‘Global warming phantom menace, Kyoto costs & hurts a lot’

France, Japan and China have lashed out at Canada for pulling out of the 1997 Kyoto climate change agreement. The move, which was legal and expected, came as the country said the accord hampered its development. Peter Lilley, a Conservative MP in Britain is sympathetic, saying these commitments are enormously expensive investments in a very uncertain future. RT on Twitter twitter.com RT on Facebook www.facebook.com

You hear it from poorly informed climate deniers all the time. Global warming they say, is entirely based on a “hockey stick” graph – it’s a simple minded correlation of temperatures and co2 rise. Well, no it’s not. Support this series at www.climatecrocks.com Links and supporting material Richard Alley speech at Penn State www.youtube.com Richard Alley on Capitol Hill www.youtube.com www.youtube.com More on the “Hockey Stick” www.youtube.com www.skepticalscience.com Hockey Sticks from numerous sources www.skepticalscience.com thinkprogress.org thinkprogress.org climatecrocks.com thinkprogress.org www.skepticalscience.com Climate Crocks playlist www.youtube.com
Video Rating: 4 / 5

50 Responses to “‘Global warming phantom menace, Kyoto costs & hurts a lot’”

Read below or add a comment...

  1. TheServiceWeb says:

    WORLD RECORD: BIGGEST WIND TURBINE
    Visit: windturbinecarriedbywheels.weebly.com
    ZERO-NOISE from gears and generators since they are sealed underground.
    SAVES THE BIRDS AND BATS since slow-moving.
    DOES NOT OCCUPY A WIDER LANDSCAPE since the turbine can be very tall.
    MAY BE LOWER-COST since it may use timber and other cheaper things.
    ELUDES HURRICANE FORCE since the V-type folding blades automatically close.
    NO FIRE since well-cooled.
    HELPS WIND-ENERGY COMPANIES since it is FREE FOR ALL.

  2. ChristopherMonckton5 says:

    From: Phil Jones
    To: “Michael E. Mann”
    Subject: HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL
    Date: Thu Jul 8 16:30:16 2004
    “I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is !
    Cheers
    Phil”

  3. SMDLightEvolution says:

    Quality LED lightbulbs (UK Only):
    It Should Not Cost The Earth To Save The Planet. Go To www_lightevolution.co.uk

  4. SMDLightEvolution says:

    @1980albatros Quality LED lightbulbs (UK Only):
    It Should Not Cost The Earth To Save The Planet. Go To www_lightevolution.co.uk

  5. FossMtnFilm says:

    More misinformation from climate deniers (the earth is flat club). Would he sit in his idling car parked in a closed garage for more than a few minutes? No. He knows an odorless, invisible,tasteless gas called CO (Carbon Monoxide) can kill a person within minutes(hypoxia). Inhaling 100ppm or greater can be dangerous and lethal. How people believe 7,000,000,000 people’s daily activities can NOT change the composition of the air is crazy. So many people are in denial of the truth!

  6. tiffcomp says:

    This is nothing but misinformation
    Plenty things could happen
    I could win the lotto, i never do
    Thinking i could win the lotto should i spend the money now?
    Well i could win the lotto so shouldn’t i count on it happening? Of course not!!!
    None of this is based on proven science.
    It is all hypothetical.
    Since when do we make disicions based on hypothetical scenarios.
    We are better and smarter than this!
    We need to look at the people who claim these things, and why they are claiming them.

  7. JonThm says:

    The world started cooling naturally for teen years ago

  8. jjcatful says:

    Watch George Carlin on saving the planet…

  9. Jackiedajackass says:

    @wikifacts Nobody really gives a rats ass what you think. So why are you so bothered anyway? Are you afraid they could be right? And if they ain’t well “no sweat off your balls” . right? I bet your one of them yankees,,ain’t ya? Ya think everybody should think like you?

  10. JonThm says:

    The carbon fuels formed when the dinosaurs died. When seals were 60 metres lower and 65% more life on earth. Not so much hockey stick, after the deranged mind trying to enhance nuclear power

  11. JonThm says:

    Free carbon dioxide in the air has been static since the little ice age ended. When it fell from four parts per 1,000,000 to only two

  12. JonThm says:

    High school biology: plants use all available carbon dioxide for photosynthesis. Life on earth has increased since man’s industrial revolution, free carbon dioxide in the air has not

  13. JonThm says:

    Photosynthesis transforms carbon dioxide into life on earth

  14. jebbsbasada says:

    It look gloomy for our planet earth regarding global warming, we must stop all kind of production of co2 and think of alternative source of power and make our planet safe.

  15. nightkraawler says:

    study the subject of ”carbon credits” and you will understand that wether global warming is caused by humans or not, the big picture is about making a few people rich by making the rest of us pay for this phenomena without changing a single thing because their system allows for companies to trade credits while they have to pay these ”middle” men for the transactions.only idiots would not see the ridiculousness of this plan.

  16. 1980albatros says:

    @1980albatros …look up Admiral David Titley chief oceanographer and navigator for the US Navy and what he has to say on the matter. I’m no scientist so i can’t do as good of a job as the Admiral can on explaining what he has experienced going through skepticism, and acceptance of what the DATA is trying to tell us all. I admire your skepticism, but its beginning to feel more like denial on your part. Don’t forget, to deny is to have proof to the contrary, you have none. Peace.

  17. 1980albatros says:

    @TheRetiredtrucker WHAT? Al Gore presented it, doesn’t mean he pulled it out of his ass. You keep saying google climate gate, have you even done that yourself? as far as ice age goes, while we are seeing the end to the last one its indisputable that industrialization is driving our current state of climate. You can disprove yourself simply by investigating it through, holding no bias. I use to be like you, till i started listening to the EXPERTS on the matter cont…

  18. TheRetiredtrucker says:

    @1980albatros You mentioned the hockey stick (disproved) and I gave you a statement from the bullshitter who presented it. Also google climate gate….. and you didn’t respond to the fact were still coming out of the last ice age? Why not?

  19. 1980albatros says:

    @TheRetiredtrucker Seriously?……I’m done bro, you people are hopeless. hope luck with that dribble. ):P

  20. indyco29 says:

    @BrennanAndrewWittig There has always been money, religion and borders. These things are basic constructs that human beings naturally came up with thousands of years ago to function/interact with other tribes/groups and to create order within society. It’s these things that have allowed us to do the great things that we have done. All humans are driven by incentive. The hope of some utopia where we all just share and get along is simply not possible.

  21. TheRetiredtrucker says:

    @1980albatros “Scientists who want to attract attention to themselves, who want to attract great funding to themselves, have to (find a) way to scare the public . . . and this you can achieve only by making things bigger and more dangerous than they really are.”

    Petr Chylek
    (Prof of Physics and Atmospheric Science, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia)
    Commenting on reports by other researchers that Greenland’s glaciers are melting
    Halifax Chronicle-Herald, August 22, 2001

  22. TheRetiredtrucker says:

    @1980albatros Nobody is interested in solutions if they don’t think there’s a problem. Given that starting point, I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous (global warming) is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are…
    - Al Gore in an interview with Grist magazine May 9 2006…. this is where your fake hockey stick graph came from….. 

  23. JonThm says:

    The available carbon dioxide in the air has remained static for 200 years. As plants metabolise all the available carbon dioxide.

  24. JonThm says:

    Only photosynthesis determines the level of carbon dioxide in the air. Extra emissions these extra life on earth. No effect on the weather

  25. CSATexan says:

    @leeo268

    Aren’t you tired of sacrificing Africans to the silly green movement???

  26. smartalek65 says:

    @greenman3610 As usual, you’re inaccurate. Lindzen and Choi: THEY revised the 2009 paper and revised it-confirming the original conclusions. Polar bears: totally false. Of the 13 populations of polar bears, 11 are stable or expanding. IPCC: Wrong again! Temps aren’t rising as models foretold in step with anthropogenic GHG contributions. Not even close.

  27. TheServiceWeb says:

    WORLD RECORD: BIGGEST WIND TURBINE
    Visit: windturbinecarriedbywheels.weebly.com
    ZERO-NOISE from gears and generators since they are sealed underground.
    SAVES THE BIRDS AND BATS since slow-moving.
    DOES NOT OCCUPY A WIDER LANDSCAPE since the turbine can be very tall.
    MAY BE LOWER-COST since it may use timber and other cheaper things.
    ELUDES HURRICANE FORCE since the V-type folding blades automatically close.
    NO FIRE since well-cooled.
    HELPS WIND-ENERGY COMPANIES since it is FREE FOR ALL.

  28. ChristopherMonckton5 says:

    From: Phil Jones
    To: “Michael E. Mann”
    Subject: HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL
    Date: Thu Jul 8 16:30:16 2004
    “I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is !
    Cheers
    Phil”

  29. SMDLightEvolution says:

    Quality LED lightbulbs (UK Only):
    It Should Not Cost The Earth To Save The Planet. Go To www_lightevolution.co.uk

  30. gonzalozxcvb says:

    en español porfavor gracias

  31. shraka says:

    @MewCat100 Fundamental barriers? The only real issues are perception and relative maturity of the technology. That’s why if you put in government mandates you can force companies out of complacency despite the extra cost of initial investment. The EV1 was trashed AS SOON as they were no longer forced to make it.
    And what’s this asinine statement about me making one? If I had investment to over-come initial costs I would, of course. Or I’d just give the money to Tesla.

  32. greenman3610 says:

    @frolly1000
    wow. the 40 cm nonsense again.
    Obviously you have not been watching the vids,
    or you would not have embarrassed yourself in this way. remember, I’m here to help.
     to get straightened out on sea level, see
    watch?v=kffsux-ifKk
    watch?v=yHrVOnLKjuQ

    as far as “downwards” revisions,
    the sea ice vid is instructive
    watch?v=JRc_9nNTZg0

    “its cooling” treated here
    watch?v=w5D7P2qbKCs
    watch?v=PLnJttkhDTM
    watch?v=LMA9D-ZWwrg

  33. frolly1000 says:

    @greenman3610
    The IPCC has been wrong from the start, and each new report is less alarmist; even so they are still way out in fairyland
    For example; they are predicting 40cm of sea level rise by 2100 when all the evidence points to less than 10cm
    They are saying the temperature will soar by at least 3.5c by 2100 when the latest temperature trend is in fact DOWNWARDS Most papers by reputable scientists that I have seen project a maximum of 1c warming by 2100.
    +Many other dramas too

  34. greenman3610 says:

    @frolly1000
    Lindzen and Choi was so bad he had to withdraw the first one and try again.
    As far as polar bears, the majority of the populations are declining – but that is neither here nor there as far as the reality of climate change.
    IPCC has been incorrect, but unfortunately, not in the direction we would hope. they have generally underestimated the speed of the planetary response.
    watch?v=JRc_9nNTZg0

  35. frolly1000 says:

    @greenman3610
    I’ve cited lots of papers, but been ignored by the other side.
    -All IPCC models have been proven to be incorrect (Lindzen & Choi 2009, 2011)
    POLAR BEARS are they under threat?;
    Polar bears are doing just fine, (and have survived many warmer periods than now)
    -It was warmer than now 1,000 years ago, 2,000 years ago, 3,400 years ago, 6,800 years ago, 7,800 years ago, 9,000 years ago, 125,000 years ago, 240,000, 325,000 ect
    The Polar Bears survived them all.

  36. greenman3610 says:

    @frolly1000
    not my claim. That’s the science.
    discussed here
    watch?v=8nrvrkVBt24
    as for your “empirical evidence”, on this site, you actually have to cite something to make a point, as I have, copiously.

  37. frolly1000 says:

    @greenman3610
    The only feedback on human CO2 is negative feedback, as shown by empirical evidence, so proving that all the IPCCs models are WRONG. The Earths climate system is self-correcting, as one would expect. If it wasn’t there would be no stability at all.
    As if the AGW BS wasn’t enough to deal with, are you also claiming now that there would be no glacial cycles without CO2 induced feedback?

  38. greenman3610 says:

    @frolly1000
    the scientists are alarmed. I am reporting it.
    If you insist that no feedback effects exist, then you must come up with a brand new explanation of how glacial to interglacial cycles occur - since, without feedbacks, orbital changes are not strong enough to make it happen.
    Let us know when that paper is published.

  39. frolly1000 says:

    @greenman3610
    So its physics; lets see what you have;
    -CO2 is a GHG (so what)
    -CO2 when doubled causes 1c of warming per century (again SO WHAT)
    -There is positive feedback (proven wrong)
    -We have dramatic models (Yawn)

    You are right, the invented hockey stick is indeed not proof of anthropogenic climate change; so where is the proof? Why are you hiding it, if there is some? We want to test it scientifically
    If there is none, we all expect you to SHUT UP and STOP ALARMING PEOPLE.

  40. frolly1000 says:

    @greenman3610
    We are not fools, nor do we feel like fools. I said you are treating us all like fools, this only shows that you do not have good intentions

    $30 plus billion thrown at cash-starved scientific academys proves nothing
    We are all still waiting for SOME PROOF OF YOUR CLAIMS
    No matter how much money is thrown at this by mislead and alarmed governments, CO2 will never be shown to be a main driver of temperatures, simply because it isnt.

    p.s. Who the hell is Glen Beck?

  41. greenman3610 says:

    @frolly1000
    I’m sorry to make you feel foolish. The science behind climate change is well enough tested and observed to convince every Science Academy in every country around the world. It may not yet hit the high bar demanded by the Glenn Beck crowd. Sorry.

  42. greenman3610 says:

    @frolly1000
    the hockey stick is not proof of anthropogenic climate change – it is evidence of how rapidly the change is happening. The basis for climate science is not a graph, it is physics, as Dr Alley says. Since he is in agreement with the mainstream science of every relevant scientific body on the planet, he is very credible.

  43. frolly1000 says:

    Complete BS as usual from the warmists, treating us all like fools.
    AGW is not about physics as this peanut claims, physical principals are well understood, and there is no debate about them.
    AGW is about ASSumptions that IPCC scientists make when they should know better.
    No scientist worthy of the name EVER makes ASSumptions about anything; HE TESTS.
    They need to try using THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD, AND SCIENTIFIC SKEPTISISM.

    .

  44. frolly1000 says:

    @alienofwar
    Why cant you understand simple human psychology?
    Climatology was a small, specialised area until the IPCC stepped in with all its money and took over this field for its own aims
    As that soon to be billionare GORE famously said “Its hard to get someone to understand something when his job depends on his not understanding it”
    None of the many ‘newly branded climatiologists’ who have moved into the field to benefit financially from this scare will front up on tv and then lose their job

  45. frolly1000 says:

    Greenman, make up your mind; this clip is called “its not about the hockey stick” yet another clip uploaded by you recently is called “sea level rise…an emerging hockey stick”!.
    (This is ANOTHER hockey stick invented by the IPCC ‘scientists’.)
    Is it about the hockey stick, or not?
    ITS all IPCC LIES and NO ONE is LISTENING ANYMORE..

  46. JonThm says:

    Photosynthesis has ensured global average carbon dioxide has not risen in 200 years. Go and see a Dr. Quickly!

  47. RealOldOne2 says:

    @robhoneycutt Another:
    “Concerning the hockey stick. .what Mike Mann continually fails to understand, and no amount of references will solve, is that there is practically NO RELIABLE TROPICAL DATA for most of the time period, and without knowing the tropical sensitivity, we have NO WAY OF KNOWING how cold (or warm) the globe actually got. .we don’t know what it’s global cooling was, and without knowing it for 2xCO2, we don’t know what the future sensitivity would be”(cg2 mail#4133)

  48. RealOldOne2 says:

    @robhoneycutt Here’s a gem from the leaked emails:
    “Has Wigley left yet?. . .the MIS-USE of statistics in the greenhouse attribution debate and it was one of Wigley’s papers. .It was a PATHETICALLY POOR paper that had. . .(all good maths/stats people), and me just shaking our collective heads wondering what the fu©k Wigley was trying to do. Needless to say, Singer quite easily showed how hopelessly flawed and ridiculous the analysis was, and everyone agreed with him”(cg mail#0798)

  49. RealOldOne2 says:

    @robhoneycutt “dispense with the stolen emails”
    Too bad that you’re so embarrassed by Trenberth’s honest admissions in the leaked emails, but they’re real, and they’re not going away. And they reveal that the measurements are FAR from being accurate enough to “know in detail” what you claim. The climate scientists & their models are woefully inadequate in their knowledge & handling of clouds. This alone is enough to dispel the BOGUS projections made by them. It’s a TRAVESTY Rob!

  50. RealOldOne2 says:

    @robhoneycutt “The CERES DATA are unfortunately WONTING and SO TOO are the CLOUD DATA”
    I’m glad you agree by quoting Trenberth. Don’t forget “The OCEAN DATA are also LACKING. . .Our observing system is INADEQUATE. . .The FACT that we CAN NOT ACCOUNT for what is happening in the climate system”
    No, the science isn’t SETTLED as you so naively believe. We’ve barely begun to understand the many & interrelated factors that drive our climate system. Your simplistic CO2 belief is hubris.

Leave A Comment...