Why "Global Warming" Failed...
 

& why climate change is real - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5c4XPVPJwBY#t=103

I only watched part of it so far. I'll watch the rest when I get time. I will say, this is the most compelling case I've seen made against the accepted models of climate change.

One significant flaw, however, keeps me from giving it more credence. This "pause in global warming" he talks about - there hasn't been a pause in global warming. It's true that surface temperatures are rising less quickly than they were. But that's just surface temperature data, and regardless, it's still rising. If you listen to this guy, he doesn't actually deny that.

However, much more importantly, this variation in surface temperature data hasn't been mirrored by a decrease in rise of ocean levels or polar ice melt. Which leads to one conclusion - it's still getting a lot warmer and our oceans are absorbing more of that heat than the surface.

While that may sound like the Earth taking care of everything for us, as this guy suggests, it is not. Ocean temperature rise is the far more critical issue with regard to human habitability of the planet.

After you watch the whole video, please comment again. I think he will respond to any questions I email him.

Ya lost me with John Coleman DJ. :rolleyes: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Co..._weathercaster)

Why? - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Co..._weathercaster)

I will if I get a chance. Thought, honestly, I don't have any questions for him - other than to ask "why are you mischaracterizing the current data as suggesting a 'pause' in global warming when there clearly is none?" But, I mean, we know the answer, and it's one he's not likely to offer himself: he has an agenda.

He uses this alleged "pause" as the basis for his whole argument (as far as I've gotten). He shows, accurately, that CO2 and temperature have moved in lock step, but says it has all changed for the first time in observable history. As evidence he offers the "pause" that hasn't happened. So, I mean...

You need to watch it to the end. He responds to that exact assumption.

Because he knew people would come to that conclusion? (Like they always do.)

He's an anthropogenic climate change denier.

He never says that the climate isn't changing.

The operative word in my sentence is 'anthropogenic'.

Whatever.

OK 40 minutes of my life I will never get back. My descendants will have one two worlds to inherent. One with climate change or one without. I would rather have them think me silly to believe then a fool for not! Really just start a car in a closed garage and see just how fast it stinks up. Not long and you open the door. Why is that you wounder, because it has an effect.

After all I'm old enough to remember a time not so long ago when smoking was considered safe by experts. DDT beneficial I could go on and on with examples of junk science to support reasons that proved to be wrong.

This is a prime example of a having a point of view already and finding ""facts"" to support it. Not the way true science works.


Barney

I watch this guy's space weather report in the morning. It is fascinating. Not to say I agree with him on everything.

Until the agenda 21 folks start talking about the clear failures of their models I give them no credence whatsoever.

Pete