I am the 10% .....
I guess, 80% are to dumb to care, 10% aren’t worried and 10% do worry about the world our children and grandchildren are going to inherit. What do you think the percentages are?
Added: Feb-1-2012 Occurred On: Feb-1-2012
By: Clivenio
In: Science and Technology
Tags: Science
Marked as: approved
Views: 1196 | Comments: 70 | Votes: 0 | Favorites: 0 | Shared: 0 | Updates: 0 | Times used in channels: 1
By: Clivenio
In: Science and Technology
Tags: Science
Marked as: approved
Views: 1196 | Comments: 70 | Votes: 0 | Favorites: 0 | Shared: 0 | Updates: 0 | Times used in channels: 1
You need to be registered in order to add comments! Register HERE
Advertisement below
|
|
| Liveleak on Facebook | |
|
LIKE Liveleak.com |
Items
-
magic and science come together
-
Science of Superman 01
-
Not Just Science Fiction: 'Electromagnetic Wormhole' Possible, Say Mathematicians
-
What is Dark Matter? - 60 Second Science
-
Chico Science e Nação Zumbi - Manguetown
-
Hamza Yusuf on "Science Delusion"
-
Daily Dose Of Junk Science:Human Species Will Split Into Two Species
-
Science of Superman 02
-
Science of Superman 03
-
Alternative Science Fiction Double Feature
-
MADD SCIENCE - LIQUID LIBIDO commercial
-
MAGIC TRICKS - SCIENCE FACTS
Advertisers
Do I even need to point out how ironic this statement is? Calling people dumb while you show a lack of basic English language proficiency kind of takes the wind from your sails.
Posted Feb-1-2012 Byjum_runky (1518.64) 
jum_runky View Channel Send Message
(4)
@Clivenio
There's nothing of value on the moon.
Posted Feb-1-2012 Byjum_runky (1518.64) 
jum_runky View Channel Send Message
(0)
@jum_runky Really, how about Helium-3?
Posted Feb-1-2012 Byflashj2 (728.50) 
flashj2 View Channel Send Message
(0)
@flashj2
That will be handy when we have the technology to collect it in a reliable way.
Posted Feb-1-2012 Byjum_runky (1518.64) 
jum_runky View Channel Send Message
(0)
Too* dumb to care.
Kinda takes some validity out of your argument :P
Posted Feb-1-2012 ByDzaztR (202.86) 
DzaztR View Channel Send Message
(2)
Not for nothing but when you call people "to dumb" and fail to spell "too" correctly it kind of makes you look like a knob.
Posted Feb-1-2012 ByRoccoSantoro (506.10) 
RoccoSantoro Send Message
(2)
A model is only as good as 1) our understanding of the dynamics of weather, and we have a long ways to go before we have solid models, 2) consistent measurements over time, and we haven't have that until just the last 20 years, and lastly, 3) data collection and analysis devoid of political agendas, and I'm afraid we'll never have honest data, much less a discussion, on man's effects.
Posted Feb-1-2012 Byjoe prole (1630.20) 
joe prole View Channel Send Message
(2)
@Clivenio Aren't you assuming the forcings are correct? Temperatures have been rising at a rate around 1/4-1/2 the rate that models such as ModelE have been predicting.
Posted Feb-1-2012 Byflashj2 (728.50) 
flashj2 View Channel Send Message
(0)
Lots of assumptions of cause and effect. I like how the increase of radiance from the sun is rated as a "small" affect on planet earth.
We are in a natural heating/cooling cycle. Assuming man has ANY impact on earth's ambient temperature is nothing more than arrogance on our part.
The earth will flick us off like flees when it good and ready.
Posted Feb-1-2012 Bychauncie (191.80) 
chauncie View Channel Send Message
(1)
@chauncie it may be part of a natural cycle, but to say that we aren't hastening it by releasing all of the CO2 that has been locked in the earth naturally through time to give us the climate for life then you're a fool. After we are gone the earth will lock away that CO2 again and it will return to the way it was before we started burning it all back up into the atmosphere and releasing it from the melting ice caps.
Posted Feb-1-2012 Byreggie001 (307.00) 
reggie001 View Channel Send Message
(0)
@chauncie The real assumptions are high climate sensitivity.
Posted Feb-1-2012 Byflashj2 (728.50) 
flashj2 View Channel Send Message
(0)
@Clivenio Hey, Clevenio. Have you checked the data from IBUKU satellite regarding CO2?
Posted Feb-1-2012 Byflashj2 (728.50) 
flashj2 View Channel Send Message
(0)
'hand raised' sir whens lunch sir? if the trees eat co2 why are we chopping the rain forrests sir doesn't that calculation come into your equasion? sir sir why did you make this a lesson?
Posted Feb-1-2012 Byweadone (221.72) 
weadone View Channel Send Message
(1)
@Clivenio what kids ? adult site this bud. and if anyone used the last 40 years as an example then told it covers a thousand or two thousand years, i'd have got up and walked out your class. what age are you trying to teach? last part who's argueing parts? i only mentioned the rainforrest.
Posted Feb-2-2012 Byweadone (221.72) 
weadone View Channel Send Message
(0)
Hello Pierre, why do you have some pieeeee
Whats up with the climate change idiots lately? Did Al Gore make another green energy investment and needs some drum beating to drive the stock up or something?
Man Made global warming is dead, debunked, a pseudo science. Goodbye discovery channel, hello Sci Fi channel. ITS OVER.
Posted Feb-1-2012 ByNothingisfree (350.70) 
Nothingisfree View Channel Send Message
(1)
Time to cherry pick. There was another scientist who measured CO2 levels in the atmosphere who concluded that there has been no increase of CO2 for 125 years despite increased emissions. The only explanation being that vegetation takes up much more CO2 than scientists and politicians have forced people to believe for the last 30 years. You see, they do not "take up CO2 TO GROW THEIR LEAVES", they grow their leaves TO TAKE UP CO2, and indeed they do grow more leaves when they do, and so More..
Posted Feb-1-2012 Bywellybub (345.98) 
wellybub View Channel Send Message
(0)
@wellybub What scientist are you referring? I know of this guy.. Keeling had a comment on one of his papers. Not C. D. Keeling though, LOL
http://www.biomind.de/realCO2/papers.htm
Posted Feb-1-2012 Byflashj2 (728.50) 
flashj2 View Channel Send Message
(0)
Great effort here Clivenio and I give you credit for posting at LL. Sorta amazed the wolves have not descended. Perhaps its proof your presentation hits the right tone (or its just too much data/information!).
What program do you use for the videos? I'd like to make something like this for some of my work. One suggestion..for each new graph or table, make sure you give the source and explain where it comes from (unless you made it). The variation around the radiative forcing values are pre More..
Posted Feb-1-2012 Byjoe_schmo (16.34) joe_schmo View Channel Send Message
(0)
99% of the world wish they had chance to live in the US and be as well off as those thriving at the poverty level.
Posted Feb-1-2012 ByAiredale (2593.36) 
Airedale View Channel Send Message
(0)
Despite my disagreement with your conclusions, I think you have created a very good series of videos - very well presented and clear - a great introduction for those wanting to get a handle on aspects of the science behind the issues about CO2 and climate.
A key statement from your video at 12:40 "anthropogenic change ... of just over 1.5 watts / sq m ... that's what's causing planet earth to warm up".
There are a couple of problems with this:
- it's overly bold (and unscientific) t More..
Posted Feb-2-2012 ByCadae (143.78) 
Cadae View Channel Send Message
(0)
@Clivenio
Those IPCC comparison graphs you linked to simply display the assumptions built into the climate models by the programmers and program designers - they're not reality and are not proof. Note that they all end at 2000 when warming stopped.
You claim "There is no other explanation to explain the warming."
THAT is exactly the problem with AGW theory - that logic is not scientific and turns climate science into a pseudo-science. Climatologists continue to discover new impactors More..
Posted Feb-3-2012 ByCadae (143.78) 
Cadae View Channel Send Message
(0)
@Clivenio
Gee - you've got to watch the pea under the thimble ! Your comment about CO2 radiative science being well understood is correct - but that narrow piece of science is not responsible for the greater part of the much feared heating.
For that all-important 'dangerous' heating you need all sorts of feedback dependencies with H20 and other climate processes - and it is THESE that are not well understood.
The real physical results so far indicate the models have been wrong. The complex depe More..
Posted Feb-3-2012 ByCadae (143.78) 
Cadae View Channel Send Message
(0)
Ok. I concerned. What do you want me to do? I'm still going to drive a vehicle that fits me. I live in a place where it's below freezing six months out of the year, so I'm going to heat my house. If I just live my life within walking distance and just froze during the winter would that be enough?
Posted Feb-1-2012 ByCaptain Canuck (1388.82) 
Captain Canuck View Channel Send Message
(0)
well..earth will survive us all..so.... yoy know.
but there will be in the future some kind of colonies to mars or some else.. so they will care more..they are the smart people.
Dumbasses will be always here.
Posted Feb-1-2012 ByKajouman (175.38) 
Kajouman View Channel Send Message
(0)
@Clivenio if they have a big pole whit a M.i go there
Posted Feb-2-2012 ByKajouman (175.38) 
Kajouman View Channel Send Message
(0)
if it happens it happens
people evolve
some will live some won,t life,s a bitch do what you have to do and get on with it
Posted Feb-1-2012 Bydynamite40 (77.54) 
dynamite40 View Channel Send Message
(0)