The question isn't even if humans affect the climate, the question is how we're gonna manage the concentration of gases in the athmosphere. Carbondioxide and methane are basic compounds needed for our life-forms to exist on earth. And I say manage because we must manipulate it if we continue to manipulate the crops, the cattle and all other things that are a major part of the circle of chemistry. There's little natural about human agriculture.
Correction: Britain used to be a tropical area. Then, as it moved northwards, it changed. It was pushed beneath the ocean, giving us Cretaceous chalk deposits, moving further and further north before reaching the area it is today.
Ooooh, good one... for a grade schooler Johnny boy. As for me personally: - I do not own a car. When I need a ride I carpool with several other people. - I have fully supported my community's local recycling program, seperating my trash is almost second nature for me. - I reuse the plastic bags from my shopping, they happen to fit my trash cans perfectly. - The most power I use in my apartment goes to three things: my computer, my fridge, and the heater. So, mighty Thm, can you top that?
I'm happy the BBC does give him a platform. At least there's something there to counterbalance our rabid, vulgar, irresponsible and infantile right-wing press.
I know its thought that there may have been 7 natural earth cycles but we can speed this up and change the balance which allows the earth to change. Releasing to much of 1 thing in the atmosphere can cripple the cycle of life.
Excuse me, is there something wrong with resource conservation? A idea that might help prevent a few wars by just embargoing certain irate oil-producing countries?
even if global warming is a swindle, there is nothing wrong with wanting to change things for the better, to be more efficient, and be grateful of the world we live in. when it comes down to it, we have a choice between doing nothing, or doing something. And i know i'm not going to sit around and do nothing
I've seen videos here that were up to ten mintues in the past. I am interested in the paper as there is probably no way I'd sit through more then one video you've put together if this is how you argue a serious world issue. As for who I am... who I am is not important. I'm just a guy who wants you to knock it off so he can go back to enjoying his Brigstocke. Thank you and good night.
"Lindzen hypothesized that the Earth may act like an infrared iris; increased sea surface temperature in the tropics would result in reduced cirrus clouds and thus more infrared radiation leakage from Earth's atmosphere. This hypothesis suggests a negative feedback which would counter the effects of CO2 warming by lowering the climate sensitivity. Satellite data from CERES has led researchers investigating Lindzen's theory to conclude that the Iris effect would instead warm the atmosphere."
1.That's the background radiation from C14 (a radioisotope that is incorporated into the global CO2 pool in the upper levels of the atmosphere by cosmic radiation). 2.You breath out b/c the levels of CO2 in your blood rise when you oxidize carbon-based fuels to CO2; also, increases in H+ concentrations in the blood feed into the bicarbonate buffer system that releases H2O(l) CO2(g) when a HCO3-(aq) ion and a H+ (aq) react to stabilize blood pH. btw, I did a PhD in this science (ref. earlier post
And I'll say it again. For the person who suggests we all have a cup of tea, put on a Cat Stevens record, sit down, and chill out; I have to respect your desire to enjoy this without the politics involved.
Sigh. I said that I support/agree with what they say. At no point did I say I "follow" Buddhism. I do not derive my morality from buddhism. I had a fairly similar system before I even heard of the 5 precepts, but as I said, I still support part of what it says, as it reflects my moral system which I already had in place. Do I need to clarify it even further for you?
"Doing something" **wrong** is worse than doing nothing. And when you don't know what's right, then "Do anything!" is a recipe for disaster. Throwing water on an electrical fire, for example, is dangerous. If you don't understand it, the best rule is usually "don't futz with it" until you do understand it. All the "solutions" for GW involve lots and lots of money, which likely will be better spent dealing with problems once clear than trying to actually prevent them.
I do of course believe that we must invest in renewable sources of energy as fossil fuels are not sustainable but you need to be practical and realistic, not just righteously idealistic
GR8 IT'S CREATING A DISCOURSE..ISN'T that a good thing? Likewise many climatologists argue that climate models are flawed...I have read the info on greyfalcon and I look forward to reading the response from other climatologists who take an opposing view
You already gave me one and it DOES read like a prefab reply. It also goes against several accepted truths regarding plant biology and seems to completely ignore both the health issues regarding pollution and the social-economic issues regarding the extraction of oil and the centeralization of distribution.
You don't own a car, and when you need a ride you scrounge a lift from someone who has one? That's a great plan! If everyone did that we'd be sorted in no time.
I was referring to the ice caps. I appreciate that solar power technology has improved but it is still not a viable alternative and is relatively more expensive to implement, something the 3rd world can hardly afford.
@MMGWsceptic I expressed myself badly. Sorry. People like Marcus are invaluable; they help spread the word about where we are going wrong in our lives. It's true that his actions have the appearance of hypocrisy; but were he to stop, his message would also stop. In my view, he's paying far more than the going rate for his carbon consumption. It's the inequity of the true cost of the average aristocrat's private jet, or the holidaymaker's 'cheap' weekend flight abroad - these cost us the planet.
We are at less of a high than the mideval warm period and so our fluctuation is not out of the earths normal trends. During the time of the vikings, they grew sizeable amounts of wheat in greenland, a place that now is mostly covered in frozen trundra. Climate change is natural.
The head of scientific research in the Antarctic argues that there is not a global catastrophe and the Antarctic ice caps are not diminishing. As far as I'm aware there is not any solid evidence that the arctic ice has melted more today than at other periods of Earth's history.
Honestly, given the choice between coal/oil/gas plants and nuclear (fission) plants, I'd take the nukes every time. I once heard a Greenpeace spokesman say that they opposed nuclear fusion on the grounds that the technology wasn't well developed. Basically, Greenpeace are now rubbish because they want social progress to stagnate. Bah.
If you can provide me with peer reviewed journal I would be grateful, I've seen this kind of material too often from Creationists/NWO conspiracists so getting it from a peer reviewed source would bring more credibility.
ah the precautionary principle hey? This never takes into account the costs of not using fossil fuels, namely keeping the 3rd world in poverty by denying these people the right to electricity.
well the feedback from people that work in the industry and have collectivly over 50 yrs experience is that it is far too expensive, especially for the 3rd world and to generate that kind of power u would need to cover practically every dessert in the world with solar panels. This may well actually increase global temperature as it reflects heat and light rom the sun back into the atmosphere where it would otherwise be absorbed.
I've actually read his summary and his predictions for the buildup of plant matter (his reasoning for why this is nothing to worry about) are off in that he forgot that plants consume some oxygen in a few of their biological processes. Don't believe me? Well, try fishing in a algea choked pond sometime. This completely ignores other issues, such as the semi-recent link between air pollution and lung cancer and the social-political aspects of oil and fossil fuels.
From Bridstocke's Independent interview on travel: "I went to the Maldives the year before last… I've also holiday in Mallorca with family and friends.. I went to China for a brief working visit.. thought Shanghai was interesting.. Beijing grabbed me. My son, sister, niece and I were sea kayaking in Mexico.. Worst hotel? Varadero, Cuba. Favourite city? New York. It's a got great restaurants.. I'll be performing at the Volvo comedy fest in Mayrhofen, Austria, 4-9 April HYPOCRITE
Climate Change has been proven to be a very real thing. Whether or not we have done something to screw around with this may still be debateable but as Brigstocke said, would it kill us to use less electricity or drive smaller cars?
@pendantry "I rarely fly" ?? In the same article he lists just a few of his favourite foreign holiday destinations including: The Maldives, Mallorca, Bejing, Shanghai, Kayaking in Mexico, Varadero in Cuba, New York and skiing in Val d'Isere. And he says he planning a long holiday to India. And this guy has the nerve to tell poor people they need to reduce their travel? "Cherry picking"? There's a veritable orchard of hypocrisy to pick from.
Not caused by man? Evidence? Regardless of whether we are causing all of it, which we are not, the undeniable fact remains that we are contributing a hell of a lot towards it.
Yes really!!If u actually watched the program you would have noticed that it's focus wasn't whether humans produce CO2, but whether increased levels of CO2 have caused the small increase in global temperature we have seen over the last 100 yrs.
Yeah but his wager lacks the many fallacies that Pascal's has. Pascal's wager assumes there are only two possibilities - that the Christian god exists or that he doesn't. Yet it could be that some other god(s) exist(s) rather than him. In Marcus' wager there truly are only two possibilities - that AGW exists or that it doesn't. Also, we actually have some evidence to back up AGW and it is overwhelmingly supported over alternative views.
The reason Britain used to be a desert is because it used to be near the equator! Have you never heard of plate tectonics? Pangea? All land was once in the southern hemisphere, and before that, it was two supercontinents of roughly equal size.
I still do believe that the Earth's temperature goes up and down every few hundred thousand years or so, because of volcanic activity. Now, that makes me sound like a scientologist. =P
Yeah, I'll admit I was smug. But that's because I've been arguing with JonThm for several pages now. My comment was in reply to something he said about "dedicating his life to studying this issue" and some crack about doing more about it then some guy who "only changes his underwear." I'm sorry, but a comment that immature deserved a snarky reply.
-I know about the natural fusion in the sun, but I didn't think the same applied to water given the different conditions on Earth- It doesn't. The natural fusion in the sun creates plasma, a state of matter which cannot exist on Earth without being able to simulate the conditions of the sun... I don't think I need to list the problems with that. What he's describing sounds more like the natural kinetic motion of water. Which we have been tapping since the second world war if not earlier.
I do not believe in God. Therefore I am Atheist. There is no other requirement to meet the specification. I am only Buddhist to the extent that I agree with the 5 precepts. I am Buddhist in no other way. By that logic, I am also partly Christian, Hindu, Taoist, Humanist and many more, some of which are unknown to me. I support the Buddhist ideas of morality, not their spiritual beliefs.
Often u hear phrases like the science is done and dusted...we simply don't have a comprehensive knowledge of how the climate works and cannot make such statements with any authority
I was comparing your tactics to those of a creationist, not calling you a creationist. Anyway, maybe you should do a little research. All it takes is a wikipedia search to find the following statement: "Environmental groups, many governmental reports, and the non-U.S. media often state that there is virtually unanimous agreement in the scientific community in support of human-caused global warming, although there is less agreement on the specific consequences of this warming"
@duck24x The climate is a chaotic system that cannot be modelled. It's impossible to know the intial values of all the variables - so any iterative model will accumulate errors and produce meaningless results. Witness the failure of all GCMs to predict the lack of warming this century (despite increasing CO2) and the UK MET office decision to give up seasonal forecasts. If they can't predict weather a month from now why should we believe their predictions of weather 50 years from now?
I was reading an excellent Rod Liddle blog on him and had never heard him so thought I would check him out. I now realise that his fans are just as narrow minded as he is, and maybe less funny (not sure that that would be possible). Foe the last few years the left-wing politicaly correct types have denied myself and others any voice at all, we have been shouted down at every opportunity, now the boot is on the other foot, the lefties don't like it up 'em.
the only problem i have with global warming is people saying to me "save the planet". Global warming is happening but the planet is fine. The people are fucked. The planet will exist without humanity.
greyflcn, watched this "fantastic" debunk and was un impressed by it. I love the way he tries to explain the apparent disparity between global temperature increase and industrial activity in 20th century by global dimming...talk about clutching at straws!!!
I should make myself absolutely clear now: I do not follow any rigid form of morality. I support the idea of SOME areas of Buddhism and SOME areas of christianity. However, I make decisions based on the situation at hand. I do not believe there is such a thing as a God. I do not believe in reincarnation. I do not believe in Nirvana. I do not believe the Buddha was anything more than a man with some good ideas. Same for Jesus, if he existed.
I do, and have. I don't think you're seriously expecting detailed geological analysis and reports in a youtube comment. So, you clearly aren't that interested in finding the answer to the questions you've raised are you? No. Thought not.
if he wldnt rape seal or murder cos he wldnt like to be raped, stolen i presume or murdered then he doesnt like oral sex cos he wldnt giv it to someone else so saying u wldnt doing sumthin cos u wldnt want it done to u is a shite point!
No they did not LIE. Other scientists can question their methodology or use of stastistics (as is normal)...that's debate my friend! That's the process whereby people exchange theories in order to broaden human understanding.
How old is this? Watt for Watt, Solar is now cheaper than Coal -- its the cost of installation that's the rub ... for details, Google: Nanosolar Cheaper than Coal ...
Ok all you guys who are going on and on about religion .... who cares. Not who cares about religion because alot do just no one cares at this moment i'm to busy laughing at this guy!! Marcus is hilarious!!!!!!!!
Buddhism has nothing to say on the subject of God. I follow parts of buddhism (like the 5 precepts) and parts of christianity (treat others as you would be treated yourself). There is no confusion whatsoever.
I am not a scientist but it seems reasonable to me that the Sun has a far greater impact on climate than man made CO2 which constitutes less than 00.1 percent of the worlds atmosphere and is a relatively minor greenhouse gas. I disagree that Durkin's documentary is pathetic as it raises some very interesting questions about what drives climate a debate that sadly has been stifled in recent years.
Do I smell sarcasm? Yes, if everyone carpooled then we will get this sorted out. My example was a little more extreme then most but then I'm still in college, what do you want? =P
@MMGWsceptic I think you'd be hard-pressed to find anyone who is able to be avoid some accusation of hypocrisy, given that the problem is a direct result of the way our society is structured. Any successful person in this borked system has little choice but to travel widely. The alternative is, what, stop doing it? Personally, I think there's little more useless than a failed internationally-famous comedian. Me, I'm glad he's done something to counter the rampant denialism - like yours.
It's OK. Though I wouldn't call it fantastic as the presenter makes a lot of logical falacies himself. I do note that he also didn't have anything to say about the upper atmosphere temperature data, another key piece of data.
Instead of issuing insults, try actually ANSWERING the question. Check out any site on paleoclimatology. There is loads of evidence showing that global temperatures rise and fall all the time in response to Milankovitch Cycles. We are currently in one of the COOLEST periods in Earth's history! Temperatures are rising because the Ice Age is ending.
really you could say save humanity since that is what is at stake. Then again you get people like myself who think "FUCK THEM". we need to be saved but do we deserve to be huh huh? (to be said with a 1960's american cop show inflexion) i don't think so.
you miss the point completely. take for example our fuel crises. we need to shift towards greener fuels, because they are renewable. And one day we will all have to make a choice about whether we change or not. And you'll be one of those people who wont be able to drive your car because you didn't do something.
brigstock hits the nail on the head. its telling that the uk comedians are generally both atheistic and scientifically rational. being bonkers or in abject denial about reality is just not very funny. i dont know one religious comedian. comedy is always on the side of the rational. its a shame weve also got a spineless tabloid media, feeding the denial of the low brow, car addled masses.
I'm usually a big fan of Marcus's comedy but 2 minutes into this video I'm struck by the total lack of understanding which he is demonstrating towards the arguments made by those who are sceptical of this current fad. This really is quite a silly video.
@duck24x Evidence comes from observation of the real world, not computer models and equations. The idea that you could fully model the massively complex and chaotic climate with a couple of fluid motion equations is pure nonsense - as proved by the failure of models to predict cooling this century and the MET office's recent decision to give up making seasonal forecasts because they were always wrong and made they had become a national joke.
The question isn't even if humans affect the climate, the question is how we're gonna manage the concentration of gases in the athmosphere. Carbondioxide and methane are basic compounds needed for our life-forms to exist on earth. And I say manage because we must manipulate it if we continue to manipulate the crops, the cattle and all other things that are a major part of the circle of chemistry. There's little natural about human agriculture.
There's a lot of highly intelligent comedians who speak a lot of sense. Marcus is definitely one of them.
Awesome. He's so damn candid it's inspiring. Probably one of the few people who could come out of a Jeremy Paxman interview with a smile on his face.
Seven years on, and whaddaya know, Marcus was spot on! Whoda thunk.... well, anyone with a brain for a start.
never, ever take a fucking chill pill, marcus
your abstinence from the chill pill is what makes you brilliant.
Good for you, Marcus!
Correction: Britain used to be a tropical area. Then, as it moved northwards, it changed. It was pushed beneath the ocean, giving us Cretaceous chalk deposits, moving further and further north before reaching the area it is today.
Ooooh, good one... for a grade schooler Johnny boy.
As for me personally:
- I do not own a car. When I need a ride I carpool with several other people.
- I have fully supported my community's local recycling program, seperating my trash is almost second nature for me.
- I reuse the plastic bags from my shopping, they happen to fit my trash cans perfectly.
- The most power I use in my apartment goes to three things: my computer, my fridge, and the heater.
So, mighty Thm, can you top that?
My thoughts exactly, THANK YOU!
I'm happy the BBC does give him a platform. At least there's something there to counterbalance our rabid, vulgar, irresponsible and infantile right-wing press.
I know its thought that there may have been 7 natural earth cycles but we can speed this up and change the balance which allows the earth to change. Releasing to much of 1 thing in the atmosphere can cripple the cycle of life.
Why must I be on one side or the other? All I want is an open, objective discussion on the science of the issue.
Excuse me, is there something wrong with resource conservation? A idea that might help prevent a few wars by just embargoing certain irate oil-producing countries?
even if global warming is a swindle, there is nothing wrong with wanting to change things for the better, to be more efficient, and be grateful of the world we live in.
when it comes down to it, we have a choice between doing nothing, or doing something. And i know i'm not going to sit around and do nothing
finally a voice of reason...nice 1 Dave
I've seen videos here that were up to ten mintues in the past. I am interested in the paper as there is probably no way I'd sit through more then one video you've put together if this is how you argue a serious world issue.
As for who I am... who I am is not important. I'm just a guy who wants you to knock it off so he can go back to enjoying his Brigstocke. Thank you and good night.
"Remember the good old days when bulbs were round and not curly!"
lol
It was only thirty yrs ago climatologists were convinced we were about to go into an Ice Age
"Lindzen hypothesized that the Earth may act like an infrared iris; increased sea surface temperature in the tropics would result in reduced cirrus clouds and thus more infrared radiation leakage from Earth's atmosphere. This hypothesis suggests a negative feedback which would counter the effects of CO2 warming by lowering the climate sensitivity. Satellite data from CERES has led researchers investigating Lindzen's theory to conclude that the Iris effect would instead warm the atmosphere."
this guy is GREAT.
Interesting how the believers seem to want to boo out any conflicting opinion even if its posted civilly isn't it?
Good point.
@Socaine If you're serious about your ice question, I suggest the BBC documentary 'Earth: The Power of The Planet'.
1.That's the background radiation from C14 (a radioisotope that is incorporated into the global CO2 pool in the upper levels of the atmosphere by cosmic radiation).
2.You breath out b/c the levels of CO2 in your blood rise when you oxidize carbon-based fuels to CO2; also, increases in H+ concentrations in the blood feed into the bicarbonate buffer system that releases H2O(l) CO2(g) when a HCO3-(aq) ion and a H+ (aq) react to stabilize blood pH. btw, I did a PhD in this science (ref. earlier post
May I ask where you got your information from? Is it from a reputable source? I would like to know.
FUCK YEAH! This guy absolutely tells it like it is.
And I'll say it again. For the person who suggests we all have a cup of tea, put on a Cat Stevens record, sit down, and chill out; I have to respect your desire to enjoy this without the politics involved.
It was added 16th March 2007
Sigh.
I said that I support/agree with what they say. At no point did I say I "follow" Buddhism.
I do not derive my morality from buddhism. I had a fairly similar system before I even heard of the 5 precepts, but as I said, I still support part of what it says, as it reflects my moral system which I already had in place.
Do I need to clarify it even further for you?
"Doing something" **wrong** is worse than doing nothing. And when you don't know what's right, then "Do anything!" is a recipe for disaster. Throwing water on an electrical fire, for example, is dangerous. If you don't understand it, the best rule is usually "don't futz with it" until you do understand it.
All the "solutions" for GW involve lots and lots of money, which likely will be better spent dealing with problems once clear than trying to actually prevent them.
I do of course believe that we must invest in renewable sources of energy as fossil fuels are not sustainable but you need to be practical and realistic, not just righteously idealistic
GR8 IT'S CREATING A DISCOURSE..ISN'T that a good thing? Likewise many climatologists argue that climate models are flawed...I have read the info on greyfalcon and I look forward to reading the response from other climatologists who take an opposing view
You already gave me one and it DOES read like a prefab reply. It also goes against several accepted truths regarding plant biology and seems to completely ignore both the health issues regarding pollution and the social-economic issues regarding the extraction of oil and the centeralization of distribution.
And now they've gone back to saying it isn't happening.
You don't own a car, and when you need a ride you scrounge a lift from someone who has one?
That's a great plan! If everyone did that we'd be sorted in no time.
I was referring to the ice caps. I appreciate that solar power technology has improved but it is still not a viable alternative and is relatively more expensive to implement, something the 3rd world can hardly afford.
@MMGWsceptic I expressed myself badly. Sorry. People like Marcus are invaluable; they help spread the word about where we are going wrong in our lives. It's true that his actions have the appearance of hypocrisy; but were he to stop, his message would also stop. In my view, he's paying far more than the going rate for his carbon consumption. It's the inequity of the true cost of the average aristocrat's private jet, or the holidaymaker's 'cheap' weekend flight abroad - these cost us the planet.
We are at less of a high than the mideval warm period and so our fluctuation is not out of the earths normal trends. During the time of the vikings, they grew sizeable amounts of wheat in greenland, a place that now is mostly covered in frozen trundra. Climate change is natural.
The head of scientific research in the Antarctic argues that there is not a global catastrophe and the Antarctic ice caps are not diminishing. As far as I'm aware there is not any solid evidence that the arctic ice has melted more today than at other periods of Earth's history.
Honestly, given the choice between coal/oil/gas plants and nuclear (fission) plants, I'd take the nukes every time. I once heard a Greenpeace spokesman say that they opposed nuclear fusion on the grounds that the technology wasn't well developed.
Basically, Greenpeace are now rubbish because they want social progress to stagnate. Bah.
If you can provide me with peer reviewed journal I would be grateful, I've seen this kind of material too often from Creationists/NWO conspiracists so getting it from a peer reviewed source would bring more credibility.
ah the precautionary principle hey? This never takes into account the costs of not using fossil fuels, namely keeping the 3rd world in poverty by denying these people the right to electricity.
Yeah these people r complaining to Ofcom!!!? So much for open and honest scientific debate!!!
well the feedback from people that work in the industry and have collectivly over 50 yrs experience is that it is far too expensive, especially for the 3rd world and to generate that kind of power u would need to cover practically every dessert in the world with solar panels. This may well actually increase global temperature as it reflects heat and light rom the sun back into the atmosphere where it would otherwise be absorbed.
@getjiggy21 Source?
I've actually read his summary and his predictions for the buildup of plant matter (his reasoning for why this is nothing to worry about) are off in that he forgot that plants consume some oxygen in a few of their biological processes. Don't believe me? Well, try fishing in a algea choked pond sometime.
This completely ignores other issues, such as the semi-recent link between air pollution and lung cancer and the social-political aspects of oil and fossil fuels.
From Bridstocke's Independent interview on travel:
"I went to the Maldives the year before last… I've also holiday in Mallorca with family and friends.. I went to China for a brief working visit.. thought Shanghai was interesting.. Beijing grabbed me. My son, sister, niece and I were sea kayaking in Mexico.. Worst hotel? Varadero, Cuba. Favourite city? New York. It's a got great restaurants..
I'll be performing at the Volvo comedy fest in Mayrhofen, Austria, 4-9 April
HYPOCRITE
Climate Change has been proven to be a very real thing. Whether or not we have done something to screw around with this may still be debateable but as Brigstocke said, would it kill us to use less electricity or drive smaller cars?
@pendantry "I rarely fly" ?? In the same article he lists just a few of his favourite foreign holiday destinations including: The Maldives, Mallorca, Bejing, Shanghai, Kayaking in Mexico, Varadero in Cuba, New York and skiing in Val d'Isere. And he says he planning a long holiday to India.
And this guy has the nerve to tell poor people they need to reduce their travel?
"Cherry picking"? There's a veritable orchard of hypocrisy to pick from.
Not caused by man? Evidence? Regardless of whether we are causing all of it, which we are not, the undeniable fact remains that we are contributing a hell of a lot towards it.
No..that just amounts to petty character assassination which is hardly a constructive basis on which to have a debate.
Yes really!!If u actually watched the program you would have noticed that it's focus wasn't whether humans produce CO2, but whether increased levels of CO2 have caused the small increase in global temperature we have seen over the last 100 yrs.
Yeah but his wager lacks the many fallacies that Pascal's has.
Pascal's wager assumes there are only two possibilities - that the Christian god exists or that he doesn't. Yet it could be that some other god(s) exist(s) rather than him. In Marcus' wager there truly are only two possibilities - that AGW exists or that it doesn't.
Also, we actually have some evidence to back up AGW and it is overwhelmingly supported over alternative views.
he's infuriatingly right.
The reason Britain used to be a desert is because it used to be near the equator! Have you never heard of plate tectonics? Pangea? All land was once in the southern hemisphere, and before that, it was two supercontinents of roughly equal size.
I still do believe that the Earth's temperature goes up and down every few hundred thousand years or so, because of volcanic activity.
Now, that makes me sound like a scientologist. =P
Yeah, I'll admit I was smug. But that's because I've been arguing with JonThm for several pages now. My comment was in reply to something he said about "dedicating his life to studying this issue" and some crack about doing more about it then some guy who "only changes his underwear." I'm sorry, but a comment that immature deserved a snarky reply.
-I know about the natural fusion in the sun, but I didn't think the same applied to water given the different conditions on Earth-
It doesn't. The natural fusion in the sun creates plasma, a state of matter which cannot exist on Earth without being able to simulate the conditions of the sun... I don't think I need to list the problems with that.
What he's describing sounds more like the natural kinetic motion of water. Which we have been tapping since the second world war if not earlier.
Source?
This guy is great! And I'm an American! Ha Ha Ha!
HAHA i would like to see him PM, his ideas are great!
I do not believe in God. Therefore I am Atheist.
There is no other requirement to meet the specification.
I am only Buddhist to the extent that I agree with the 5 precepts. I am Buddhist in no other way. By that logic, I am also partly Christian, Hindu, Taoist, Humanist and many more, some of which are unknown to me.
I support the Buddhist ideas of morality, not their spiritual beliefs.
Often u hear phrases like the science is done and dusted...we simply don't have a comprehensive knowledge of how the climate works and cannot make such statements with any authority
I was comparing your tactics to those of a creationist, not calling you a creationist.
Anyway, maybe you should do a little research. All it takes is a wikipedia search to find the following statement:
"Environmental groups, many governmental reports, and the non-U.S. media often state that there is virtually unanimous agreement in the scientific community in support of human-caused global warming, although there is less agreement on the specific consequences of this warming"
i concurrrrrrrrrr
@duck24x The climate is a chaotic system that cannot be modelled. It's impossible to know the intial values of all the variables - so any iterative model will accumulate errors and produce meaningless results.
Witness the failure of all GCMs to predict the lack of warming this century (despite increasing CO2) and the UK MET office decision to give up seasonal forecasts. If they can't predict weather a month from now why should we believe their predictions of weather 50 years from now?
Even though he says it with a whining tone everything he says has some degree of meaning to it
Looooook it up superfreak........... stop depending on other people to tell you how to think, and start thinking.
I was reading an excellent Rod Liddle blog on him and had never heard him so thought I would check him out. I now realise that his fans are just as narrow minded as he is, and maybe less funny (not sure that that would be possible).
Foe the last few years the left-wing politicaly correct types have denied myself and others any voice at all, we have been shouted down at every opportunity, now the boot is on the other foot, the lefties don't like it up 'em.
the only problem i have with global warming is people saying to me "save the planet". Global warming is happening but the planet is fine. The people are fucked. The planet will exist without humanity.
haha - made me chuckle
I disagree with Marcus on eating Cheddar. (then again I am allergic to the stuff so I have some degree of validity there).
greyflcn, watched this "fantastic" debunk and was un impressed by it. I love the way he tries to explain the apparent disparity between global temperature increase and industrial activity in 20th century by global dimming...talk about clutching at straws!!!
how come you don't agree with him?
I should make myself absolutely clear now: I do not follow any rigid form of morality. I support the idea of SOME areas of Buddhism and SOME areas of christianity. However, I make decisions based on the situation at hand. I do not believe there is such a thing as a God. I do not believe in reincarnation. I do not believe in Nirvana. I do not believe the Buddha was anything more than a man with some good ideas. Same for Jesus, if he existed.
I do, and have. I don't think you're seriously expecting detailed geological analysis and reports in a youtube comment. So, you clearly aren't that interested in finding the answer to the questions you've raised are you? No. Thought not.
if he wldnt rape seal or murder cos he wldnt like to be raped, stolen i presume or murdered then he doesnt like oral sex cos he wldnt giv it to someone else so saying u wldnt doing sumthin cos u wldnt want it done to u is a shite point!
No they did not LIE. Other scientists can question their methodology or use of stastistics (as is normal)...that's debate my friend! That's the process whereby people exchange theories in order to broaden human understanding.
Take a chill pill Marcus!
How old is this? Watt for Watt, Solar is now cheaper than Coal -- its the cost of installation that's the rub ... for details, Google: Nanosolar Cheaper than Coal ...
Ok all you guys who are going on and on about religion .... who cares. Not who cares about religion because alot do just no one cares at this moment i'm to busy laughing at this guy!!
Marcus is hilarious!!!!!!!!
Buddhism has nothing to say on the subject of God. I follow parts of buddhism (like the 5 precepts) and parts of christianity (treat others as you would be treated yourself).
There is no confusion whatsoever.
marcus rules!!!
well im cold...lol
Nothing to gain Marcus? Tell that to the government which has pounced on this craze as an opportunity for more taxing.
ElveeKaye,
Is stupidity painful?
I am not a scientist but it seems reasonable to me that the Sun has a far greater impact on climate than man made CO2 which constitutes less than 00.1 percent of the worlds atmosphere and is a relatively minor greenhouse gas. I disagree that Durkin's documentary is pathetic as it raises some very interesting questions about what drives climate a debate that sadly has been stifled in recent years.
Do I smell sarcasm? Yes, if everyone carpooled then we will get this sorted out. My example was a little more extreme then most but then I'm still in college, what do you want? =P
So scientists that have not studied the issue agree with you? Some scientists, considering that's what they're paid for, studying.
Er, You're thinking of OFTEL (Tel stands for Telecommunications)
@MMGWsceptic
I eat meat but I eat food that is suitable for vegetarians. I'm a hypocrite.
@MMGWsceptic I think you'd be hard-pressed to find anyone who is able to be avoid some accusation of hypocrisy, given that the problem is a direct result of the way our society is structured. Any successful person in this borked system has little choice but to travel widely. The alternative is, what, stop doing it? Personally, I think there's little more useless than a failed internationally-famous comedian. Me, I'm glad he's done something to counter the rampant denialism - like yours.
It's OK. Though I wouldn't call it fantastic as the presenter makes a lot of logical falacies himself. I do note that he also didn't have anything to say about the upper atmosphere temperature data, another key piece of data.
Instead of issuing insults, try actually ANSWERING the question. Check out any site on paleoclimatology. There is loads of evidence showing that global temperatures rise and fall all the time in response to Milankovitch Cycles. We are currently in one of the COOLEST periods in Earth's history! Temperatures are rising because the Ice Age is ending.
really you could say save humanity since that is what is at stake. Then again you get people like myself who think "FUCK THEM". we need to be saved but do we deserve to be huh huh? (to be said with a 1960's american cop show inflexion) i don't think so.
Sigh... you are big brother.
you miss the point completely.
take for example our fuel crises. we need to shift towards greener fuels, because they are renewable.
And one day we will all have to make a choice about whether we change or not. And you'll be one of those people who wont be able to drive your car because you didn't do something.
brigstock hits the nail on the head.
its telling that the uk comedians are generally both atheistic and scientifically rational. being bonkers or in abject denial about reality is just not very funny. i dont know one religious comedian. comedy is always on the side of the rational.
its a shame weve also got a spineless tabloid media, feeding the denial of the low brow, car addled masses.
I'm usually a big fan of Marcus's comedy but 2 minutes into this video I'm struck by the total lack of understanding which he is demonstrating towards the arguments made by those who are sceptical of this current fad. This really is quite a silly video.
@duck24x Evidence comes from observation of the real world, not computer models and equations. The idea that you could fully model the massively complex and chaotic climate with a couple of fluid motion equations is pure nonsense - as proved by the failure of models to predict cooling this century and the MET office's recent decision to give up making seasonal forecasts because they were always wrong and made they had become a national joke.