Welcome to Top10Archive! Global warming has been in the news for years with experts debating back and forth on what possibly could occur if nothing is done to curb its adverse effects. Global warming isn’t the consequence of one singular scenario, but the combination of several detrimental events that all intertwine with one another. We’ll start with the melting polar regions and trickle down to the extermination of entire species here in our top ten global warming outcomes.

Support us by shopping on Amazon! http://tinyurl.com/njwyzzn
Check out our website: http://www.top10archive.net
Follow Us on Twitter: twitter: #top10archives
Follow Us on Facebook: https://www. FACEBOOK /top10archives

10. Melting Glaciers in Polar Regions
9. Rising Sea Level
8. Methane Emission
7. Storm Activity
6. Droughts and Heat Waves
5. Disease
4. War and Conflict
3. Economic Consequences
2. Loss of Biodiversity
1. Ecosystem Extinctions


Methane hydrates and global warming


Heat Waves: The Details


Infectious Disease Could Become More Common in a Warmer World — Especially for Plants and Animals


Does Climate Change Cause Conflict?


Voice Over Talent:
Twitter: (at)JimDenisonVoice
Audio Books: http://tinyurl.com/nlrjbyb
Video Rating: / 5

You will learn about “Global Warming” in this video. We know that carbon di oxide, methane, nitrous oxide etc are the gases responsible for the greenhouse effect.

However, these days because of increase in pollution, carbon di oxide levels are increasing rapidly. Smoke emitted from vehicles as well as factories contains high levels of carbon di oxide and methane.

Trees are responsible for absorbing carbon di oxide and maintaining its balance in the atmosphere. However, human beings are cutting down trees for roads, buildings etc leading to deforestation. As a result, carbon di oxide balance is not being maintained and the layer of greenhouse gases is becoming thicker. Due to this, the greenhouse gases trap more heat. This results in an increase in average temperature of the earth and the earth becomes hotter and hotter. This is called global warming.

If we do not take steps to reduce global warming, it will lead to loss of humans, plants, animals and our earth will not be a beautiful place to live in anymore.

(at)Subscribe on Youtube: http://www.youtube.com/user/Smartlearningforall?sub_confirmation=1
(at)Facebook: https://www. FACEBOOK /smartlearningforall
(at)Twitter: https://www.#/SmartLearningFA
Video Rating: / 5

40 thoughts on “10 Signs That GLOBAL WARMING Is NO LONGER A Debate”

  1. I have an idea…of how to solve global warming, but only a slight.
    what if we did nothing?
    no factories
    no cars
    no electricity
    no cooking (eat cold food and cold drinks)
    if we did this just for one day of the year it could help cause we're then not allowing anymore toxins in the atmosphere or using the suns energy for our own, we could go back through time just once when everything was okay. So to anyone addicted to xbox, ps, phones, tablets, comps, laptops etc, sorry but on that one day you can't use it.

  2. How can you predict what's going to happen in 50 years if you can't predict what's going to happen in a week. Saying that global is real and claiming it truth is regressive and stifles any real scientific analysis and debate. Anyone who is convinced that gw is real after watching a scare mongering video such as this are truly gullible.
    And then there's your poster boy Al gore who's made almost a billion in climate change credits and a well known publisher of lies. And now the ice caps are growing and let me guess that's global warming also. Just another bullshit prediction gone spectacularly wrong…. again.

  3. It sucks that most people are the "See it to believe it" type. Some still don't after factual evidence is presented. We honestly won't be happy till we're all fucking dead. I'm here in 2016 watching my future swirl down the drain. Evil exists… It's here in the form of greed, corruption, and blissful ignorance.

  4. But Global Warming is a scientific fact. It started about 12000 years
    ago. But the reality is that we're actually in the middle of the Quaternary glaciation and this brief warm period is known as an "interglacial period".

    The scam is the theory that humans cause global warming. There is not enough evidence to support this theory. Humans pollute the Earth, yes… We eradicate lots of species… Yes… But our influence on global climate is insignificant. The theory of Anthropogenic Climate Change should be treated with a particularly high dose of skepticism because it is used as a launching platform for a new set of laws that will make the rich even richer, the poor even poorer while eroding civil liberties even more.

    For example… Ever heard of "the carbon tax", "carbon capture"? Really? If humans are the cause, you're gonna solve global warming with a tax? Really? And "carbon capture"? Really? Isn't just planting a fucking tree and stopping deforestation a better solution?

    You realize a scam is a scam especially when you look at the solutions proposed by the promoters of the scam. Because, of course, they have the solutions.

  5. I'm sorry to say all you global warming non-believers are idiots. I guess you're all smarter than the 81 companies who support global warming including Google, Facebook, Microsoft, etc. You must all have degrees equal to the majority of scientists around the world who support global warming and have scientific facts to prove it. As for Obama not trying to do his part in global warming in your world, try reading. Those of us that actually watch the news or read know that President Obama has used multiple Executive Decisions to develop programs trying to help slow down global warming. Of course he had to resort to Executive Decisions because the Republicans are a bunch of stupid children who don't support anything or believe in actual facts. Try searching "presidential data.org" to see actual facts that since World War II our country has never done better with a Republican president versus a Democrat. By the way, this website contains actual facts. In other words, they cannot be argued by you people who live in a fantasy world.

  6. Debate? We are simply no longer debating with online atheists. Why debate with someone who has no ears and no eyes? Why not debate with someone who knows how to debate? Why not debate with a global warming skeptic?

  7. The cretaceous period 145 – 65 Mio years ago had the most abundant and diverse life on earth at significantly higher levels of CO2 and temperatures. Higher CO2 level allow for more growth with less water, making more land viable for growth, including the development of life. Every natural museum is full with evidence. This makes global warming nothing but fear porn. We are technically still in an ice age.

  8. The history of the climate – it's actually a sociological phenomenon"

    Is it possible that the Paris Agreement has no advantages?

    If you do not want to ruin the economy of the country, no pros, I can not see. Why give up the traditional fuels, nuclear or hydro power in favor of solar energy, or wind? 85 percent of the world's energy is generated by burning traditional fuels. Why abandon it? We just need to make the process clearer.

    Yet now – because the CO2 contained in the emissions – the green movement is attacking everything related to carbon dioxide. And I was very annoyed that they now decide what is considered controversial. For example, hydraulic fracturing technology is announced for the controversial extraction of shale oil. But why do only what they are doing business, said, "Oh, it's controversial"?

    The truth is that there is no confirmation of the hypothesis of the role of carbon dioxide in warming that began in the early XVIII century. After the warm period, which coincided with the early Middle Ages and ended in 1000 AD, came the cold period, also called the small glacier. Cooling reached a peak in the region in 1700 – and since then we have seen again warming. Obviously, we do not have any relation to the Little Ice Age, or to follow him warming. And we have no evidence that warming has something to do with human activity. Even the IPCC recognizes that the climate is chaotic, non-linear change it, everything is interconnected. It is impossible to predict the future. The IPCC openly state that they can not predict the future climate, but then do just that.

    Greenpeace activists in a protest against the development of oil and gas fields in the Arctic. Warsaw, August 22, 2013.
    Photo: Kacper Pempel / Reuters
    Greenpeace activists in a protest against the development of oil and gas fields in the Arctic. Warsaw, August 22, 2013.
    It turns out an interesting pattern: the IPCC reports is considered to be something of a gold standard. On this basis, and with the support of the IPCC in many countries conducted similar studies. How should we relate to the fact that dozens of studies around the world is essentially financed by structures close to the IPCC, and their conclusions exactly repeated findings of the report?

    The first step is to recognize that all this history with the climate – in fact sociological phenomenon that has nothing to do with science. Moreover, this phenomenon seriously threaten the integrity of science and education.

    This distortion of science, to say the least. What is now happening, horrible, but why this process so many supporters? I attribute this to the fact that at one point agreed interests of the elites of our society. The engine just naturally favor the green movement, save the Earth from humans. They earn a lot of money on the idea that you can save by yourself. And then there's the media who live through sensations and conflicts, the preservation of sensation and conflict.

    How, for example, the use of the word "controversial" in the title …

    You know, not so long ago, "Los Angeles Times" has publicly stated that no longer publish the views of climate skeptics.

    You and your associates in the minority. What, in your opinion, should be done to change the agenda? Yes, all the bad name, but you need to do to change the situation?

    My basic idea is this: there is no sense to work with their interpretation of the facts, to seek out weaknesses in their hypothesis that the people – the cause catastrophic climate change due to carbon emissions.

    All turned on its head. We need to return everything in place. To do this, you must change the rhetoric: to get away from the concept of the adverse human impact on the climate of the Earth to a completely new landscaping concept. As I said, there is no evidence that man-made carbon dioxide affects the warming.

    What we have at the moment – warming to 1-1.5 degrees, even good for people. Much better cooling to the same value as it was 1,700 th. But the most positive thing is that the greatest concentration of CO2 accelerates the growth of plants, and we are dangerously close to the level of carbon dioxide shortage to autonomic processes. Four hundred milligrams of CO2 per cubic meter of air – it's actually still on the verge of exhaustion plants. They would prefer to 800, 1000, 1200, 2000. Anyone who has a greenhouse, knows it. Farmers buy carbon dioxide for plant nutrition and actively apply to the plants grew faster and we can all get our necessary food.

    Smog over the Chilean capital Sanyago
    Photo: Ueslei Marcelino / Reuters
    Smog over the Chilean capital Sanyago
    The last ice age on the planet was about 18 thousand years ago, and then the level of carbon dioxide held somewhere around 180 milligrams per cubic meter – and that was almost enough to kill life on Earth. A little lower – and the plants began to die. In fact, there is evidence that this is what happened to the plants at high altitudes.

    "It's just unfair competition"

    Returning to Russia, we would like to ask about the history of the global competition. In Russia, many are concerned that environmental studies are used for the purpose of economic confrontation. In these economies, like Russia, you probably know that a significant proportion of revenues provides the energy sector. Russia is not alone, there are Norway, Venezuela and a dozen other countries where incomes are highly dependent on energy production. What do you think, can the IPCC report serve as an instrument of pressure on these states?

    You know, in Canada, for example, there is strong opposition to the extraction of oil sands. There are four project pipelines – one in the direction of the United States, the second – on the west coast, and another – to the east. They all stopped, can not get the ball rolling. Their opponents serious financial resource from the American Rockefeller Foundation and ending with a number of so-called charitable organizations.

    They do not even realize that oil is much safer compared to the transportation of oil by sea or by rail …

    They do not care. Their task is to ruin this industry. Ecology is only a cover. And all this is funded from the United States to stop the development of the oil sands. And at the same time in the United States successfully and quietly laid ten thousand miles of new pipelines.

    That is, their task – to stop the development of projects abroad, but not their own?

    Exactly! And we see it's almost all over the world. It's just unfair competition – and it is not about CO2 emissions, helping trees grow faster.

  9. "Would we pay them, if we say that all is well?"

    You will mercilessly criticize the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). Of course, they are calling for a reduction in carbon emissions. But some developing countries such as the Philippines, a different opinion on this matter. What are your main arguments in the dispute with the IPCC in addition to what you think, this dummy?

    I'm not saying that the IPCC empty. If you look at their stories, you understand that they are not alarmists. But they do believe CO2 major factor of climate change on the planet. This, as I said, is fundamentally wrong. They just bought it. And then come alarmists of the movement against climate change, take what the IPCC says, and converted into a horror story to a wider audience, using the vocabulary of Armageddon, apocalypse and catastrophe – which at the IPCC did not.

    But the main problem is not the IPCC in this. Look its charter – the one from the UN mandate. In fact, the IPCC and the United Nations Environment Programme – is the International Meteorological Organization, an association of meteorologists and climatologists. No more. These people have no clue about geology, paleontology, evolutionary history of life on Earth, the history of climate change. Their knowledge does not extend beyond the middle of the XIX century. They are interested only in the last 150 years, from 4.6 billion years of our planet.

    The Working Group of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Berlin, April 13, 2014.
    Photo: Steffi Loos / Reuters
    The Working Group of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Berlin, April 13, 2014.
    Their area of ​​expertise is extremely narrow, and their mandate says that they are engaged in human influence on climate. They are not required to consider the natural changes, they are required to analyze only the human impact on the environment. And that is why I say that the conflict is laid in their mandate, because if they find out that the person is not the main cause of climate change, or to find out that the human impact on climate is positive, then it and the need for the IPCC will not have any.

    And they will lose the source of funding?

    Yes. Would we pay them, if we say that all is well?

    Who is funding the IPCC?



    It is a tool in the hands of the UN. They have a lot of "friends" in the IPCC, including Christian Figueres (Executive Secretary of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change – a comment of "Lenta.ru". ) Home of the Kyoto Protocol. She's a Communist. She says that the only task of the climate movement – redistribution of wealth on a global scale. And many of them think also. There are a bunch of people who believe that the United Nations should become a world government. But it would undermine the principles of democracy, because UN officials do not choose and appoint. Many still continue to blindly believe in the idea of a world government.

    The EU is now in crisis. The bureaucrats in Brussels and Strasbourg are coming up with rules for all, but can not even control themselves. I spoke with British farmers, and I very clearly why the citizens of the United Kingdom voted in a referendum for withdrawal from the EU. The bureaucrats dictate its terms to farmers in the framework of the policy against climate change. Nothing good for the EU is, of course, will not.

    Taking samples of crude oil in a well operated by state oil company PDVSA in Venezuela. Monagas State, April 16, 2015.
    Photo: Carlos Garcia Rawlins / Reuters
    Taking samples of crude oil in a well operated by state oil company PDVSA in Venezuela. Monagas State, April 16, 2015.
    On the other hand, I see a lot of countries – including Russia – to the economic crisis because of oil prices, countries where there is a clear understanding of development needs of the population, the economy, strengthening the country's problems. And I see Donald Trump, who says the same thing in the United States, and I see Rodrigo Roa Duterte, President of the Philippines. And I think that this house of cards of the Paris Agreement, hastily called historic, but in fact it is fiction – it disappears like a mirag

  10. On the big stupidity

    The second reason for my departure was that none of my colleagues – directors of Greenpeace in the US, Europe, New Zealand, Australia – did not have the profile of science education. All of them were what you would call the activists – with a more or less broad general education in the arts, philosophy, and sociology. But scientists. In 1984-1985, they decided to launch a global campaign against chlorine. I then told them: "Guys, this is not a good idea." They called chlorine "diabolical element", and polyvinyl chloride (PVC) – "poisoned plastic." It was ridiculous. Our credit cards, for example, made of PVC, and musical records, which we listened to in his youth, too. This is one of the most useful materials, invented by mankind: a cheap, long lasting, it can be hard and soft shapes, different colors … In short, an excellent material. But its structure is, chlorine, and Greenpeace believes that it is a poison, although it is not true.

    Our children swim in the mini-pools of PVC, beach balls are manufactured using vinyl. All this is just ridiculous. So it is now – on the Paris Agreement was referred to as a new milestone in the history of mankind, when in fact it was a great folly. The current president of the Philippines, Rodrigo Roa Duterte said recently that he did not sign the agreement, so it will not be ratified. He considers it absurd and stupid, interfering in Philippine society going to develop.

    Why, in your opinion, now so much emphasis on the need for the transition to carbon-free world? And in general, it possible to live in a world without carbon?

    Life without carbon is not possible, its presence – one of the most important conditions for the emergence and development of life. Now we witness the madness of activists lobbying for a world without carbon. They are fanatics, they turned it into a cult. This combination of leftist politicians and a kind of religious fundamentalism. It is a dangerous combination. They're like "Hitler Youth", but had not yet had time to kill anyone. For example, they believe that all who disagree with them should be behind bars. Close the entire mouth.

    Greenpeace action against the production of chlorine in the center of Usti nad Labem. Czech Republic, 22 April 2015.
    Photo: Reuters
    Greenpeace action against the production of chlorine in the center of Usti nad Labem. Czech Republic, 22 April 2015.
    Many prominent scientists have come out with demands to stop this nonsense. Antiuglerodnoe movement is extremely dangerous for the society. Refusal of hydrocarbons in the first place hit by the poor.

    The truth is that the hydrocarbons are 100 per cent relate to organics. Science is known for many years. Just the fact that carbon is the most important element in nature, today has become a dirty word, shows how far we have let go of the situation. Russian, for example, believe that the sun is more than all the other factors affect the climate, and your space program is focused on the study of the sun. I also know that the Chinese believe all this Parisian history fiction. They just play along, as Obama has promised that they will not have to do anything until 2030, if they sign an agreement. It's kind of fake, it's empty.

  11. Paris climate agreement declaring the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, causes a lot of disputes in the international community. In an exclusive interview with "Lente.ru" one of the main critics of the project, the former head of Greenpeace Canada Patrick Moore told why the movement considers antiuglerodnoe dangerous to society.

    "To Lenta.ru" You founded the largest environmental organizations in the world, but then left it. Could you tell us about how your views diverged?

    Patrick Moore : It is not so difficult. When we started, I was working on his thesis on the ecology. This science I studied further at the University of British Columbia in 1960. On the ecology in those days spoke only in narrow academic circles, the general public, it was unknown. I was most attracted by the opportunity to see through the lens of ecological whole picture, logically link the various concepts, to see the world as a complex relationship phenomena, to look into the depths of the universe.

    I joined a small group of activists, the so-called Committee of the Do not Make a Wave ( «Do not make waves"), which met in the basement of a church in Vancouver in the early 1970s, mainly in order to somehow resist the plans of the US government to try hydrogen bomb in Alaska. We are an expedition to Alaska, but we delayed the US Coast Guard. It was a lot of hype in the press. So, to put it briefly, there was Greenpeace.

    In those years, our main mission we saw preventing nuclear war with all the consequences disastrous for humanity. Then there was a campaign to protect whales, baby seals for maintaining, against the dumping of toxic waste. Greenpeace gradually lost its humanitarian aspect. When I left in 1986, after 15 years of leadership of the organization, of Greenpeace was no longer distinguish it many other environmental organizations at the time, considering the person as an enemy of the planet, the enemy of nature.

    8:05 April 19, 2016

    Paris hostages
    Why in Russia to introduce "carbon tax"
    It was quite a significant change in direction of development of the organization – in comparison with the original idea of ​​saving our civilization from the threat of nuclear war. And because I did not agree with the anti-human aspect of the environmental movement. He was just not acceptable to me, actually immoral. It was important for me to get along with the interests of nature and also takes into account the interests of humanity.

    Patrick Moore
    Patrick Moore
    Photography: of Friends of Europe / the Flickr
    The idea of ​​sustainable development – in balance environmental priorities environment, society and economy. Man, like other species, it is necessary for the survival of the environment. We are not separate from nature. We are in fact not from faraway planet came here. Now the movement to protect the environment actually characterizes a person as the only kind of bad on the ground. Some even manage to say that people – is evil, as we threaten the existence of life on the planet, especially the burning of fossil fuels and emitting carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.

    Now I am firmly convinced that emissions of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere – this is a positive aspect. But we shall return to this later.

  12. OMG! Facepalm. This guy can't even get his grammar correct. Subject-verb agreement is a simple thing sir. If I can't trust you to get that correct, it's really no wonder this whole video is a steaming pile of AGWA! Climatists and their propaganda…. smh

  13. I am an anthropogenic climate change SKEPTIC. That IS the scientific position.

    This guy Top10Archive is a climate change denier. He wants, and believes we can achieve, Climate Stasis – what a fool.

  14. It makes me shriek reading the comment below of students saying
    "Thanks to this video I passed my exam". How can a you watch a short video such as this and get high marks in such a complex subject. Science is observation and analysis from which you'll get the most likely hypothesis and this video is anything but scientific. None of this would weigh up to any real scientific scrutiny
    or has. If you can't predict with absolute certainty what's going to happen in a week how could you predict what's going to happen in 50 years. Do you remember when they said the ice caps would melt by 2035, well that's not going to happen just like EVERY other prediction.
    And that 2035 prediction was printed in a peer review journal which is an acknowledged print mistake and the ice melting forecast was actually 2350 not 2035.
    If anyone wants to know anything about what global warming is really all about just read the UN "Agenda21 earth summit" and watch Al gore get filthy rich off climate change credits.

  15. Ironically, this video gets it all wrong. First of all, the Earth is now in an Ice Age interglacial. We call it the Holocene. And, like all interglacials, they have a nasty habit of ending. When it does, civilization could end. Why? Because rain becomes extremely rare, and snow builds up on all of Canada, a third of the US, and a third of Europe. Farmland becomes rare, because rain is rare. You need evaporation for rain, and cold oceans don't evaporate that much.

    CO2 levels have been far, far higher than today and life thrived. When CO2 plummeted to 800 ppmv (2x today's level) nearly 30 Million years ago, plants freaked out. They evolved C4 species to cope with the CO2 starvation they were experiencing.

    Why the news media, UN, and NASA would be lying about something so important is one of the great mysteries of our modern world. But in order to solve that problem, you'd need to put your ego in check and be willing to learn something truly uncomfortable. Some people lie, cheat, kill and worse. And some of those liars are very, very rich. And those rich psychopaths have convinced lots of people that conspiracies are fantasies. If you look up the word and read my book, Dirt Ordinary, you'll find out they're not fantasies; they're dirt ordinary.

    And someone wants to cool down the planet in an ongoing Ice Age. That's like taping a starving man's mouth shut. Dumb!



Leave a Comment

5 × five =