*promote

Promoting this video and sending it back into the queue for one more try; last queued Friday, December 19th, 2008 12:39pm PST - promote requested by MycroftHomlz.

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

*lies, because he shows his ignorance about the scientific data. And people don't argue with me on this, whether you want to say anthropogenic or not is irrelevant to the fact that the isotope data covers a far greater time period than "a few hundred years".

Adding video to channels (Lies) - requested by MycroftHomlz.

Yeah this is all lies, I agree with Mycro.

These douchebags know they're lying. 22 years of a "career" and somehow you're confused with what 99.9% of all scientists have stated for over 25 years? But then again, this is Lou fuckin' Dobbs' show, so of course he'd have the biggest morons on.

This ranks with evolution deniers.

*politics
*eco
*loudobbspropaganda

Isn't it arrogance to assume that you're smarter than the majority of climatologists?

It's one thing to say the evidence that it's our doing is insufficient, it's another to say it's a hoax and obviously caused by the sun, because gee, the world's a big place, and nothing else could be doing it.

I also like how he mentions oceanic acidity -- what's the cause of that, pal? Increased CO₂ in the air, maybe?

Is the weather radar behind him supposed to make him credible?

Adding video to channels (Eco, Politics) - requested by NetRunner.

Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) is a theory (hypothesis). It is an unproven theory. What you do with theories is put them to the test with scientific observations. Let’s see what data points we now have:

1) Average annual temperatures have not surpassed 1998 (NOAA) (University of Alabama)

2) Average annual temperatures are now trending downward since 1998 (NOAA) (University of Alabama)

3) Ocean temperatures have not risen since 2000 when the 3000 Argo buoys were launched. The buoys even show a slight decrease in ocean temperatures

4) The Arctic ice froze to February levels by December 07, there are 1mm more sq km than before (previous was 13mm sq km)

5) The Arctic ice is 20cm thicker than “normal” (whatever that is)

6) All polar bear pods are stable or growing (NOAA/PBS)

7) Mount Kilimanjaro is not melting because of global warming, rather “sublimation”

The Antarctic is not “melting”, it is growing in most places, the sloughing off at the edges is normal as the ice mass grows

9) The majority of the Antarctic is 8 degrees below “normal” (again, whatever that is)

10) The coveted .7 degree rise in temperatures over the last 100 years has been wiped out with last years below “normal” temperatures (NOAA coolest winter since 2001)

11) Al Gore's film was deemed “propaganda” in a court of law in the UK as many points could not be substantiated by scientists

12) It was also just revealed that some of the footage in Al's film was CGI. The ice shelf collapse was from the movie The Day After Tomorrow (ABC)

13) One of the scientists that originally thought that CO2 preceded the warming has now found with new data that the CO2 rise follows the warming (Dr David Evans)

14) August 2008 was the first time since 1913 there were no sun spots.

15) The Medieval Warm Period was warmer than the 20th century (no SUVs)

16) Many scientists are now predicting 30 years of cooling.

17) The greenhouse effect is real, our small contribution to it cannot even be measured

18) Several publications, including those that are warmist have recently written that the natural cycles of the earth may mask AGW. Give me a break.

19) 31,000 scientist have signed a petition against AGW!

---------------------------

More Than 650 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims


“I am a skeptic...Global warming has become a new religion.” - Nobel Prize Winner for Physics, Ivar Giaever.

“Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly. As a scientist I remain skeptical.” -

Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a PhD in meteorology and formerly of NASA who has authored more than 190 studies and has been called “among the most preeminent scientists of the last 100 years.”

Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the history...When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.” - UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist.

“The IPCC has actually become a closed circuit; it doesn’t listen to others. It doesn’t have open minds… I am really amazed that the Nobel Peace Prize has been given on scientifically incorrect conclusions by people who are not geologists,” - Indian geologist Dr. Arun D. Ahluwalia at Punjab University and a board member of the UN-supported International Year of the Planet.

“The models and forecasts of the UN IPCC "are incorrect because they only are based on mathematical models and presented results at scenarios that do not include, for example, solar activity.” - Victor Manuel Velasco Herrera, a researcher at the Institute of Geophysics of the National Autonomous University of Mexico

“It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who don’t buy into anthropogenic global warming.” - U.S Government Atmospheric Scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research Division of NOAA.

great comment quantumushroom. I'm glad to see someone thinks the way I do and has many sources to back it up.

>> ^quantumushroom:
6) All polar bear pods are stable or growing (NOAA/PBS)


"Secretary of the Interior Dirk Kempthorne today announced that he is accepting the recommendation of U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Director Dale Hall to list the polar bear as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA)."

You are a despicable human being, QM.

You lie on a routine basis.

You represent all that is filthy, lazy, and ugly in mankind.

Sorry Schism, quoting out of context and not providing sources is pretty far from backing it up.

Didn't know that there was a Canadian Ice Service, part of the federal Ministry of Environment (Environment Canada).
http://ice-glaces.ec.gc.ca/App/WsvPageDsp.cfm?ID=11912&Lang=eng
The Northwest Passage in the Canadian Arctic was ice free and open to navigation for 4 weeks this year.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/09/070917-northwest-passage.html

>> ^quantumushroom:
The Antarctic is not “melting”, it is growing in most places, the sloughing off at the edges is normal as the ice mass grows


"The rate of ice loss in the Arctic is accelerating rapidly, scientists say.

According to data from NASA's QuikSCAT satellite, between 2004 and 2005 the Arctic lost an unprecedented 14 percent of its perennial sea ice (shown in white)—some 280,000 square miles (725,000 square kilometers), or an area the size of Texas."

National Geographic

I never know who to believe on this stuff. But i do know that science is not democratic. Petitions or popularities on the side of any theory are not actual evidence for the validity of that theory. They're only relevant if we are voting on how to *respond* to a theory. They in *no* way substantiate nor invalidate a theory or its alternatives. Please remember this, people.

>> ^quantumushroom:
19) 31,000 scientist have signed a petition against AGW!


"So what does it take to be included among the 31,000 "experts" on the petition? Well, according to the OISM criteria, any undergraduate science degree will do just fine.

OISM also wants to let you know that 9,021 of the signers hold PhDs. They don't specify what the doctorates are in, but they repeat that figure quite a bit, as if it means something. Since the group was nice enough to list all 31,000 signers, including the dead people, let's take a look at the qualifications of three randomly-selected "climate experts."

• W. Kline Bolton, M.D. is a professor of medicine and Nephrology Division Chief at the University of Virginia. Nephrology deals with the study of the function and diseases of the kidney.
  
• Zhonggang Zeng is one of the 9,000 with a PhD. He is a professor of mathematics at Northeastern Illinois University. His most recent publication is entitled "Computing multiple roots of inexact polynomials."
  
• Hub Hougland is a dentist in Muncie, Indiana. He was inducted into the Indiana Basketball Hall of Fame last year.
  

>> ^quantumushroom:
9) The majority of the Antarctic is 8 degrees below “normal” (again, whatever that is)


"Satellite imagery from the National Snow and Ice Data Center at the University of Colorado at Boulder reveals that a 13,680 square kilometer (5,282 square mile) ice shelf has begun to collapse because of rapid climate change in a fast-warming region of Antarctica.

National Snow and Ice Data Center, March 25, 2008

And....

"Ice growth slows; Arctic still warmer than usual"

National Snow and Ice Data Center, December 8, 2008

"we have a hundred years worth of data"

That's called shooting yourself in the leg.

We actually have hundreds of thousands years worth of data.

Ice core drilling anyone? Sediment cores?

This weatherman is about as scientific as the bible.

Some people seem to confuse regional temperature changes with global average temperature changes. The Medieval Warming Period, or NAMBLA, was limited to a small region and didn't reach the temperatures we've had in the last 20-30 years.

Like the "expert" in the video said himself: The earth is a big place. So why do they act like local weather trumps global averages?

interesting part of a blog post on the subject (with sources)

"To think we could effect weather all that much". Well, there are 6.7 billion of us and all those factories and power plants running 24 hours a day.

Somehow I knew that when I started reading the post that says global warming is an "unproven theory" that I was going to scroll down and it was going to be by quantumushroom. Sure enough it was.

Isn't it interesting how they're always conservative republicans?

There are huge parallels between this issue and evolution.

If you're really wondering how to decide what to believe, just read this page:

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

The best line from the wikipedia article is:
"No remaining scientific body of national or international standing is known to reject the basic findings of human influence on recent climate."

>> ^brain:
Isn't it interesting how they're always conservative republicans?

Very true.

Given their wonderful predictions on Afghanistan, Iraq, Terrorism, Katrina, Economics, Torture, Freedom and Civil Rights I am wary to believe anything coming from them.

Ocean acidification is a direct result of anthropogenic CO2 emissions so he's kind of contradicting himself.

However, the Vostok ice core data is ridiculously myopic (covering only the last 0.01% of earth's history) and climate models involve way too much guesswork about things such as how changes in weather patterns will affect the areal and temporal distribution of albedo, and how quickly the weathering of crust oxides will sequester CO2 as a function of temperature.

But the AGW denier at the end of the video is making things up. Excepting the 11-year sunspot cycle, there has been no significant change in solar output over the last 100 years.

God forbid people believe data.

That IS a great comment QM. Say, if anyone would like to read its original source, word for word (not copied and pasted), you can find it here:

http://irdial.com/blogdial/?p=1115

That being said, I believe global warming is very likely a great threat to mankind but I agree with Michael Crichton in the opinion that: "science and politics are a bad mix."

>> ^MycroftHomlz:
God forbid people believe data.


But... what if God is dead?

I'm of the opinion that regardless of a person's stance on anthropogenic global warming, there are vastly more positive reasons for getting the hell off of fossil fuels, than there are for staying on them.

Conservation for the sake of conservation is reason enough. It's time to quit being selfish, and realize that the generations to follow deserve a better world than the one we're in danger of leaving them. And statement covers far more than just the environment.

crap video, crap liberal comments, global warming is a load of crap, I like to use the word crap

^ when it comes out of everything you say, it's no wonder you find so much of it around you.

"Arctic melt 20 years ahead of climate models"

Newscientist.com

even the weather is politicized. Democracy is such fun.

I don't have the time or energy to refute everything your copied and pasted QM, needless to say the first 9 I looked at were wrong. 15 is absolutely false.

You need to provide references when you make statements. The globe is warming get over it.

You (QM) lie on a routine basis.

Yeah, lying with the truth, supported by facts and logic.

You represent all that is filthy, lazy, and ugly in mankind.

But only compared to the socialist utopia dreamed up by frauds, thieves and charlatans. And of the three adjectives above, I'll agree with 'lazy' but that's it.

Thousands of years ago, the shaman stood on a little dirt mound, waved a bone and proclaimed the tribe was in danger of being killed by evil spirits; therefore give the shaman a portion of your harvest and he'll save you.

Thirty years ago, some poindexters in white labcoats stood at a podium with fraudulent computer models, trying to frighten people into believing the world would be destroyed by WARM WEATHER; therefore shut down all progress and give us half your income in taxes and we will save you.

There is no scientific evidence for man-made global warming, only govt-sponsored scientists trying to lick the hand that feeds them (with OUR tax dollars).

When it comes to the man-made global warming religion, I'm an atheist.

Given their wonderful predictions on Afghanistan, Iraq, Terrorism, Katrina, Economics, Torture, Freedom and Civil Rights I am wary to believe anything coming from them.

Well, my liberal/socialist/communo-anarchist friends, with the arrival of the Obamessiah and the lowlifes already in Democrat-controlled Congress now it's YOUR TURN at bat, and when these dopes start really FUBAR-ing everything I'll be here to point out your FOLLY.

>> ^quantumushroom:
Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) is a theory (hypothesis). It is an unproven theory. What you do with theories is put them to the test with scientific observations. Let’s see what data points we now have:
1) Average annual temperatures have not surpassed 1998 (NOAA) (University of Alabama)
2) Average annual temperatures are now trending downward since 1998 (NOAA) (University of Alabama)
3) Ocean temperatures have not risen since 2000 when the 3000 Argo buoys were launched. The buoys even show a slight decrease in ocean temperatures
.....etc

Figures quantummushroom would copy and paste his comment, most of his comments sound like they were coming right out of his ass after being written by FOX news.
I knew he couldn't think for himself.

I really hate how science these days is being portrayed by some of you one the sift.

Half of you say the scientist are in the pocket of the government and the other half say we are patsies for the liberal left.

You have no idea how insulting it is to me when I read crap like that.

"Thousands of years ago, the shaman stood on a little dirt mound, waved a bone and proclaimed the tribe was in danger of being killed by evil spirits; therefore give the shaman a portion of your harvest and he'll save you."

^And this coming from a guy who calls himself religious?^

"and when these dopes start really FUBAR-ing everything I'll be here to point out your FOLLY.^

^Will you make that shit up too? Cause I can just use your old defense: whatever happens during this administration was the last guys fault because the decisions a president makes have sweeping, long-term consequences. Uh, unless it was something good that happened, in which case this rule doesn't apply.^

>> ^Structure:
The Medieval Warming Period, or NAMBLA, was limited to a small region and didn't reach the temperatures we've had in the last 20-30 years.

I don't often laugh-out-loud, literally, but this nambla reference got me
Now, if you could say that comment while impersonating Norm McDonald, it would be comedy gold.

My biggest problem with the meteorologist, is that the comment "the oceans are so big" makes him seem ignorant on what a dramatic change even 1 degree can do - just look at what's happening to all the coral reefs.

Yes, I think humans can survive global warming, just not at the current numbers, and our diets will be much more bland.

Of course we'll all probably blow each other to bits whilst playing a game of global-thermo-nuclear-war - long before the earth becomes inhospitable. I just thought of something, if we launched a nuke into the atmosphere and detonated it there, what would it do to the carbon monoxide? (any physicists on the sift?). No I'm not suggesting that, because of the side effects of a nice big radiation cloud...

amusing that there is such resistance to an idea as a planet warming. Particularly when we have been pumping it full of green house gasses for the past how many years.. Yeah that could never add up to anything right? Lets hope theres nothing to global warming but in the meantime lets not throw stones at anyone. None of you here are scientists (okay maybe a few) so please stop acting like you have all the answers.

I think in time we will have definite proof of whats going on. You skeptics can disagree all you want but when our oceans start rising have the decency to admit you were wrong. Lets just hope its not too late shall we?

I watched that Lou Dobbs episode and this video is out of context.
We do not hear the question and previous comment to which Chad Meyers(CNN Meteorologist in the video) answered.

Hehe - I hold "Global Warming" up as proof that all the atheists in the sift are - in fact - regularly basing thier world views on faith-based beliefs in things they can't see or prove.

ROFLMFAO at rougy putting his boots on and stomping seven shades of shit out of QM.

>> ^Ryjkyj:
That being said, I believe global warming is very likely a great threat to mankind but I agree with Michael Crichton in the opinion that: "science and politics are a bad mix."



Yeah, fuck that NASA bullshit!!!

14) August 2008 was the first time since 1913 there were no sun spots.

Sunspots have nothing whatsoever to do with global warming, and we have no possible way of controlling them. Sunspots are a result of massive magnetic field lines that makes it harder for gas to move, and thus it creates areas of slightly cooler spots on the suns surface. Eventually this builds up a charge which can result in massive energy outbursts we call Solar flares. Because the sun is a sphere, normally these flares are pointed away from us, however if we are unlucky, and it does point towards earth, these outbursts could knock out our electricity, satellites and thus do all kinds of damage. But again, nothing to do with global warming.

As for the rest of your points. It is correct that there is variations in the earths temperature, noone objects to this. The concern about manmade global warming however, is not just based on a year-by-year measuring of temperature, it is based on findings that goes MILLIONS of years back, even hundreds of millions. By studying layers in the ground, we can conclusively say that the levels of CO2 are now way, way higher than ever before in history, if this was a RESULT of global warming, then the warming should already have been here. That doesnt have to mean it CAUSES global warming, but it is cause for CONCERN that it might.

This summer, for instance, The North Pole was in open water, for the first time in recorded history. Data about global temperatures are complicated and messy, if you pick and choose bits and pieces you fail to grasp the bigger picture. The OVERALL trend leaves little doubt: The planet is warming, and we are to blame.

Our planet is due for a natural pole reversal, it actually should have happened thousands of years ago. Scientists know NOTHING about what that means for our climate and yet they blame human kind for everything.
Sorry, I have my doubts about the global warming theory.
And I am not alone with that opinion. There are A LOT of scientist who are specialised in that field and also dont think human kind is blamed for global warming. Some of them are even nobel prize winners.

What I really find funny about all this, is that the earth changes all the time. Are we going to blame everything on ourselves from now on? Thats paranoia, and I guess after the cold war is over people need a new threat. Humans always need threats. But this is the wrong way to go.

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

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
Hehe - I hold "Global Warming" up as proof that all the atheists in the sift are - in fact - regularly basing thier world views on faith-based beliefs in things they can't see or prove.


You are conveniently forgetting the crucial difference between "Faith-based" and "Evidence-based" You see, the latter is based on EVIDENCE, the former is shit people have just made up. Read some science on the subject, or at least take a look at the links rougy provided above. The EVIDENCE, not faith, suggests that global warming is true.

To believe something based on evidence is not the same as "having faith" in it, in fact it is in many regards the complete opposite. If we only had a little faith, I could ignore the evidence and believe it'd all work out fine.

>> ^quantumushroom:
Well, my liberal/socialist/communo-anarchist friends, with the arrival of the Obamessiah and the lowlifes already in Democrat-controlled Congress now it's YOUR TURN at bat, and when these dopes start really FUBAR-ing everything I'll be here to point out your FOLLY.


And if things are better at the end of the Obama administration than they are now, are you going to be man enough to admit you were wrong and are an idiot? Or at least do us the favor of discontinuing your internet access so we no longer have to tolerate your trolling posts?

I doubt it, you'll probably be there saying how any success Obama has was entirely due to the Bush administration.

>> ^Ryjkyj:
Will you make that shit up too? Cause I can just use your old defense: whatever happens during this administration was the last guys fault because the decisions a president makes have sweeping, long-term consequences. Uh, unless it was something good that happened, in which case this rule doesn't apply.

Didn't you get the memo? 40 years ago the Republicans decided that every negative political decision is the fault of the Democrats, and every positive one was thanks to the Neo-Con agenda. Why if it weren't for all those damn commie liberals there'd be no poverty in the world, no global warming, and no threat from terrorists.

>> ^quantumushroom:
You (QM) lie on a routine basis.
Yeah, lying with the truth, supported by facts and logic.


That's the point.

You have yet to support your "truth" with either facts or logic.

I'm with QM on this one, he's actually come up with the goods.

"LET ME HEAR BOTH SIDES."
Radiohead.

>> ^quantumushroom:
Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) is a theory (hypothesis). It is an unproven theory. What you do with theories is put them to the test with scientific observations.

Rambling nonsense, in science there is no such term as "unproven theory" A theory is a construct and means to explain the available facts

Let’s see what data points we now have:
1) Average annual temperatures have not surpassed 1998 (NOAA) (University of Alabama)
2) Average annual temperatures are now trending downward since 1998 (NOAA) (University of Alabama)

This is more nonsense. while it is true that the highest peak on the scale so far is 1998,( or 2005, depending on how you measure) the point is that that the TREND is what counts, every year temperatures vary, some years are hot, relative to their time, some are cold, relative to their time. However, the upwards trend is not in question if we look at 128 years of recorded weather history, this is the image this report provides See image That image is scary enough, but it gets worse as we compare it to millions of years
Full report here

3) Ocean temperatures have not risen since 2000 when the 3000 Argo buoys were launched. The buoys even show a slight decrease in ocean temperatures


Again, not quite right, the actual data shows a complex pattern of both increases and decreases, overall, it is correct that there hasnt been any dramatic changes over the 4-5 years these buoys have actually been in operation, however, this is consistent with known patterns that includes "quiet years" in 5-10 year periods. The 50-year perspective is whats important

Argo Blog:
The results of Domingues et al (2008) do not show a constant rate of warming. Instead there are periods of warming interspersed with multi-year cooling periods. There is also regional variability in the multi-decadal trends. Moreover, there is uncertainty in the results because of sparse sampling of the oceans and instrumental errors during the pre-Argo era. In spite of the variability and the uncertainty, the evidence for a 50-year warming trend in the oceans is compelling.

The Argo site and the Argo blog




4) The Arctic ice froze to February levels by December 07, there are 1mm more sq km than before (previous was 13mm sq km)
5) The Arctic ice is 20cm thicker than “normal” (whatever that is)


Since you give no source of this information, I can only take your word for it, but the term "arctic ice" on google, comes up with report after report confirming that the ice is thinning, melting, receding and dissappearing. Every climate report I've seen lately seems to say the same thing

"December 3 , 2008
Ice growth slows; Arctic still warmer than usual"


6) All polar bear pods are stable or growing (NOAA/PBS)


No, infact any data I can find shows polar bears are negatively affected by the climate change. again, this is either an extreme oversimplification of bits of data from an unnamed report, or simply a lie. Here is an actual article by a real scientist, showing a complex but worrying future for polar bears


7) Mount Kilimanjaro is not melting because of global warming, rather “sublimation”


http://www.livescience.com/environment/070611_gw_kilimanjaro.html

This is the first point that actually holds, its still melting tho, and snowfall is decreasing, I'm no glacier expert, so I'll leave this one alone.


The Antarctic is not “melting”, it is growing in most places, the sloughing off at the edges is normal as the ice mass grows

Yes it is, as all sources indicates. You can say different, doesnt make it so.

9) The majority of the Antarctic is 8 degrees below “normal” (again, whatever that is)

no sources here either


10) The coveted .7 degree rise in temperatures over the last 100 years has been wiped out with last years below “normal” temperatures (NOAA coolest winter since 2001)

It is correct that 07/08 was the coolest winter since 2001, but it was still warmer than the average 20th century, and more importantly and the fundamental flaw in most of these points, seemingly contradicting data from 1 year does not "wipe out" the last 100 years of temperature increase. If the trend continues on a steady reversal for 10-15 years, THEN we are talking.




11) Al Gore's film was deemed “propaganda” in a court of law in the UK as many points could not be substantiated by scientists
12) It was also just revealed that some of the footage in Al's film was CGI. The ice shelf collapse was from the movie The Day After Tomorrow (ABC)



13) One of the scientists that originally thought that CO2 preceded the warming has now found with new data that the CO2 rise follows the warming (Dr David Evans)
This seems to be based on this article...which has been refuted here and here


14) August 2008 was the first time since 1913 there were no sun spots.


Irrelevant, see my earlier post.


15) The Medieval Warm Period was warmer than the 20th century (no SUVs)

No.
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) states that the "idea of a global or hemispheric "Medieval Warm Period" that was warmer than today however, has turned out to be incorrect" and that what those "records that do exist show is that there was no multi-century periods when global or hemispheric temperatures were the same or warmer than in the 20th century".[2] Indeed, global temperature records taken from ice cores, tree rings, and lake deposits, have shown that the Earth was actually slightly cooler (by 0.03 degrees Celsius) during the 'Medieval Warm Period' than in the early- and mid-20th century.


16) Many scientists are now predicting 30 years of cooling.


By "Many scientists" you mean of course this guy his prediction is based on 30 years cycles.

17) The greenhouse effect is real, our small contribution to it cannot even be measured



Again, wrong. it is true that we humans didnt create the greenhouse effect, and compared to the total effect it actually has, our contribution is miniscule. However, since the earth, or more precicely, the creatures living on it, are evolved to fit the environment as it is, even relatively small adjustments in the system can potentionally have catastrophic consequences. Or perhaps not, and thats one of the things about GW, we do not know for sure what happens, which could prove costly


I hope to have shown, with no other preparation than google at my disposal, that nearly all of the above points are based on shallow, irrellevant cherry-picking of data, unreliable sources. One to take a closer look at the sources of these claims, it turns out that either these points are willfull misrepresentations of the full source, or that the source itself turns out to be single individuals with no actual evidence to back it up.


I also found QM's entire post on a facebook post which ofcourse doesnt mean its not true, but it indicates that this is some kind of "fact-sheet" spread around the net with little or no actual source-checking like I've just done. Its one of those things that , just because someone's written it down and cited a few reports (dishonestly represented) people will believe it and think they've become "climate Skeptics".

A proper skeptic would check the sources.

>> ^BicycleRepairMan:
>> ^quantumushroom:
Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) is a theory (hypothesis). It is an unproven theory. What you do with theories is put them to the test with scientific observations.

Rambling nonsense, in science there is no such term as "unproven theory" A theory is a construct and means to explain the available facts

Correctamundo. Is anyone seeing a distinct "intelligent design" element hovering around this thread?

>> ^quantumushroom:
You (QM) lie on a routine basis.
Yeah, lying with the truth, supported by facts and logic.
You represent all that is filthy, lazy, and ugly in mankind.
But only compared to the socialist utopia dreamed up by frauds, thieves and charlatans. And of the three adjectives above, I'll agree with 'lazy' but that's it.
Thousands of years ago, the shaman stood on a little dirt mound, waved a bone and proclaimed the tribe was in danger of being killed by evil spirits; therefore give the shaman a portion of your harvest and he'll save you.
Thirty years ago, some poindexters in white labcoats stood at a podium with fraudulent computer models, trying to frighten people into believing the world would be destroyed by WARM WEATHER; therefore shut down all progress and give us half your income in taxes and we will save you.
There is no scientific evidence for man-made global warming, only govt-sponsored scientists trying to lick the hand that feeds them (with OUR tax dollars).
When it comes to the man-made global warming religion, I'm an atheist.

And also, when did those scientists start demanding money? They're just providing their opinion on the research they've conducted. If you think they're trying to scam money out of us by making us use cleaner more efficient and safer equipment WHICH THEY INVENTED!!!!!11oneoneone, then please re-read this sentence. Where the fuck is the HARM in using cleaner more efficient and safer equipment?

If they're right, and we change how we live to be cleaner and safer, we win.
If they're wrong, and we change how we live to be cleaner and safer, we didn't lose.

If they're right, and we change how we live to be cleaner and safer, we win.
If they're wrong, and we change how we live to be cleaner and safer, we didn't lose.


Hypocritical bullshit. Using the solutions given costs billions and billions of tax payers money (the small man), a whole lot of living quality and even lives.
Have you heard about the food crisis lately? Do you know why there is one? Because people stop cultivating food and instead cultivate biofuel plants which also use a lot more water than others just because they get more money for them. And why is that? Because governments actually promote using biofuel, and in some countries they even dictate to use biofuel in normal gas so they get more taxes from it.

But one thing is for certain: If they are indeed wrong, the truth will never be revealed. Too many people involved who dont want to stand in front of the whole world as COMPLETE idiots who only wanted money.

Too many people involved who dont want to stand in front of the whole world as COMPLETE idiots who only wanted money.

Please, just fucking PLEASE try to THINK for one moment, is this conspiracy really something even the most twisted, brainwashed nutters out there really could believe in? How did it get started? were they just wrong from the start?, when did they figure that out? when was the near unanimous decision not to tell the world made? Think about what you are saying here. Look at the data, look at the research, read the reports.

You so-called "skeptics" have no difficulity accepting data that matches YOUR claims, remember,like if 2008 can be measured as slightly colder than 2001, then its no problem citing the extremely credible sources, like universities full of professors, but if those same people ALSO say the trend is overwhelmingly showing that global warming is real and manmade, no lets be skeptics about that, they're only saying that because they want our taxes! its a giant conspiracy by elitists! but wait, the elitists say the Kilimanjaro melting isnt caused by global warming, Well, that IS true, right, because it costs less taxes figuring that out, right? ...Right? Or maybe not, but it costs less taxes to fix!, so Good Elitists, then.


This whole moneymaking scheme sure is pretty far-fetched. Listen, lets say a group of scientist decided to tell the "truth" then, no global warming etc, and they did "real science" to figure that out. Why wouldnt the government pay them, why wouldnt big oil-companies pay them? Isnt there JUST AS MANY reasons to make them rich for some ill-conceived agenda, why hasnt it happened on an equal or even larger scale than the people who say GW is real? Could it, by any remote possibility, be that its simply TRUE, and 99% of the REAL scientists out there are actually ON to something? Could it be?

Upon some further reading, it seems I was atleast partially wrong about sunspots, there is some evidence that suggests sunspots may be linked to earths temperature. The sun has active and quiet periods, and if there are lots of sunspots and activity, the earth could get warmer. However, we are talking about much longer periods than a month or two. "The little Ice Age" may have been caused by an inactivity of the sun in that period, which would be a 70 year period in which there were little or no sunspots. One month without sunspots may have some limited-time effects , but it is very unlikely this is going to change the overall trend, unless the sun enters a long, quiet period, like it did 360 years ago.

http://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/scienceques2005/20051128.htm

Aren't "ocean acidification" and "lack of fresh (drinking) water" two problems caused by pollution by us of the oceans and planets that are "so big" that human industry could never have a significant impact on?

Two problems that this weatherman claims are a greater threat then global warming, which we are also the cause...

*length=1:38

The duration of this video has been updated from unknown to 1:38 - length declared by Mandtis.