Uploaded November 2017 | Updated September 2026, 2 weeks ago
SOURCES ARE BELOW
If you would like to support this channel, please don't send money to me, I don't need it. Instead, please support a charity that has a unique program designed to provide health care in exchange for forest preservation and reforestry.
Called ASRI, it’s a hospital in Borneo that provides affordable health care to villages on the edge of a national park in return for a pledge not to cut down trees, The pledges are monitored, and the result is a dramatic decrease in deforestation rates and an increase in the health of the local population. The founders are hoping to spread the idea to other countries. (see psmag.com/social-justice/save-the-trees-well-save-your-life-46121 for an explanation of their work.)
You can make a donation by bank transfer here…
alamsehatlestari.org/donate
…or if you want to do it online they also have a US fundraising arm called Health in Harmony:
healthinharmony.org/donate
SOURCES FOR THIS VIDEO:
Delingpole article at:
breitbart.com/big-government/2017/10/24/delingpole-now-400-scientific-papers-in-2017-say-global-warming-is-a-myth/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social
Notrickzone blog at:
notrickszone.com/2017/10/23/400-scientific-papers-published-in-2017-support-a-skeptical-position-on-climate-alarm/#sthash.ng4wjeis.dpbs
CO2 levels over the holocene can be found at: ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/icecore/antarctica/epica_domec/edc-co2.txt
Sunspot numbers
sidc.be/silso/ssngraphics
All the papers listed can be found by clicking on the links at notrickszone.com/2017/10/23/400-scientific-papers-published-in-2017-support-a-skeptical-position-on-climate-alarm/#sthash.ng4wjeis.dpbs
The papers on the list that endorse climate change theory are:
Abrantes et al., 2017 (DOI: 10.5194/cp-2017-39, 2017):
Williams et al., 2017 (DOI: 10.1002/2017GL073138)
Gray et al., 2017 (DOI: 10.1063/1.4975498)
Zawiska et al., 2017 (DOI: 10.1016/j.palaeo.2016.11.034):
Wang et al., 2017 (DOI: 10.1038/srep46091):
I've been told these papers also endorse the CO2-temp link. I haven't had a chance to check them yet, but I will do that as soon as I can:
Deng et al., 2017 [DOI: 10.1002/2016JC012458]
"The [Medieval Climate Anomaly] and [Little Ice Age] are climate anomalies that were caused by natural forcing (e.g., solar variability and volcanic emissions), but the [Current Warm Period] is linked to anthropogenic factors (e.g., industrialization and land-use changes)"
Luoto and Nevalainen, 2017 [DOI: 10.1007/s00704-017-2139-0]
"Recently, the increase in atmospheric greenhouse gases has raised air temperatures [...], but at the same time, there appears to be divergent trends in the precipitation dynamics between southern and eastern Finland (Fig. 2). Therefore, it is likely that the forcing factors that have dictated the T/P [air temperature versus precipitation] ratio in the past do not operate in a similar way today, or in the future, due to the persistent anthropogenic influence of increased greenhouse gases on surface air temperatures [...]. In fact, using climate model simulations, it has been demonstrated that the recent shift of the NAO [North Atlantic Osccillation] over Europe is a result of anthropogenic greenhouse forcing [...]."
Koutsodendris et al., 2017 [DOI: 10.1016/j.quascirev.2017.01.010]
"In this study, we focus on the interval prior to 1930 AD because the environmental signals recorded in the sediments of Etoliko Lagoon over the last seven decades have been predominantly caused by anthropogenic influence"
Malik et al., 2017 [DOI: 10.1007/s00382-017-3832-5]
"It is evident from observational, proxy, and simulated datasets that the external forcings, i.e., CO2, [tropospheric aerosol optical depth], and [total solar irradiance] together can modulate the strength of intrinsic relationship between [Atlantic multi-decadal oscillation] and [stratospheric aerosol optical depth] on multi-decadal to centennial timescales"
SOURCES ARE BELOW
If you would like to support this channel, please don't send money to me, I don't need it. Instead, please support a charity that has a unique program designed to provide health care in exchange for forest preservation and reforestry.
Called ASRI, it’s a hospital in Borneo that provides affordable health care to villages on the edge of a national park in return for a pledge not to cut down trees, The pledges are monitored, and the result is a dramatic decrease in deforestation rates and an increase in the health of the local population. The founders are hoping to spread the idea to other countries. (see psmag.com/social-justice/save-the-trees-well-save-your-life-46121 for an explanation of their work.)
You can make a donation by bank transfer here…
alamsehatlestari.org/donate
…or if you want to do it online they also have a US fundraising arm called Health in Harmony:
healthinharmony.org/donate
SOURCES FOR THIS VIDEO:
Delingpole article at:
breitbart.com/big-government/2017/10/24/delingpole-now-400-scientific-papers-in-2017-say-global-warming-is-a-myth/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social
Notrickzone blog at:
notrickszone.com/2017/10/23/400-scientific-papers-published-in-2017-support-a-skeptical-position-on-climate-alarm/#sthash.ng4wjeis.dpbs
CO2 levels over the holocene can be found at: ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/icecore/antarctica/epica_domec/edc-co2.txt
Sunspot numbers
sidc.be/silso/ssngraphics
All the papers listed can be found by clicking on the links at notrickszone.com/2017/10/23/400-scientific-papers-published-in-2017-support-a-skeptical-position-on-climate-alarm/#sthash.ng4wjeis.dpbs
The papers on the list that endorse climate change theory are:
Abrantes et al., 2017 (DOI: 10.5194/cp-2017-39, 2017):
Williams et al., 2017 (DOI: 10.1002/2017GL073138)
Gray et al., 2017 (DOI: 10.1063/1.4975498)
Zawiska et al., 2017 (DOI: 10.1016/j.palaeo.2016.11.034):
Wang et al., 2017 (DOI: 10.1038/srep46091):
I've been told these papers also endorse the CO2-temp link. I haven't had a chance to check them yet, but I will do that as soon as I can:
Deng et al., 2017 [DOI: 10.1002/2016JC012458]
"The [Medieval Climate Anomaly] and [Little Ice Age] are climate anomalies that were caused by natural forcing (e.g., solar variability and volcanic emissions), but the [Current Warm Period] is linked to anthropogenic factors (e.g., industrialization and land-use changes)"
Luoto and Nevalainen, 2017 [DOI: 10.1007/s00704-017-2139-0]
"Recently, the increase in atmospheric greenhouse gases has raised air temperatures [...], but at the same time, there appears to be divergent trends in the precipitation dynamics between southern and eastern Finland (Fig. 2). Therefore, it is likely that the forcing factors that have dictated the T/P [air temperature versus precipitation] ratio in the past do not operate in a similar way today, or in the future, due to the persistent anthropogenic influence of increased greenhouse gases on surface air temperatures [...]. In fact, using climate model simulations, it has been demonstrated that the recent shift of the NAO [North Atlantic Osccillation] over Europe is a result of anthropogenic greenhouse forcing [...]."
Koutsodendris et al., 2017 [DOI: 10.1016/j.quascirev.2017.01.010]
"In this study, we focus on the interval prior to 1930 AD because the environmental signals recorded in the sediments of Etoliko Lagoon over the last seven decades have been predominantly caused by anthropogenic influence"
Malik et al., 2017 [DOI: 10.1007/s00382-017-3832-5]
"It is evident from observational, proxy, and simulated datasets that the external forcings, i.e., CO2, [tropospheric aerosol optical depth], and [total solar irradiance] together can modulate the strength of intrinsic relationship between [Atlantic multi-decadal oscillation] and [stratospheric aerosol optical depth] on multi-decadal to centennial timescales"








![26 Science vs. the Feelies
SOURCES:
0:00 Clips from my previous climate change videos
0:38 The Great Global Warming Swindlewritten and directed by Martin Durkin
0:50 Proof that Global warming is a hoax on YouTube
0:54 0:54 Global Warming on YouTube, done by casiopeia project
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MVASFcMwTXk (this video accepts that CO2s greenhouse effect is larger than its 0.039% presence in the atmosphere, but goes on to diminish its role on the basis that it constitutes only 4% of greenhouse gases).
1:03 Jay Lehr interviewed on The Ice Age cometh Lou Dobbs, CNN
1:07 Tim Ball, The Great Global Warming Swindle
1:10 John Coleman Global warming, the other side
1:14 Christopher Monckton, speech for Free Market Institute at St Paul Oct 2009
2:03 On the influence of carbonic acid in the air upon the temperature of the ground S Arrhenius, Philosophical Magazine 1896 (First calculation of energy absorbed and re-radiated by CO2)
2:04 The artificial production of carbon dioxide and its influence on temperature G. S. Callendar,
Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society 1938 (Shows wavelengths at which CO2
absorbs radiation)
2:17 The Great Global Warming Swindlewritten and directed by Martin Durkin
4:03 Christopher Monckton testimony at Congressional hearings on climate change
4:51 Proof that Global warming is a hoax on YouTube
6:10 Arrhenius and Callendar papers from 2:03
6:30 John Shimkus at Congressional hearings on climate change
7:22 Sen. James Inhofe
8:06 Dennis Kucinich
8:30 Chad Myers on Lou Dobbs, CNN
8:34 Jay Lehr interviewed on The Ice Age cometh Lou Dobbs, CNN
9:24 Charlton Heston on Global Climate Change on YouTube
9:56 Phanerozoic CO2 levels after Berner and Royer
10:15 Map is from Cretaceous climate-ocean dynamics: future directions for IODP Colorado, July 2002
Source for sea level 50m-70m higher than today: The Phanerozoic Record of Global Sea-Level Change, Miller et al 2005.
11:16 Debating whether global warming is a threat or just media hype by Mark Putnam
www.helium.com
11:41 Creationist Seminar Beginnings #1 Eric Hovind
11:50 Where did God come from? Ken Ham
11:58 The OReilly Factor Bill OReilly interviews Richard Dawkins
12:55 Michael Coren and Tim Ball - Straight Talk On Climate Change
15:14 Penn and Tellers Bullshit!
Two other comments I anticipate Ill get:
1) You didnt understand what [insert name here] meant.
Yes, thats entirely possible. In the absence of facts and figures, a feelie argument is usually vague and ambiguous, often hinting at some elusive point thats never explained. When I read a scientific paper, on the other hand, I understand exactly what its saying. The hypothesis is laid out, the methodology explained, the observations and calculations clearly shown, and the conclusion spelled out. Thats the difference.
2) The idea that CO2 is a trace gas is not a feeling. It can be shown that it has no effect on climate.
My response: Yes, but the feeling is that because CO2 is a trace gas then it follows that it has no effect on climate. If this is correct, please cite a study that has some facts and figures to support it, otherwise it remains just a feeling. If you have a source with some other evidence that CO2 has no effect on climate, then I have probably covered it in a previous video. 26 Science vs. the Feelies](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/OjD0e1d6GgQ/mqdefault.jpg)

