Global warming is real; the theory that most of the warming is due to human industrial activity is unlikely and based on "computer models," NOT FACTS.

You owe it to yourself to explore both sides of this issue instead of being scared into submission by alarmists.

I suppose you would believe that if you listened to Inhofe.

Watching the guy in this interview, he's clearly paranoid, not to mention highly paid by the energy lobby.

Oh please. Post a video of REAL scientists debating global warming. You "own it to yourself"

woops, misvote =/

propaganda from both sides deserves its own chance to be smacked down

Sorry but this statement really seems to defy logic:
"the theory that most of the warming is due to human industrial activity is unlikely and based on "computer models," NOT FACTS."

It doesn't require computer models to analyse polar ice cores that clearly demonstrate the increased global average temperatures, and the near exact correlation between atmospheric carbon dioxide and temperature graphs.

Computer models, use human theories, and extrapolate on them, computers don't come in 2 flavours (hippy & redneck) they just crunch formulas. If you wanna stick your head in the sand thats fine, just don't encourage others with your hocus pocus.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag.(show it anyway)

Yeah, I'd like to see this get out, just for the discussion.

About the video, it's hard to make someone understand something they are paid not to understand.

And It takes a special person I believe to say that global warming is not real especially given some pretty 'hard' facts, such as the fact that the last hottest years on record were in the previous last 14 years, the last one being 2005. 2005 was a year that records were broken in the US, Europe and India for highest temperatures and rainfall. The ice glaciers around the world have retreated, up in the northen territories you can see trees for miles around drunkenly swayed because the roots are in permafrost that is thawing. Go to Alaska, you can see the effects of Global Warming on the oil pipeline, because since the land is thawing and threatening the structural intergrity of the pipe. Back when I was in africa, rising temperatures over the years created problems with mosiquitos, as they moved into higher locales were most of the cpaitals were built such as Lusaka and Harare. But enough facts, people don't like facts, this is not a story based on facts this is purely economics, and the american people are being taken for a ride.

Kyoto has been ratified by all countries expect 2, the US and Australia. Both countries contend mainly that imposing enviromental policies on their economies would be detremental. The motor industry of course does not want this to happen, imposing enviromental policies in the US would mean that low MPG cars would be encouraged because they are more enviromentally friendly, currently Ford and GM are really not in that business, it's dominated by the bigger companies like Toyota and Honda. The US when compared to the world has the worst cars based on MPG, so much so that american cars doen't pass enviromental laws set in China of all places.

Some states and cities seeing inaction from the goverment are taking action in their own hands. California nearly did this until GM/Ford basically killed it and the restrictions that were supposed to bring California to the MPG standards of China were diluted. At the same time GM's amazing Electrical car got silently killed.

Now to many people, the question would arise about why would the motor industry go out of their way to suppress this. Because enviromental legislation means goverment control and oversight of an industry that's been allowed to get away with alot in the past. Safety issues that were always put on the driver, the legislation the american people had to go through just to get safety standards up in first place. Remember the Ford Pinto? You know that car that if you get rear ended in, chances are you're BBQ toast. Ford knew about this problem, worked out that it's cheaper to face the lawsuits then recall an entire production run.

So you really believe they are not capable of counter-spin to protect their industry? In actuality of course if Ford and GM would adopt mordern policies and improve the enviromental standards of their cars they would only benefit seeing as that would instantly open up new areas for export. GM could give you an amazing electrical car, that is good for living within the city tommorrow, but they wouldn't do that, why give you something today that works? When we can promise you hydrogen fuel cells that are close to a decade away. Allowing us of course to collude and rape the american people and hopefully the rest of the world for all the inefficient SUV gas guzzlers that they want.

This is all risky business, it is possible that Detriot is going to finally dissappear off the map. Ford and GM would lose out and we will all be driving Honda's and Toyota's in the future. You know why because the american car industry has been pathetic since the 1970s, when the oil crisis hit the american people were left with gas guzzlers from Ford/GM and new fuel efficient cars from Japan. Cars from Japan were so much more efficient and cost benefical, car manufacturs lobbied congress to impose trade restrictions on Japan. What happened was a voluntary quota system, where a fixed of Japanese cars were allowed in the US market, thus their low price shot up (high demand- low supply) and Japanese cars attained a high end market and the Lexus and such emerged.

The Japanese did it because it let them make a killing, there was large demand in the US, the quota artifically drove up the price for the Americans, thus Japanese auto companies were for it. Ford and GM were allowed to keep their tiny dominion for a little more, and also made a killing. Who lost? The american people who again got sub-par cars when compared to the rest of the world, paid much more for cars both domestic and foreign, and also pays the goverments imposition of the voluntary export quota.

So, no. I don't think Global Warming is BS. I like the weather like it is now, I don't want to see it change.

Here's another fact you won't hear on the Crescent News Network: global temperatures were warmer during the Middle Ages.

So, what Ye Olde SUVs were being driven then?

It's socialists who are behind the current end-of-discussion Chicken Little alarmism, and socialists are wrong about almost everything: human nature, how economies work and the proper role of the state versus the Individual (the former is beholden to the latter). The socialist paradises of Europe are dying; hopefully they'll awaken before they end up bowing to mecca at gunpoint.

It's no surprise that ultra-left arch-liberals and whatever "moderates" thay can scare will always back whatever affords them the most control over our lives.

If people like Inhofe, who don't want to see the American economy wrecked over the 7th or 8th unproven alarmist climate scare the media has pushed during the past century, are wrong, then people 100 years from now may angrily hold up cyberthermometers over his gravesite, showing a one degree difference in temperature.

A single volcanic eruption emits more pollutants into the atmosphere than all of mankinds emissions since the industrial revolution. We should concentrate on outlawing volcanic eruptions first. I'm anti-eruption, and you should be too.

Will refrain from downvoting so dag can get a debate

Both your arguements are false.

- You both claim natural events within the earth climate that takes place over thousands of years, yes it's true there is a natural cycle of warming and cooling that takes place. However, at that level with all the volcanic eruptions and other natural causes such as seasons (more plants in spring then winter), the carbon dioxide in the air never reached 300 parts per million this was proven through ice core samples from the poles that show a climatic record streching some 650,000 years.

- Using this data it has clearly been shown that human usage of fossil fuels as a whole is contributing to CO2 levels at astronomical rates, in my life time it's expect to reach close to 500 parts per million. There is a linear relationship between CO2 levels and global temperatures.

Actually you know what am not a scientist, so you won't believe me... so read this http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686

So both of you are delusional.

I mean why MAKE up Global Warming? Like whats the bloody point? That's such a stupid notion that I can't believe you even alluded to it. Reading that was like seeing a bird strike a window it thinks is open, first it's funny, but as the bird keeps striking the window over and over again in some vain attempt to progress... it just starts looking really wrong...

You're telling me organizations like American Geophysical Union, Joint Science Academies, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, American Meteorological Society, and American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) would scientifically back a hoax? Right.

The biggest skeptic in the world... his stance... http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa006&colID=13&articleID=000B557A-71ED-146C-ADB783414B7F0000

"Oklahoma Republican" is usually shorthand for dumb and 'dumberer'.

I do think that global warming denial is somewhat kneejerk on the part of some Republicans, if only because climate change seems like a tree-hugger cause and Exxon pays good money. I don't think that I can do better than farhad in demonstrating that a scientific consensus exists on the issue (unless the faith-based among us believe it is merely part of the whole science conspiracy).

So to argue in terms of hoax or real is folly.

However, there is an actual, sensible, live scientific debate on whether CO2 is a symptom of global warming or the central cause. And there is a very live debate on potential remedies. Does Big Government put caps on CO2 emissions that will undoubtedly stifle economic growth or is a rich society an environmentally resilient one?

"Does Big Government put caps on CO2 emissions that will undoubtedly stifle economic growth"

wrong, global warming technologies that help deal with emissions caps will become growth sectors. You would see a short term reduction in economic growth but the creation of new growth sectors which will lead to economic growth in 6 to 7 years. We are just fantastically bad at planning for the future. We would much rather tackle problems on a as they come process. It's a good thing most adults don't treat their retirement portfolios the way we seem determined to treat our national interests.

6 or 7 years? We need election cycle returns! I am with you, James.

But all your leet babble about new growth sectors leads me to believe that you are not a friend of a friend of the working man. Kind of like these guys.

> I mean why MAKE up Global Warming?

I had thought that it was rather like evolution. Scientists don't doubt that evolution is correct. It's the methods and means of evolution that are debated now.

Global Warming is correct, why is it happening?

James is right, just like post-911 saw a large boom in the securities market the same thing would happen for clean air technologies. However I must admit that even though that is predictable market forces at work people will be against the idea because short-temr losses are still highest priority. Many have been a time when goverments rescued badly ran companies.

The basic economic fact is that imposition of clean air acts, emmission standards and maybe exchangable tariff tickets would mean there will be a evolutionary step to eliminating all the polluters who cannot clean up their act. However just think of the PR buzz one would create selling itself on clean technology. You already see this with many companies like Shell.

So what? These guys are just throwing quotes around. And so what if the earth is warming or cooling or changing in some way? Is change automatically bad? Rivers change when beavers build dams across them, weather changes when volcanoes erupt, species go extinct when comets crash - so what?
And what if we had undertaken massive efforts 30 years ago to warm the earth to prevent the coming ice age?

"Is change automatically bad?"

well when it leads to the flooding expressed in this flood map yes. Play around with the change in water height up at the top.

Imposition of emission standards, etc. would rely directly on the mechanisms, funding, and the political will in place to support enforcement. Right now, it is vastly more profitable to use outdated polluting technologies than it is to use clean technology.

I am encouraged by the progress of green technologies, but a pure cost/benefit analysis (in the context of the climate change argument) still weighs against political imposition of drastic changes in environmental regulations on man-made pollutants.

Basically think what happened in New Orleans after Katrina, in New York, San Fransico, Florida, Bangladesh, India, Netherlands, Shanghi...

It's not minor change that will take place, it's a whole rearrangement of the conveyer system of ocean currents. Increasing intensity of weather effects to extreme, drought and rainfall. Many species of animals will simply die out because their enviroment's weather system has cahnged drastically.

We as individual groups of humans can adapt, but nature cannot but ultimately we as a whole depend on nature and it's resources so it's in our best interest to look after it collectively.

Not to be overly mean, but I feel really sorry for quantummushroom. Over the few months I've been on here, I've seen him be racist, paranoid, and just plain stupid, amongst other things.

In other words, he's a loyal Republican.

I like thio474's apparent superhero ability to watch these videos and know EXACTLY what people are thinking (paranoid, nervous, etc).

Dsspite this amazing ability, however, theon46 remains a hopeless commie-coddling clownboat.

I believe Black folks can make it without liberal crutches. If you want racism (like rotten meat for maggots, corrupt leftist causes need racial conflict to thrive) observe liberals attacking conservative blacks in words and caricature.

Did farhad2000 really say that nature cannot adapt? The earth isn't always as it was. Is man a part of nature or not? If he is, then his actions are no different than that of any other organism. Species go extinct all the time for a variety of reasons. Why is it bad for a river to flood just because I decided to put a house next to it?

You both surprise me. Theo's remark was crude, not all republicans are like QM, but I don't understand QM's tactic of simply politicizing issues and never really answering or entering into a normal discourse.

And Wallace, I can't believe you'd be so naive to think that we have so little impact on the environment. I never said that nature can adapt, nature can do whatever the hell it pleases. What you'll lose the climate zones, weather patterns, and the ocean currents we knew for decades, everything will change.

Yeah species go extinct at a natural background level, but when we are the cause of a drastic increase due to the loss of habitable zones? You honestly think that we can forever expand our condo communities outward into the wilderness? with nature adapting? tigers and ligers running on the streets as urban cats?

shucks ol' choggie got in late on this one...by the way, Roe said it summed, with his question,"Is change automatically bad?"-This is the issue-fear of change keeps the masses at status quo-Climactic change-it can happen overnight, if you say that this is not a possibility, sorries...you must admit you do not know.
Continents have dissappeared overnight, and basins where there were once ice caps litter the planet....
Whining, recycling, and driving less is a great form of passive aggression, but it does not stop the machine, or even slow it down-Industrialization saw to it that all mankind, can now run with scissors. sooooo..folks from first world (snicker) countries take theSir oil to recyclers, folks in 3rd w c's dump it in the river-
EDUCATION, THEN PRIVLEGE.

Choggie, another statement from uninformed sources. Your basic answer to all this is give up. That's great and all but I want to live in the nominal earthly conditions I have come to know and love over my lifetime here. Just because you enjoyed it doesn't mean my generations or the generations after mine shouldn't.

I love how the global warming alarmists equate skeptics with Holocaust skeptics. I also love how they claim that skeptics must be "paid by the energy lobbyists" when in fact "Big Oil" is the one benefiting from all this Kyoto-inspired legislation -- they get heaps of government subsidies to monopolize otherwise economically detrimental industries such as ethanol, wind, and solar. But nevermind that -- the world is melting! Well, at least since the Little Ice Age. So the world is getting warmer since the last ice age -- wow, how terrible. Hey, it's also been getting a lot hotter since December. Does that mean we are all going to die? Oh yeah, the media was all hyped up about the "Global Cooling" scare in the 1970s, but I guess they did a good job making you forget about that.

The fact is that nature, not man, emits well over 90% of greenhouse gases and were we to limit our emissions, the difference would be imperceptible and would only lead to an economic recession, with all the money going to the big energy companies. During the 1970s, manmade greenhouse gas emissions were going up while global average temperature was going down. By far the strongest correlation with global average temperature is the heat emitted by the Sun.

If you don't feel like doing the research yourself, you get can the jist of the Green Scare from "The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming and Environmentalism", a book I highly recommend to my watermelon (i.e., green on the outside but red to the core) friends.

*dead

This published video has been declared non-functional; embed code must be fixed within 2 days or it will be sent to the dead pool - declared dead by Issykitty.

*kill

Permanently discarding this video - kill requested by submitter quantumushroom.