Two more posted videos. Two more opportunities for you to take the time to post excerpts from the videos to support your views. Two more failures by omission.
You are unique in that you can't learn from videos, or so it appears. That you need my translation is very telling.
I can't learn from videos that I don't watch. Why should I, or anyone, bother to watch a video that you post? You post videos and and don't even make an attempt to show how the video supports any of your views. You don't even learn from your own mistakes.
So, why do you think of yourself as a climate expert? What books taught you the wrong way to see climate? I don't post to support my views. I post to explain what is true and use the experts in the field. It amuses me you see yourself as so ultra superior.
One of your experts was "Robert Holmes". You did not specify who "Robert Holmes" was. You posted no credentials for "Robert Holmes". You falsely implied he said "The next ice age has begun . . . and we don’t even know it." Don't you ever get tired of embarrassing yourself?
I do watch videos. So, the greenpeace feller said when you look back at temps over millions of years and co2 levels they do not follow one another, and a correlation between the two cannot be drawn. So, if this is true, and if he is right and we still do not understand all of the factors involved, then what is driving these scientists to blame it on co2? This is a serious question, so stick to the lack of correlation between past co2 levels and temps, and show how the man is wrong. Next, since climatologists understand so much, why have we had warmer temps in the past, i.e. the roman age, with lower co2 levels. The truth is climatologists just do not know. Yet they are used today as if they knew what in the hell they are talking about. Why is this? Explain it. Could it be the appetizing color of green, as found on grants, which pays them? LOL Also, recent some of these climatologists were screaming that something must be done!!!! Yet by their same admission, if we stopped all co2 emissions today, it would take over a hundred years for it stop its role in the warming, but of course would not stop the cyclical warming which is happening regardless of c02, caused by other factors they do not understand. And when they scream, to do something, they never mention land management to add flora, nor the stopping of the deforestation of rain forests, but only carbon taxes. Why is this? Why not suggest pulling co2 out, by adding billions of co2 loving flora? No one ever answers this, and yet it very important. So, given we were warmer during the roman age, and the romans were not driving cars nor burning coal to electricity, and then something caused a cooling spell, which the climatologists know not why, and these dudes do not know why, should we really trust them? LOL Given all of this, these climate boys may be just like the learned men who once believed the earth was flat, and then that the earth was the center of the universe, etc, so on and so forth. I am beginning to think they are full of ****, and their true believers unlike some people will not question them. Well, ask them WHY co2 levels and temps hardly have sufficient correlation to support their claims would be a start.
They do mention it - often. Google "does deforestation contribute to global warming" Here is just one of many articles. http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warmin...ropical-deforestation-and-1.html#.WNA5AzvyuUk Benefits of reducing deforestation We need to protect tropical forests from deforestation and degradation if we want to reduce emissions to the levels needed to protect the planet against the worst global warming impacts. Ending deforestation will not solve global warming by itself, of course—urgent action is needed to cut the other 90 percent of emissions. But the problem cannot be solved if the role of tropical deforestation is ignored. Maybe you prefer books to internet articles... Why Forests? Why Now?: The Science, Economics, and Politics of Tropical Forests and Climate Change Why Forests? Why Now? synthesizes the latest evidence on the importance of tropical forests in a way that is accessible to anyone interested in climate change and development and to readers already familiar with the problem of deforestation. It makes the case to decisionmakers in rich countries that rewarding developing countries for protecting their forests is urgent, affordable, and achievable. I guess you just didn't want to look.
Climate change zealots should be called "Evolution deniers" - since the earth's climate is perpetually changing and evolving.
Amusing retort given it was you that was confused about Robert Holmes. When I post articles, I do not include a personal investigation of all names used in the article nor do I do a deep investigation on my sources. I do try to locate actual experts. Holmes name was known to you due to the photos of the crane plus the electric towers. While you had no questions nor comment on those photos, you seem very interested in a common name, Robert Holmes. Maybe you have known boys or men with that name. Also, I realize all you want to do is deflect from the topic.
Today I went with Dennis, a local friend and I mentioned this crap over climate change. Dennis votes normally for non republicans. He did vote for Romney but his reason is Romney is in the same church Dennis and I are. Anyway, I told Dennis climate has to groups. Scientists and politicians. We are for the most part of just a discussion group and we have no way to impact the science and it appears to me, no way to impact on politics. Face it, my politicians supposedly representing me are only Democrats. Fat chance they will ever represent me. And the Science is not done that way. I enjoy actual climate scientists. Contacting Dr. Lindzen was simple when I did it but he did not engage in a long term dialogue. But it gave me an idea to speak of the daily lies told by Democrats about the man.
We are not suggesting we remove weather from climate in fact the opposite Climate is, by definition trended weather data. Now to understand that you have to understand the concept of "average' Which - when reading posts on this forum I have doubts about
When you try to convert Democrat politics into science, it simply can not work. They live with a particular philosophy of the globe where they manage all lives. The vehicle used is government. Which is why when this problem showed up, we heard carbon taxes. Now such taxes never would apply to a solution. Democrats know the climate varies and there is no solution. Ask they where the Carbon Dioxide is tht they blame on climate and you get a shrug. Scientists ought to know things like this to make predictions. Next to the soil is one place for it. 50,000 feet up the situation is extremely different. I get no reply when I ask where this magic Carbon Dioxide really is. They look blank and go HUH!!!!!!!!!!
Linzden has not got a good track record at getting things right https://www.skepticalscience.com/skeptic_Richard_Lindzen.htm 32 quotes attributed to Linzden not supported by further evidence or research
AH! NOW we are getting political and the real reason for denialism surfaces - "I dont like it because the people I dont like do like it" Simplistic thinking and non-scientific When you actually want to have a scienfitic debate get back to me
So to understand Climate, you study deeply the theory of evolution. Funny but when I studied science for many years, I studied it not for those reasons.
I wish you checked out who "skeptical science actually is. Lindzen is in top of all climate scientists. I talked to him. Have you discussed anything with him?
Then learn to play on our level That means scientific thinking and posting. Choose a point of contention - i.e. That Antarctica is experiencing more snow - back that with research papers from accredited journals and respected authors and put forth your arguments THEN I will treat you will all due respect in return but post rubbish that is unsupported and does not take into account BASIC LAWS OF PHYSICS OR BASIC MATHMATICAL CONCEPTS and expect to have your posts ripped to shreds
Alarm me when it is too warn to grow grapes in either Newfoundland or Nova Scotia. And when "England" grows better wine grapes than France! Ref.: Little Ice Age, Big Chill. Easily found on YouTube, produced by History Channel. The first 15 minutes is about the "warm up" before the Little Ice Age.
Why should I he is only ONE scientist - and if you had clicked on the links that skeptical science provided you will see every single point is referenced with a peer reviewed paper BTW I do know who Skeptical Science is and I have met John Cook personally