Shatner is not happy about the latest Star Trek video:
For the second video link that I posted by Allan Savory (not the Mat Ridley one), Dr. Tim Ball has a discussion about it here:
I haven't watched this video (update: I watched it, just 2 minutes long), but it seems to cover what you mention:
And discussion of the video here:
- - -
I will also note that if CO2 really and truly was / is a problem, the effects / affects would be on humans a few hundred years from now, whereupon some of them might have to move a little bit further away from the coasts due to sea level rise. The earth itself should be just fine.
And another thing, we are told that we must stop using fossil fuel immediately. People will die. Airbags probably cost an average of 10$ per person per year if you own a car. Extraordinary claims require... You know.
I urge people to do what they can to truly educate themselves on climate science because the stakes are so high. Learn math as a starter.
@evildictaitor: But if the air bag industry wanted the world to spend 35 trillion dollars on air bags, I would want to check out for myself if their claim that there is a consensus or the science claimed backs up the consensus was true.
I have clearly shown you on the non consensus of climate sensitivity.
The only thing they have left are the claims of future warming based on climate models. Are we not computer specialists here on this forum? Many of us are computer scientists. Their is great doubt that the climate models are accurate, and as I have shown the projections are shown to have been wrong.
I haven't mentioned this yet but my primary work and research is now focused on climate models. I will gladly report my findings in the near future.
There is a consensus that gravity can be calculated to about the 23 decimal. The critical main calculation in climate science is the value of climate sensitivity to CO2 forcing, and no one even knows the value of the first digit and they aren't even sure of the sign.
Every subsequent IPCC report has reduced the estimated value. There is no consensus in climate science on this.
Also, all and I mean all datasets of weather events show no trends other than flat. Even the IPCC's latest SREX report said so.
People, educate yourself. Don't just take my word, or anybody else's. You can learn this stuff, it's not string theory.
@Dr Herbie: Rex Murphy has worked for years for the CBC, and long before his writing began showing up in the National Post, which by the way are written for a CBC broadcast before it is later printed in the National Post. So your hypothesis that he is right wing, or whatever you are implying is wrong.
The latest shoddy science from climate scientists:
Steve McIntyre of Climateaudit dot org has broken another hockey stick.
Anthony Watts: peer reviewed papers:
- Fall, Souleymane; Watts, Anthony; Nielsen-Gammon, John; Jones, Evan; Niyogi, Dev; Christy, John R.; Pielke Sr., Roger A. (2011). "Analysis of the impacts of station exposure on the U.S. Historical Climatology Network temperatures and temperature trends". Journal of Geophysical Research 16 (D14). Bibcode 2011JGRD..11614120F. doi:10.1029/2010JD015146. http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2011/2010JD015146.shtml.
@Dr Herbie: The climategate emails have revealed that the peer review process was corrupted by the climate scientists.
"We will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what peer-review literature is."