton, in his thoughtful (but ultimately boosterish) book puts forth the vision of albedo modification as just another stage in the cycle of technological dependencies that make the life of humanity better, rather like the Haber Process for making fertilizer has allowed agriculture to support a much larger population. It’s an interesting point, but there remains the uncomfortable issue of whether a global-scale intervention like albedo modification is really in the same category. " "Or, more broadly, is our ever-expanding wave of technological dependency increasing the resilience of human society or just setting us up for a harder fall when it all becomes unsustainable? Albedo modification is sometimes thought of as something you can do to hold warming in check while “buying time” to decarbonize the economy, but this is a fundamental misconception. Each additional kilogram of carbon dioxide emitted commits the Earth to a certain amount of warming that essentially never goes away (unless we learn how to suck carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere in massive amounts quickly-a very debatable prospect). And so the need for continued geoengineering to counteract that additional warming never goes away-even after carbon dioxide emissions are eventually brought to zero. Moreover, because carbon dioxide accumulates inexorably in the atmosphere so long as emissions continue, one cannot even achieve the more modest goal of slowing the rate of warming without inexorably increasing the amount of albedo modification deployed each year. It’s like drinking water contaminated with a poison like mercury that accumulates in your body, but trying to cancel out the effects with ever greater dosages of antidote. So long as there is any poison left in the water, your bodily burden increases and each year you need to take a greater daily dose of antidote. Even if the poison is removed from the drinking water supply, you have to continue taking the antidote for the rest of your life, because of the poison accumulated in your body-unless you undergo some therapy which actively removes the poison from your body, which would be analogous to sucking carbon dioxide out of the air." Raymond Pierrehumbert

Maybe they ran out of chem trails

😂😆😂 this aged well.

He is a genocidal nutcase

@@Brandon-lw1wx Not at all go watch Paul beckwith we genocide ourselves and now it's too late

@@lonewanderer9982 Is 99 your birthdate? They’ve been pulling that BS for more years than you’ve been alive.

@user-lz5ch4il8l 😆 🤣 sure buddy El ninonis going to blow the records a way this is la Nina supposed to be the cool period so

Big Oil and corporations in general control the direction of science.

Bad faith actors debate - many are talk circuit hacks or paid lobbyists.

He is a Stalinist

​@@Brandon-lw1wxno he's just a liberal lol

@@i_dont_know_who_i_am69 Same thing

@@Brandon-lw1wx?? How? Stalinists (and just leftists in general) and liberals hate each other

This has also aged well 😂 😆 we be doomed

@@lonewanderer9982 No, @dookiecheez is right. We should avoid both fatalism and complacency. At some point we will get to zero emissions, but it's a question of how much damage we lock in first.

@@Cedders001 you need to take feedback loops into account, even if we stopped our emissions today, the planet would be warming up for the next 20 years, which could trigger Blue Ocean Event, a feedback loop, or many other parts of the complex interconnected system, we just have no idea.

Eleven years later and nothing has happened

If only more people understood Andrew Yang.

@@andrewholz1414 yang is an idiot socialist. Tell me, yang wants basic income for poor people...where is yang going to get the money?

Waste is Food or something like that.

ed geiger 1 made by petroleum powered factories

it doesn't help when the governments are creating the weather, causing flooding where they want it and creating droughts where they want, our planet can heal if those assholes would leave a weather alone PERIOD

Get informed. kzfaq.info/get/bejne/n9p-oLR6z7m6l6M.html&feature=share&fbclid=IwAR3ktVUqL9p0iym_IJlzXd1xJgXntmCF6uqyBvZpWVSBtXVXv-6ajALRX5w

And all declining - bullshit hoax

This is yet another example of someone unwittingly citing the work of paleoclimate scientists to refute the work of paleoclimate scientists. If it weren't for paleoclimate scientists you would not know that climates changed in the past. Tip, read up on what paleoclimate scientists say about the role of CO2 in paleoclimates and what emitting 39 gigatonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere every year means for the climate.

@@arcare001 Art Robinson? The guy who's been collecting pee for decades thinking he's going to cure cancer someday? If you want to get informed take a class from an accredited college or university anywhere on the planet, it doesn't matter where, because they all teach the same science, not the quackery that you subscribe to.

Anyone who uses the term denier is not a scientist but a religious zealot. Talking with such certainty about a subject that is actually poorly understood is a dead give away for a kind of political pseudo-science. No scientist has been able to properly model the climate, meaning that we have gaps in our knowledge and simply insert CO2 in the missing variables.

@@SteveSmith-fh6br Believe what you want to believe. It's easier to do though when it's convenient.

Yes. Does it depend how you measure the smoothed peaks and troughs? 1.6 W/m² range is quite generous. As you say divide by 4 because of 4πr², and I see 102 W/m² reflected of 342, so your calculation seems about right to me. Estimate in IPCC AR6 WG1 'in the pipeline' imbalance has risen to '0.79 [0.52 to 1.06] W m -2 for the period 2006-2018' ; of course this is sustained rather than on a 11-year cycle.

I think it's somewhere between 1000-2000 ppm. different plants have different sweet spots.but for a plant to make use of the high co2 they need more water and more nutrients. so this only works on a small scale like in a greenhouse.

Martin Hearn actually plants need less water when there are Higher concentrations of Co2

Jason Crockford - Plants eat co2 and produce o2 which becomes water vapor which creates the greenhouse effect. This is why it’s so important for us all to become vegetarians.

@@smallbluemachine During the day plants in bright light use photosynthesis to take in carbon dioxide and give off o2 and water vapour During dim light periods respiration and photosynthesis are relatively equal and no amount of gases are given off. The processes are equal. At night time respiration occurs when o2 is taken in and co2 is released. But the gases released by vegetative and/or organic decomposition are co2, methane, nitrogen and hydrogen sulphide. So the decomposition of organic matter contributes to greenhouse effect in areas where denuding of forests or fields once farmed are not replaced with more vegetation.

Dumb irrelevant question. Here's a better one, what rate of change of increase of atmospheric CO2 can the biosphere adapt to without catastrophic impact. Our current rate of change in terms of the paleoclimate record best approximates the asteroid strike that wiped out the dinosaurs.

We do know that we are putting 14,000 X of CO2 the amount nature puts into the atmosphere and we do know that industrial carbon molecules have not been in the atmosphere long enough for us to know the full extent of how they will act. We do know that methane is somewhere between 16 and 32 X the potency of CO2 in trapping heat. www.energycentral.com/c/ec/humans-boosting-co2-14000-times-faster-nature-overwhelming-slow-negative

@@alanblanes2876 That is a bazar link but is does show you that C02 is not a strong Greenhouse gas, take it from most proxy graphs that when the Milankovitch cycle starts to cool the Earth, C02 keeps rising for 1000 years to its peak PPM and the suns strength is waning but the earth keeps cooling, this shows that C02 influence on greenhouse gases is very weak . The reason for the C02 to still rise is that it is being released from the still warm oceans and when the warm oceans start to cool the C02 PPM starts to fall. If you have any scientific evidence of C02 Greenhouse warming please share it with me. And no adjusted data PLEASE only empirical data if you want to point something out, and do not bother posting any more Bazar links.

The only two relevant questions are: can the theory be falsified and was it falsified? And yes, AGW gives the wrong answers kzfaq.info/get/bejne/f56Yl6hkysCapqc.html

Alan Blanes Hi Alan. There is some new research out by two scientists. It’s a long video but please watch to the end. Many thanks. Jason kzfaq.info/get/bejne/jsyCddVotavFp40.html

James E. Hansen officially announces were now at 1.5 C global average - and yet there's NO mass media corporate-state news coverage!! Science really doesn't matter much after all. Hilarious.

How about not cherry picking data? How about taking into consider the entire body of global academia and peer reviewed research?

Jim Kelleher This isn’t cherry picked. It shows the bigger picture. notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Arctic-Surface-Temps-Since-1920-copy.jpg

Jim Kelleher Did you know that heat waves were much more prevalent in the 1930’s on the US? realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/2019-02-13193710_shadow.jpg

@@jimkelleher5312 How about if your entire hypothesis is based on a flimsy correlation, if that correlation breaks for decades you need to reconsider your position and falsify your hypothesis.

@@jimkelleher5312 if cherry picking the data isn't allowed, then the climate alarmist's entire platform falls apart. Careful what you wish for, you'll destroy your own side asking for what you have.

@Cinqmil. Hi! Thanks for sharing! Could you provide me with a link to that paper or the title? Thanks in advance.

Seems nonsense to me

With a few exceptions, yes.

I know. The worst part was when James Hansen started to push a political agenda. That was when he damaged/lost creditability. The only way to win this is to use Science not Politics. We're losing the argument because it's seen as political. Starting a whole new tax literally pulled out of the atmosphere, that is my attempt at humor, is how people are going to see it. We need a better way of sugar coating an unpopular but necessary means to restructure the worlds energy consumption.

Burning fossil fuels is not the only source of CO2, nor is the only factor determining temperature.

Natural Ocean cycles. Driven by the sun

volcano eruptions, massive wildfires. among others

CO2 is even produced and exhaled by all species of air breathing animals, including us. Plants take in CO2 and produce oxygen in a cycle that’s been going on for hundreds of millions of years. A healthy greenhouse effect has also helped keep the Earth warm enough to support different kinds of life. When dinosaurs roamed the Earth hundreds of millions of years ago, Antarctica was actually covered in forest. But since humans are now producing more CO2 than ever before, as well as other greenhouse gases like methane, the cycle is becoming more and more out of balance, and global temperatures are rising far more quickly than anything typical of the Earth’s natural climate cycles, like the ice age for example. (The ice age ended over the course of many millennia, but global warming has only really been going on for several decades and is already having a noticeable impact that will get exponentially worse.) The environment cannot adapt fast enough, and not even humans are equipped to defend against all the damage.

Darth Bane If CO2 was instrumental in heating the planet, (which it's not), the heating wouldn't increase exponentially, as CO2's thermal characteristics are logarithmic, which is the complete opposite of exponential. To double temperature you have to keep doubling or tripling CO2 to get anywhere near the same result.

Andreas Bimba you can start by getting rid of your smart phone. No more you tube for you

He certainly is a hero, with his own special label; corrupt hero. I was so proud of him when he split up the hockey stick graph into part tree rings and part adjusted observed data; and the sucker skeptics almost fell for it but climategate came along. Has probably put real science back at least 50 years, yes a true hero to the ' sucker believers'. All hail the prophet of the climate change church, he can have the North Pole after the new world order takes over and he can wait there until it gets hotter like he tells it will.

He is a hero, I have read everything he has ever published.

Your a big sucker.

You're....foolish. Arctic temps have soared.....

You don't have to pretend. We have live satellite remote sensing systems now. Your game is over Chicken Little. The hockey schtick was busted years ago. earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/surface/level/overlay=temp/orthographic=-82.61,68.44,271/loc=-39.125,72.218

Becca Panarra There is an excellent solution. Not solar panels, I'm afraid. Nor "wind turbines". Electric energy cannot be stacked like cordwood or coal. The environmental resources needed to store it as hydro power can be computed as so many cubic metres at whatever 'head' - the difference in height between to upper pnd and the lower exit -- is available. Their aren't enough mountains and valleys that we can spare. Nuclear power is the answer, ignore the lies of Amory Lovins, Helen Caldicott, and Mark Z. Jacobson. Three weeks before the disgraceful Chernobyl meltdown, the only civilian one that killed anybody, the second Experimental Breeder Reactor of the IFR project was deliberately and successfully tested for its idiot-proof immunity to meltdown, and it had already proven that it could consume uranium 238, which is the long-lived 95% of so-called "nuclear waste", and the plutonium and other trans-uranics. The USA has a total of less than 80 *_thousand_* tons of not-really-spent nuclear fuel, and less than 4% of that is fission products, which are decaying at rates of which the slowest takes 30 years for half the isotope to decay.

"Electric energy cannot be stacked like cordwood or coal" Your correct, it cannot. But don't underestimate how much less energy is needed if each house has solar panels, even in a country that spans the arctic circle like I live in you get a lot of electricity, in particular during the time when you got your AC running. My point is just, don't dissuade from solar panels, talk about how to improve the effect of them. Btw, we have nuclear power here too, combined with lots of river power, wind and solar. Not a coal or petrol power plant to be seen. Our government is trying to get more and more incentives out so the population can, and wants, to install solar cells on roofs. Diversifying the electricity profile is important to avoid sudden power outages. "Their[sic] aren't enough mountains and valleys that we can spare" Converting water into hydrogen to store electricity is a sane approach on some scales, houses and cars for instance. Proven safer than petrol (at least by the companies that are pioneering the cars and gas containers). As a side benefit, releasing extra oxygen into the atmosphere would (at a drop of water in the ocean level) slightly reduce the green house effect by diluting the CO2 concentration.

Becca Panarra good for you idiot

Do not conflate environmentalism, which I strongly support, with this doomsday cult. CO2 is a trace gas that is essential to all life on the planet. All this attention diverted to it detracts from true environmentalism and does nothing to help the planet. The reason that they came up with the hypothesis in the first place was that man made CO2 is closely tied to human progress and they detest that.

If I had read two climate-related jokes today, this would have been the second funniest.

Nah, it's the atmosphere of Venus that has that big effect. Mercury is much, much closer to the Sun. It's average temp is 354 degrees F.

It will probably surprise you to hear that the earth is closer to the sun during winter (at least in the Northern hemisphere) than it is during summer.

Well, maybe because there is no "climate change" since 1998?

@berndderdrummer Apart from whether climate change is real or not, we currently we live in a world with world-wide deforestation (the lungs of the earth), soil salinity, over population, chem-trails, collapsing eco-systems, biodiversity damage, ice caps melting, the methane problem, the Fukushima disaster, air pollution, bees, butterflies, insect are dwindling due to the use of pesticides & herbicides, 67% of animal species in terminal decline. Over fishing, the poisoning and massive amounts of chemical waste & pollutants of our creeks, rivers & waterways. Countless major oil spills in our oceans, the serious ''micro plastics'' in our oceans and waterways which is finding it's way into the food chain. Corrupt world-wide politicians, rising world crime rates, the mass immigration problem, GMO crops, Also cow 'emissions' more damaging to planet than CO2 from cars, pharmaceutical poisoning, oh, and i forgot to mention ''corparate greed'' ( they have too much to loose MONEY.!!) all these problems are ARE REAL and factual.!!! The list just goes on, personally i don't no what the answer is to these major problems, or what the solutions. If this is not addressed ''big time'' we will all be in dire straits eventually, it's only a matter of time...........

*robert sumners* "Chem-trails" are pseudoscience fiction. They are the product of water in the jet exhaust products and the supersaturation of water dissolved in the atmosphere and the public ignorance of science in general. They are as false as anti-vaccine claims and as stupid as ingesting silver. Your list is otherwise accurate, and demonstrates how difficult it is for Man to overpopulate the Earth well before he understands the consequences of so doing. Every child will have to leave school far more scientifically-aware if he or she expects to not have his or her grandchildren die before them later in life. *bernderdrummer* "no "climate change" since 1998?" - Come out of your cave, Rip Van Winkle. Your drink only gets hot when the ice melts. Go talk to a farmer.

It's not. It's just getting more extreme, but overall it is getting hotter.

The industrial revolution is highly correlated to the growth in CO2, not the amount of people.

The Earth doesn't care if the carbon dioxide level has been tripled or increased by 40%(which it has). If we add more co2, the temperature will increase. Simple.

@@Stwinge44 not by very much at all

@@cidsapient7154 Global temperatures have increased one degree. That is a lot. climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/

@@Stwinge44 Over 90% of warming in Nasa graphs is produced by "corrections", aka Nasa modifying historical temperature records. You don't even have to look further than Nasa and other man-made climate churches, graphs on reports show different temperatures for the same years, continually cooling the past.

"we all know that our planet is on an elliptical orbit, and that it wobbles on its axis," Correct. " ice melts in the north it grows in the south, and visa versa" Must be baffling that both the Artic and Antarctic are melting now then. "tides haven't risen in my 54 years, it has remained the same." Incorrect. climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/sea-level/ "co2 is a natural by product of life" It's also a greenhouse gas. Dumping trillions of tonnes of it into the atmosphere warms the Earth.

@@jimkelleher5312 yes Jim, I do know where Miami is, when you look at the typography, the make up of the land, when you drain swamps to build on , the land dries out and shrinks, and building on sand is and was never a good idea, the areas around the world where sea level is rising is due to land erosion, tides come in and o out twice a day, every time they go out, the water takes certain amounts of the land with it, hence the reason why people who build on sand and near beach will always see the local govt re-sanding beaches, every where else in the world not effected by this the sea level remains the same, and has done every one of my 54 years of going to beaches, if you like living by the sea , erosion or a tsunami will eventually arrive, regards

@@accessaryman You are so completely misinformed. Read this, it sums it up quite well, it was put together by the Army Corp of Engineers, City of Miami, USGS, South Florida Water District and a host of others because the grownups know that they have to plan for future sea level rise. We've seen 9 inches of SLR in the past 100 years for Miami Dade mostly from thermal expansion of the ocean, there is localized subsidence in some areas, but that is LOCAL, the bedrock in the area is porous limestone, not sand, not swamp. Greenland is collapsing as is West Antarctic, with a combined sea level rise already baked in of at least 30' over the next few hundreds of years, you can watch Eric Rignots presentation to the National Acadamies of Science earlier this year for the details. Don't even pretend that you know something that all of these scientists and agencies don't know just because you went to the beach as a kid. www.miamidade.gov/green/library/sea-level-rise-flooding-saltwater-intrusion.pdf

@@jimkelleher5312 when you take every thing into consideration, tectonic plate movement, porous substrates, etc, and you go ahead and build cities on flood prone land, you cant blame any one or any thing for stupidity, we cant go through life with blinder on, research the whole picture, its plain to see, every country has the same problems, yes our climate changes it has done for many many years, you'd think we would learn, control the things we can, accept the things we cant, and adapt to them as they come, regards

@@accessaryman you're reverting to pseudo science that you just made up based on your wildly incomplete understanding of geology and climate. There are courses on this stuff that would inform you, you should take one, there is no excuse for ignorance on this topic in this day and age. www.coursera.org/learn/global-warming

This is only short term effect

We have not enough time to think, only to act now. It's a pascals wager situation. We will benefit from renewable energy, less animal products, circular economy regardless of climate change really existing. So, if we do something and climate change doesn't exist, we still benefit. If we do something and anthropogenic climate change does exist, we don't go extinct. If we do nothing and it doesn't exist, then we might not die out, but we would still have the other problems that would have been solved otherwise. If we do nothing and it exists, then we fucking go extinct.

Alexander Schilcher so, so called renewable energy schemes have been a total bust and are doing more damage to our environment than they are preventing. Wind farms are killing insects, solar panels are doing the same. Preventing light from reaching the soil. The destruction of this eco-system and others by alarmist solutions, will cause all living organism to become extinct long before global warming does. Please explain what renewable energy means to u and how it will benefit ANY ECONOMY, YOU are dreaming..But the solution is already at hand,(to increased cow levels). As technologies for carbon capture and sequestration have advanced to the point where it can be done and ALSO turn a profit for those doing it. The fact that the global warming community has not embraced and celebrated thisachievement, proves their disingenuous motives ,

When did you let your brain cells drop?

All utter tosh... damned hoax and this fool is a disgrace

The prophet Al Gore,the borr

Well put, I believed him until I read this. Spread the word dude!

Another ignorant troll

What does that have to do with this talk? I just watched it and that's not what he said.

+timobrienwells Really, because the last month has been fucking hot as balls here i dont know many people that enjoy spending a day at the beach when its 33+ every day of the week

+J B Sorry about your unpleasant day . But do you believe that paying higher fuel and electricity prices will make your days a lot cooler?

+Thomas Scoville Yes, that's right. The peak Oil pundits were wrong. The point is we will have to pay an extra tax for no reason what so ever.

@timobrienwells : Great outlook you got there. I agree by the way, and I have an anecdote to back it up. This winter, in January, I was out and about doing my regular activities in Sweden. And then suddenly, it started snowing. It snowed more and more, until a whole layer of snow had covered the ground. So there you have it. The scientists try to alarm us about this and that, but I know what I saw that January day - it was most certainly real, cold snow. I rest my case.

A 1 day observation may be interesting, but does it serve the purpose of demonstrating a long term trend?

it does, however richard lindzen, author of this theory, predicted far lower temperatures than observed thus his theory is inaccurate. both the sun AND CO2 are important. since the sun is stable over certain time periods currently it is our CO2 that is the main driver not insolation of cloud cover. kzfaq.info/get/bejne/q82npLt8rbLWd58.html

@@sudazima I'd say CO2 and all the industrial variations of carbon molecules that have been developed in the industrial age and that we do not have a full study on how they react in the atmosphere, over the long term.

How so? Landfalling hurricanes perhaps?

Why not? Do you have a more efficient suggestion?

Sure. Much better at this stage in our technological advancement to increase carbon in our agricultural soils, (something we must do anyway) than eliminate fossil fuels (which will also need to be done, but needs some improvements in the renewables technology). Not to mention the fact that completely eliminating fossil fuel emissions to zero tomorrow will still result in decades to centuries of AGW anyway. It can't solve the problem alone. We still need to sequester the extra already in the atmosphere. But by far there is plenty of room in our highly degraded agricultural soils to hold every bit of the extra CO2 in the atmosphere and restore the balance. So yeah, much more efficient to use well known technologies in agriculture that are even profitable, than to spend insanely vast amounts of money to eliminate cheap energy.

@Red Baron Farm - His solution is revenue neutral (making it viable in Congress) and market-based (making it efficient). Fossil fuels are only cheap because of the $500 billion/year subsidy the world pays outside of the price of the fuels from the pollution, national security, health effects, accidents, ocean acidification and climate change they cause. Putting a fee on the fuels simply accounts for those negative costs to society, and makes fossil fuels compete on a more equal footing with other energy options. Returning all the money collected (minus administration costs of a few percent a year) protects our purchasing power, and the economy. The Citizens' Climate Lobby proposal is to do this with a steadily increasing fee rather than all at once, so the market can do what you say and provide the solutions over time. But the market needs the direction to do so, and something like the clear market signal that making Carbon Fee and Dividend a law is necessary to get us out of the current mess we're in.

Not only did it not open, but a group of activist that wanted to prove man made global warming went into the antic to prove it and got stuck in the ice.

John Clayden reminds me of the patient who told his doctor "if you can't tell me what day lung cancer is going to kill me then I'll just keep smoking "

He never said that.

@@Elite7555 How can increasing CO2 and temperature cause famines . Both are factors that increase crop yields. At best there will be a change in agricultural areas.

Al Gore, the safe word that denialists use when their world view is feeling threatened. Use your world view to explain this nugget from the archives at Exxon, circa 1982. Explain the conspiracy, and discredit the science. Just try. Show use your stuff, show us how smart you are. insideclimatenews.org/sites/default/files/documents/1982%20Exxon%20Primer%20on%20CO2%20Greenhouse%20Effect.pdf

Jim Kelleher Hi Jim. I don’t pretend to be smart, but these two scientists are. It’s a long and very new video. Please watch it. kzfaq.info/get/bejne/jsyCddVotavFp40.html

jason allatt You don’t need to be smart to know that when someone says, “there is no greenhouse effect”, based on an incredibly tiny selection of data, that they’re not credible. Please look more closely at the Connollys’ work, and just have a good think about what they’re saying. Some supposed experts are easy to dismiss, and the Connollys are quite high on the list of charlatans.

Johannes Schaller Clearly you are very smart and have the ability to dismiss there work. Maybe you are right but I guess you don’t know either.

Well Isabel, you apparently think only James Hansen understands science. He seems to know nothing about the influence of the grand solar minimum. Other scientists do. And not everybody with a different opinion is a troll.

@@TheGandorX Hansen mentioned the disparity between sun activity and the continued effect of heat-trapping on warming. If all the scientific institutes in the western world and the Communist states China and Cuba all come to the same conclusion, is that not significant enough?

Alan Blanes There are many scientists who disagree and have done intensive research. This video is long but has an interesting result. Please watch it, it is very interesting. kzfaq.info/get/bejne/jsyCddVotavFp40.html

Only those capable of critical thinking feel that they understand his stupidity. At 7:55, he quotes the equivalent of 40,000 Hiroshima size nuclear bombs a day. Don't eat that Elmer, that's horseshit. 40,000 nukes a day would turn the planet into a ball of molten rock within a year or less. I don't know who's paying this guy, but they need to tell him to be a little more subtle with his BS.

@@alanblanes2876 He claimed that weather would become more extreme. This is a pretty anti-scientific claim given a myriad of recent studies showing the opposite is true, including one done in China. Extreme weather events become more rare as the climate warms and becomes more stable.