Climate Change | Energy | Sustainability | Environment | Transportation | Policy | Buildings

A REALLY Inconvenient Truth: Dan Miller

More videos from this partner:

74
Likes
1
Dislikes
RATE

  • Info
  • Bio
  • Chapters
  • Preview
  • Download
  • Zoom In
Advertisement
There are 119 comments on this program

Please or register to post a comment.
Previous FORAtv comments:
Lloyd Burt Avatar
Lloyd Burt
Posted: 10.22.09, 03:06 AM
Quote: Originally Posted by ClimateCriminal It seems that it is you who has been drinking the Kool-Aid! You are mistaken, a considerable number of scientists consider the 4 degree plus scenario is quite possible and perhaps rather more. Much depends upon future CO2 emissions. The Environmental Change Institute International Climate Conference www.eci.ox.ac.uk/4degrees/index.php LOL, that's all well and good but again...there's not the slightest hint of any real world data that supports any of this. For instance you cite a source that points out that emissions are increasing faster...yet temperatures are going the wrong way. Time and time again the correlation is at the wrong time or absent entirely. Oooh, the last time CO2 levels were this high was millions of years ago when temperatures were substantially higher. Yes...and if that correlation meant ANYTHING AT ALL it wouldn't even be possible for there to be a leveling off of temperatures. Have you even looked at the rates that implies? To reach beyond 4C the rate of increase would have to be so high that it would be impossible for any variation seen so far to cover it up for more than 5 years, much less to see dropping temperatures for a decade. This includes (brace yourself) the "unprecedented" warming of the 80's and 90's. Do you see how messed up that is? This supposed CO2 forcing is an immediate thing. The ONLY delay would be in the time it takes to warm things up. If you instantly doubled CO2, a change would be felt within a day on land. There is no way possible for the environment to be as sensitive as they claim. Large portions of the arctic ice melt every year and there isn't any significant amount of ice more than a couple of decades old. Any feedback from that is already being felt. In greenland it would take tens of thousands of years to melt the ice sheet at current rates and LONG before even 1000 years was up most of the CO2 would have been absorbed by the oceans. The antarctic is actually gaining ice (and oddly, antarctic sea ice has offset arctic sea ice losses...strange for a warming world, ay?) We literally have no verifiable evidence that suggests CO2 is sensitive enough to heat the earth to a total anomaly of about 1C.
ClimateCriminal Avatar
ClimateCriminal
Posted: 10.22.09, 12:57 AM
It seems that it is you who has been drinking the Kool-Aid! You are mistaken, a considerable number of scientists consider the 4 degree plus scenario is quite possible and perhaps rather more. Much depends upon future CO2 emissions. The Environmental Change Institute International Climate Conference www.eci.ox.ac.uk/4degrees/index.php 28-30th September 2009 Subject: Implications of a global climate change of 4+ degrees for people, ecosystems and the earth-system. Environmental Change Institute International Climate Conference Despite 17 years of negotiations since the 1992 Rio Earth Summit, global greenhouse gas emissions have continued to rise. Since 2000 the rates of annual emissions growth have increased at rates at the upper end of the IPCC scenarios, presenting the global community with a stark challenge: either instigate an immediate and radical reversal in existing emission trends or accept global temperature rises well beyond 4°. The immediacy and scale of the reductions necessary to avoid anything below 4°C, and indeed the human and ecosystem implications of living with 4°C, are beyond anything we have been prepared to countenance. Understanding the implications of 4°C and higher temperatures is essential if global society is to make informed choices about the balance between "extreme" rates of mitigation and "extreme" impacts and adaptation costs. Two degrees of warming is considered 'dangerous'. But looking at our current business as usual CO2 emissions trajectory, the predictions for various emissions scenarios, a warming of 4 degrees is considered a real possibility, perhaps more. The presentations are available at http://www.eci.ox.ac.uk/4degrees/dow...stractbook.pdf There are presentation downloadable as mp3 files and pdfs
Lloyd Burt Avatar
Lloyd Burt
Posted: 10.22.09, 12:23 AM
OK, I'm going to point some things out. You'll probably be resistant to these concepts because as with all brainwashed people...you're not aware that you're brainwashed. This video starts with the idea that there are "step changes". Indeed we see these step changes reflected in the temperature record. Fortunately the observed step changes greatly diminish the warming rate. In fact the observed warming rate is actually about .5C to .7C per century after factoring in the step changes. The greatest period of warming ever recorded by man, this "unprecedented warming" you've all been browbeat with by the alarmists (the 80's and 90's) would have only led to about a 2.2C anomaly by 2100 had it continued at that rate. It is true that there are OTHER, more significant step changes. The next stop is deglaciation of the antarctic sheets. Once again, FORTUNATELY we have a rough idea of what temperature this happens at. It takes a WORLD anomaly of over 6C (although the antarctic plateau never gets above -20C). Since we do not have THAT "feedback" we don't have the necessary feedback to get to that temperature. We're in the level (probably cooling) stage of one of those step changes right now, by the way. Now I know...a lot of your people are planning to give me what for with a slew of links about melting ice and various other proxies. BUT you need to realize that YOU HAVE BEEN DUPED! Proxies of temperature (melting ice and such) are indirect measures. Yes, we're stuck using them in the past but in the new we have these fantastic things called "thermometers". Just because some ice continues to melt, that does not mean it's hotter. Global temperatures have been slowly going down in 3 of the 4 main global temperature measures for 11 years and about 7 years for the other. We are at a plateau and falling slightly...just deal with it. In short, this guy is a crackpot since there isn't the slightest hint of real-world evidence that the climate will get remotely close to his doomsday scenario. The politicization of global warming "science" has caused an artificially skewed view through censure and censorship. Indeed, most of you simply ignore anyone presenting ACTUAL data that shows there is no need to be alarmed and reply with your conditioned "see, ice is melting" response.
ClimateCriminal Avatar
ClimateCriminal
Posted: 10.17.09, 02:34 AM
Thanks for the excellent talk. Very chastening and thought-provoking. My only gripe is about the lack of a microphone for the audience.
DannyAstro Avatar
DannyAstro
Posted: 10.16.09, 11:18 AM
To eehervey: Your question is certainly legitimate. The subject of "adaption" to climate change is being discussed quite a bit, though I don't cover it much in my talk. The problem is that adaption will be difficult and expensive -- and perhaps impossible -- if we let the temperature increase by 4, 5, 6C or more. As difficult as it is to imagine, this problem is unlike others we have faced and it can get beyond our control and be impossible to adapt to. That's why, while we still have time, we must do everything we can to limit global warming. If we limit the temperature increase to 2C, which is difficult but not impossible at this point, then we may still have the means to adapt to that hotter world. I am not suggesting that we should wait to plan adaption. We should be planning now, but I think the emphasis should be on drastically reducing carbon emissions and removing CO2 from the atmosphere.
eehervey Avatar
eehervey
Posted: 10.16.09, 06:01 AM
What if climate change was a natural movement and there was absolutely nothing we could do about it? Before I continue, I want to say that I am 100% behind the effort that many organizations are implementing in order to prevent it but one has to ask the question: "what if everything we were doing was just a sign that we have not accepted yet that there are things that we can not control". Because if we imagine that the climate is changing and according to what the scientists are saying, it looks like it is inevitable, shouldn't we start creating things which will help us live correctly when we see it in our daily life? Instead of focussing on trying to stay in what seems to be a situation that is irreversible, why don't we wonder about what should we do in order to be ready when the change will actualize itself? I am extremely surprised that no one has started that discussion yet. Maybe people have but I have not heard them. Isn't it a legitimate question? I thank you in advance for letting me know what you think and I would be more than happy to continue the discussion with you. Have a great day, www.crazyreal.wordpress.com
wscparks Avatar
wscparks
Posted: 09.27.09, 11:11 PM
CO2 is not a problem... see the web site (and others)just search... "nz climate science" (plus many you-tubes) and the hundreds of links for example the USA senate minority report And why no balance in these talks This is bad for fora.com in the end Note: it is really stupid to blame all things on one sided debate by people with hidden agendas
DannyAstro Avatar
DannyAstro
Posted: 09.20.09, 11:47 AM
To OSU_Paul: You and the your linked video make four claims (1) the Earth goes in cycles and this is just one of them, (2) Many scientists dispute CO2's role in warming the earth, (3) The cooling after World War 2 disproves global warming, and (4) in the past, temperature has led CO2 so, therefore, CO2 does not lead to increased temperatures. Regarding #1 (cycles), please see my answer to "deltapeco" above. For #2, please see my answer to Question 4 (Chapter 17) in the above FORA.tv video. In a nutshell, while you can find people with almost any point of view (including people with PhDs), 97% of Climate Scientists basically agree with my talk. Regarding #3, the rapid industrialization after WWII not only increased CO2 but it also increased air pollution that blocked sunlight and that is what caused the cooling. Eventually, clean air policies and additional warming eventually allowed the warming to overtake once again and that is the period we are in. In fact, if we stopped polluting the air tomorrow, global warming temperatures would double almost immediately (from about +1C to +2C). Volcano's and Pollution's ability to cool the earth is the idea behind some Geo-Engineering concepts (see Chapter 12). For #3, temperature did indeed lead CO2 sometimes in the past but, unfortunately for us, that does not mean that CO2 does not lead to increased temperatures. See my answer to "Cosmic Ray" above.
OSU_Paul Avatar
OSU_Paul
Posted: 09.19.09, 10:19 AM
I always enjoy watching these presentations even though i do not agree with half of their material. like others have posted; the earths climate is cyclic. If we were not currently in a warming or cooling phase then something would be seriously wrong. but we just so happen to be in a time period when the earth temperature is warming. it has happened in the past and it will happen again in the future, just the same as cooling trends. i am also getting tired of the 650,000 year co2 vs temp graph being bastardized in these climate presentations. for those that have not seen some of the debunking information on gores presentation their is a decent video on youtube at the following link to give you a quick overview: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XDI2NVTYRXU . something else that erks me about many of these global warming activist are their own co2 footprint. many of the prominent figures lecturing on the warming effects of co2 far exceed co2 emissions when compared to your average consumer. somewhat like an obese person giving you diet tips =/ ... like the presentation but take it with grain of salt.
DannyAstro Avatar
DannyAstro
Posted: 09.18.09, 10:19 PM
To deltapeco: As mentioned above, we are not in a normal cycle now. In fact, due to orbital changes, we should be cooling off slowly now. Instead, we are rapidly heating. Also, we know that the warming is caused by man since we know (roughly) how much fossil fuels we have burned and we know how much CO2 that gave off. We can measure CO2 in the air directly now and can measure previous CO2 levels indirectly (using ice cores). The fact that increased CO2 in the atmosphere causes additional warming is not really debatable since you can measure it in a lab.
Advertisement

Advertisement
FORA.tv ticker
FORA.tv ticker