It's pretty easy to find people who don't know what they're talking about at any rally and put together a video of people looking stupid and saying stupid things. Just look at any teabagger rally, you can just read the stupid there.

Meh, the problem with protest marches is that generally the people going to them are the people who don't have anything better to do.

The rest of us (who accept the reality of climate change) are at our jobs. So these idiots don't represent me, don't represent most sane people, and don't alter the facts of climate one iota.

Moving this video to Trancecoach's personal queue. It failed to receive enough votes to get sifted up to the front page within 2 days.

@ChaosEngine @newtboy
Well, if Climate Change is now "irreversible," does that mean that the Climate Change believers will stop trying to use the government to try to reverse it? (I say it's one less thing to worry about! Alas, there will always be contrarians to this malarkey, as the U.N. pouts "Quit thinking about Climate Change, and act to empower us even further than we already are! What wealth still exists is shrinking, so we need to scramble harder for your last dollars!" You boys should donate if you care so much.)

Wow, you really can't read, can you?

From the title of the article you linked:

U.N. climate change report sees risk of 'irreversible' damage

In a paragraph summing up the risks, the draft says that a continued rise in world greenhouse gas emissions is "increasing the likelihood of severe, pervasive and irreversible impacts for people and ecosystems."

No, it means that it's too late to have no climate change as a result of human produced greenhouse gasses (thanks to the impressively effective interference and intentional confusion caused by politically motivated climate change deniers who have delayed meaningful action thus far), but it's never too late to stop adding to the problem and making it worse.

The 'right wing' stance so far has been "It's not real, no...I mean, It's being faked by scientists, no...I mean, it's not a problem, no...I mean, it's not man made, no...I mean, it's too expensive to do anything, no...I mean, it's being faked by scientists, no....I mean, it isn't real, no...I mean, it's too late to do anything." I quit giving them an ear at "It's not real", because I can read and do math, and can understand science.

EDIT:And please-oh-please. Give me the URL of the UN speech you quoted as saying "Quit thinking about Climate Change, and act to empower us even further than we already are! What wealth still exists is shrinking, so we need to scramble harder for your last dollars!" I'm thinking you made that up.

Here's a serious question for you all, although not precisely related to this video.

How long do we have to wait before the proper response to climate-change deniers is ridicule? There hasn't been any actual scientific controversy for over a decade...how many decades do we have to pander to them before we can treat them exactly the same as flat-earthers and moon-landing-hoaxers?

@Trancecoach
I'd just like to ask, so I can get some perspective on your point of view, do you believe that climate change is real? If so, do you believe that humans have anything to do with it?

For me, it's about negative 15 years....and I thought I was being generous giving deniers more than long enough to actually READ the science themselves and see it's simple and clear. I have thought they deserved ridicule for over 20 years, but I held off, knowing some are just slow learners. Now I see that far too many are simply not learners at all, and deserve ridicule when they spout ridiculousness. I often oblige.

...and you left out 9/11 hoaxers/inside jobers and the newest....Ebola is an intentional Obama plot to announce martial law and take your guns an liberty. (Yes, a relative actually said that to me 2 weeks ago, and was 100% serious about it.)

Well, unfortunately for the climate change agenda and regardless of what you seem to think, there will continue to be studies that find evidence for the climate warming hiatus, thus lending credence to articles like these which indicate that the climate science is not settled science. I guess it's too bad that science is not a matter of consensus and needs evidence to make its case.

There will continue to be those who either intentionally mislead or actually are incapable of understanding the science that will cherry pick data to make their pre-conceived notions seem correct, and others who look at the totality of data, analyze hypothesis, test them, check others tests, and can come to rational conclusions.
It is GREAT that science is not ONLY about consensus, and is really about repeatable provable theories. It is TERRIBLE that action based on science is nearly all a matter of consensus, and that the uneducated, the disingenuous, and the paid shills have managed to confuse the populace enough to make consensus impossible, or at least intentionally difficult and slow.

Never mind. I think my question has been answered. Thanks.

Ha. Lots of butthurt over a little video.

You still don't understand science, do you?

First, John Coleman is not a "top meteorologist", he's a TV weatherman. He has no relevant academic credentials, and every single one of his points is either flat out lying or trivially refuted.

Second, don't bother posting anything from nipccreport.com. They're simply a front for the conservative Heartland Institute and are about as trustworthy and scientifically credible as the fox who assures you he has the chickens best interest at heart.

Finally, a former chief scientist at BP argues against climate change?? No fucking way! Get outta town! Next, you'll be telling me that the Pope believes in god....

and after all that, he's still wrong