The scientific community *knows* that climate change is real. The scientific community is made up of individual researchers at universities all over the world, anyone who practices good science and adheres to the scientific method is in no doubt about what the research points to. You can't buy the global scientific community, there are too many of "us" (i guess) that are all absolutely anal about good scientific practice. You could buy one or two, you could buy a small group, but the only thing that changes the opinion of the global scientific community is hard scientific reasoning.

I can't speak for where you live, but if you were to walk into my university's physics department tomorrow and ask any lecturer or professor about climate change, they'd tell you that, and the same goes for just about any university in the UK, holland and france i imagine, if not more like germany and so on. Anyone who has spent any amount of time comparing graphs and looking for statistical anomalies will tell you that there is a god damn big and unwieldy peak sticking up on the temperature/time graph right about where we started mass producing greenhouse gases, and the only new influence into the equation was us, because the old peaks are flat compared to this one. This is happening on a HUMAN timescale, not on a geological one.

We're seeing ocean floor methane bubbling up to the surface that we haven't seen before due to the heating of the ocean, and only this week the scientist who studied it tweeted flat out that if even a fraction of that methane is released into the atmosphere... "we're fucked."

It's pretty damn serious, but i'm not telling you that you need to pay huge taxes or fees to green companies or anything, and no scientist ever will. The agendas that politicians take up in the name of science should not stop you from accepting the science, and there are simple, good common sense things you can do to make a small difference that would cumulate to something big if we all did them. The only reason governments haven't been investing more into green energy is because they are relentlessly lobbied by the hugely wealthy and powerful and corrupt energy firms.

What is more likely?

One of the results of a warming ocean is melting glaciers and ice caps. That is the addition of fresh water to a salt water system. There is more saltwater than freshwater in the world. One of the properties of salt water is that it conveys heat better than fresh water. The hot-water baseboard heater you use to heat your home would actually be more efficient if it used salt water. We don't use salt water in heaters because salt actually corrodes the metal pipes faster. What does this have to do with climate change? As you dilute the salt water that transfers heat from the warm equatorial waters of the world to the cooler waters in temperate zones, it gets less good at transferring that heat. This change happens very slowly to the perception of short lived mammals like us. In geologic terms, this is how we get to the next ice age.

Uniformitarianism as stated was proven false in the early 1800's

That is not correct:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniformitarianism

"Uniformitarianism has been a key principle of geology and virtually all fields of science, but naturalism's modern geologists, while accepting that geology has occurred across deep time, no longer hold to a strict gradualism."

The entry says exactly what I have been saying, which is that uniformitarian ideas are foundational to modern geology, excepting now because they have been unable to deny that there were catastrophes they have mixed in catastrophism.

You completely ignore the scientific method

When you stop ranting at me and form a cogent argument, maybe it will be possible to have a dialogue.

neither can fossilization

I guess this cowboy lived millions of years ago:

http://www.bible.ca/tracks/rapid-fossils-rapid-petrifaction.htm

and I love that your 'proof' video includes Uluru, the oldest large rock in the known world, which is proven by numerous differing methods to be well over 550 Million years old

Using logic, the point of demonstrating that you can find the same sediment all over the world would be to show that those dating methods are wrong. Yet, you cite the dating methods as a reason not to watch the video which has proof that they are faulty. Incredible.

so it goes unwatched.

It's simply the close-mindedness that you accuse me of that it goes unwatched.

Just fail dude.
I never claimed to be an expert in geology, just to have enough knowledge to understand the science involved, unlike you.
EDIT: but your millionaire uncles HAVE talked about money with you, right...so you understand, say, interest?
Uniformitarianism as stated was proven false in the early 1800's. Many factors are involved in the time frame for feature formations, they are not uniform.
Yes, you are consistently anti-science here. You completely ignore the scientific method when making obviously false claims like 'that proves it was caused by a giant flood'.
Oh dude, no where in your fairy tale book does it ever say the earth is 6000 years old, you've been duped by idiots with agendas. Give it up, even your religious 'leaders' have realized the insanity of that stance and the requirement to suspend reality for it to be correct. Try listening to them.
There is absolutely zero evidence for a 'world wide flood' unless you can create some out of thin air with your level of faith in ridiculousness. There is not a single whit of actual evidence, which would take the form of a single, homogeneous layer of sediment world wide at the same geologic age. Doesn't exist. Sorry, you're just plain wrong about what you claim.
The 'evidence' in this video is evidence that landslides happen fast, not that layered non-volcanic sediments can be put down in tens of thousands of distinct and differing layers in an instant, then massive erosion can happen also in an instant, as you claim it does. True enough, erosion can happen fast, but doesn't often, and sedimentary layering simply can't...neither can fossilization. (oops, forgot, the devil put those stone bones there to fool me...but since I AM the devil, I'm not fooled)
Your claim that there is a homogeneous sediment layer all over the world is a complete fabrication. It does not exist. If it did, that would be HUGE scientific discovery heard on every network and science program for years to come, not one only heard about in church and/or afterwards in the lobby.
Once again...fail....as I suspect you did in your science classes.

EDIT:...and I love that your 'proof' video includes Uluru, the oldest large rock in the known world, which is proven by numerous differing methods to be well over 550 Million years old (that's how long ago it was rotated, it existed well before then) I guess the devil/gawd made that too, in order to confuse scientists? I'm not going to watch more time wasting ridiculous unscientific propaganda by the scientifically challenged, so it goes unwatched.
and good job with the cut and paste in order to quote me and answer me without me noticing,...sorry, didn't work.
SECOND EDIT: Do you not notice that on one side you claim uniformitarianism is wrong, but you also insist it's held as a major tenant of modern geology? If it's that obvious to you, an admitted lay person, don't you think it might be more obvious to professionals?

..I can claim to know far more than you seem to because I went to college and graduated with a degree in science, have a NASA geologist uncle,..

What area of science do you have a degree in? Does having a scientific degree make you an expert in geology? I have a few uncles who are millionaires but that doesn't mean I am good with money or know anything about business.

...Uniformitarianism as described is NOT the cornerstone of geology, that's ridiculous. Geologic forces are not uniform...

Uniformitarianism is the belief that the geological forces at work in present time are the same as those which happened in the past. This is what is meant by the phrase "the present is the key to the past". It is not a belief that all geologic forces are uniform. Again, this theory is the cornerstone of modern geology and also many other sciences. Geologists mix in some catastrophism with their uniformitarianism so they don't really call it uniformitarianism anymore but that is the foundation of geology today.

..and as an anti-science guy..

I am not anti-science; I am a firm believer in the scientific method. What you're calling science cannot be tested with the scientific method, and it is therefore not scientific and requires faith to believe it. I don't have the kind of faith to believe what you believe.

..I would guess you believe the earth is about 6000 years old, right?..

Give or take a few thousand years. I believe we live on a young Earth in a young Universe.

..There is NO evidence of a world wide flood. NONE WHATSOEVER. Either show exactly where the (as yet undiscovered) layer of homogeneous sediment is in the strata world wide or stop lying. You can't, because it didn't happen..

Do you realize there aren't two sets of evidence, one for creation and the other for naturalism? We are looking at the same evidence and coming to different conclusions. There is volumes of evidence for a worldwide flood, in fact the evidence is irrefutable, but if you come to the data with uniformitarian assumptions you will misinterpret it.

A secular geologist looks at the grand canyon and sees millions of years because of his uniformitarian assumptions about the processes that formed it, and his belief in deep time. Because of the assumptions he is bringing to the table, he fails to see how it could have been rapidly formed and deposited, and the evidence in this video proves that it could have been.

You can find the same sediment (from the same place) deposited the same way, all over the world. The explanation that it was a process that took hundreds of millions of years or longer doesn't match the data. There are plenty of lectures which explain what this looks like, and as a scientist you should be able to understand exactly what they're talking about:

Only those still believing in 'uniformitarianism' think landslides took thousands or millions of years to 'form'...most people stopped believing in that theory in the early 1800's.
There is NO evidence of a world wide flood. NONE WHATSOEVER. Either show exactly where the (as yet undiscovered) layer of homogeneous sediment is in the strata world wide or stop lying. You can't, because it didn't happen.
Your (intentional?) lack of understanding of geology and it's processes, and science and it's theories do not make them wrong.

I can claim to know far more than you seem to because I went to college and graduated with a degree in science, have a NASA geologist uncle, and read numerous scientific publications monthly, and because I didn't get my science training from Wikipedia, the worst place to try to learn something because it can be changed by those with an agenda and no knowledge.

Uniformitarianism as described is NOT the cornerstone of geology, that's ridiculous. Geologic forces are not uniform...erosion, for one, happens at it's own rate each time depending on uncountable factors. Differing geologic forces act in concert on differing geologic features to change the rate at which features are made/changed. That means that there is NO uniformitarianism as described...except to a quite small extent in the lab where ALL other things are equal. That's probably why they never mentioned it in any of the numerous geology classes I took, nor from my uncle, nor in Science, nat. geo., Scientific American, etc..
I imagine you know about it because you have been told it can be used as a tool to try to debunk geology, and as an anti-science guy you grabbed onto it without understanding.
Once again, there are certain processes that happen at certain rates, like the decay of radioactive materials down to their bases, usually lead. That is not the same as saying all features are created at the same rate, which you suggest uniformitarianism claims. EDIT: apparently that IS what uniformitarianism claims, and why it was discarded as a hypothesis in the early 1800's, it was wrong in it's basic assumptions.
None of it has a thing to do with a landslide, which is what the video describes. Not a whit.
I would guess you believe the earth is about 6000 years old, right?

EDIT: I hope I can be forgiven for not knowing every discredited theory from the late 1700's.

How can you claim to know something (anything) about geology, or that you have studied it, when you don't know what Uniformitarian Geology is? I am just a layman but I know that Uniformitarianism is the cornerstone of geology today. It is not the invention of creationists, it is the invention of Charles Lyell, the father of modern geology. His thesis, "the present is the key to the past", is why geologists believe what they do about how the geologic structures of the Earth were formed.

It seems you misunderstood that it only references certain features, and volcanoes are not in that category.
It only makes the assumption about the certain kinds of features that have been shown to form only at certain rates....not about every X, which you are ascribing it to...like volcanoes, land slides, mountain range building, etc. (again, not in the category).
Radiometric dating is not 1/2 of geology, or even 1/2 of geologic dating, by far. You misunderstand again.
Uniformitarianism sounds like a theologist creation. Learned geologists know that the world is not uniform, but certain processes are.
I have honestly looked at much of the publicized evidence (it's apparent that you have not) and how they use it to arrive at numerous theories, I am not shocked at all because I understand science and the processes it uses to come to 'conclusions'.

What exactly have I misunderstood?

I do not conflate all features, but I don't think there are many which haven't been shown to form quickly under certain circumstances. We cannot assume every time we see X that long ages occured if we see that X can also form rapidly. That is essentially what geologists do today which is why it is the lynchpin for how geologic features are interpreted.

The other half of the equation is radiometric dating which has its own faulty set of assumptions based on uniformitarianism geology. I think when people look at this issue they think it is an exact science when actually the conclusion of deep time is an assumption based on circumstantial evidence. If you honestly looked at the evidence and how they use it to arrive at the conclusion you would be shocked.

The evidence in this video proves that certain features that we believe took thousands or millions of years to form can form quickly in a catastrophe. The reality is that the geologic evidence we find in the Earth is consistent with a world wide flood. It isn't imaginary evidence, it is out there for anyone to see and it is very well documented. The evidence, such as what you find in this video, is overwhelmingly against the deep time hypothesis, and when you discard deep time you are left with a world wide catastrophic event which matches the Genesis flood.

It is the essential issue:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniformitarianism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catastrophism

Part of the framework undergirding the concept of deep time is the assumption that certain geologic features take long ages to form, and if that isn't always true, then those assumptions need to be re-evaluated.

Perhaps that is the 'essential issue' for those with no grasp of the science...not for anyone else.
There is no 'debate' about geology, only silly ranting of those that don't like or understand the science... and science, which doesn't care a whit about them.
No geologist claimed that ALL features of earth were created in the same way and rate....not one...ever. If anyone stupidly and wrongly did say that, they were ipso/facto not a geologist (and were most likely someone setting up a straw man to trick you into believing the unbelievable).

Well, we have a record of what happened in Gods word. When we look at the evidence through that lens, we come to the correct interpretation, and when we invent our own narrative, we come to the wrong interpretation.

The essential issue in the debate over Geology is how quickly or slowly the features we see in the Earth were formed. The evidence in this video shows that features we thought took thousands or millions of years can happen very quickly

Your video, Geology of Shoes, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.