so much more could have been done with this footage... though the obvious point was made.

*controversy *news

Adding video to channels (Controversy, News) - requested by MrFisk.

QFT: "So fine, argue about the politics, or about your religion, or about your other philosophies, but emergent scientific truths, that ought to be the foundation upon which everything else is discussed... these are not subject to your opinions."

He never states that global (fill in the term du jour) is scientific fact. That is what the poster hopes you'll assume.
Further, consensus is not science. Centuries ago, the consensus was that the earth was flat and the sun revolved around the earth.
If you accept that global 'whatever' is man made, and the gov't s of the earth can do something about it, you have more faith than a whole peck of popes.

NdGT has made his position on AGW clear many times. It's real, it's happening and it's man made.

And centuries ago, the religious and cultural consensus was that the earth was flat, which was then disproved by scientific evidence. These days, science is peer-reviewed, so a large part of it is consensus. Just not the consensus of idiots on fox or morons who read right wing conspiracy blogs. It is the consensus of educated scientists who have researched the topic.

The simple fact is, if you don't believe in AGW, then you don't believe in the scientific method.

Scientific consensus is not a coalescing of mere opinions, but of careful analysis and experimentation by peer review. It is not the same thing as a bunch of people getting together in a room and saying "yeah I guess that's how it is".

You think scientists feel good about coming to the conclusion that the world is warming? Of course they don't, but it's the conclusion they have drawn. And we should listen to them, because they know much more about it than you or I ever will.

Yyyeees, but... you dont actually have to believe in those things. You just learn about them and use them. Or dont.

Like you dont have to believe politicians but you have to pay taxes.

You dont have to believe in AGW but you can measure the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and count icebergs and cow farts.

You can believe anything you want to believe as long as you dont cheat on the measurements.

Also i have measured the music in that video and found it anthropogenic and very annoying.

You're right. Believe is the wrong word. "Accept the reality" would be more accurate.

A consensus is not reality, as I've already stated.

I don't care what people believe about global warming. My problem is that when govt's believe we can do something about it, they begin to take my private property i.e. money, to fight it, when gov'ts do little but waste huge amounts of money and increase our debt.

Do whatever you want about global whatever, just don't ask me to believe that what you do will accomplish anything.

You can take every person on this planet and put them on one Hawaiian island. Would be crowded.

If the scientific method was being used, then there wouldn't be any scientists who would disbelieve it. But not everyone is together on this. How do you know that volcanoes don't affect the global climate more than humans?

Because we can look at the type of carbon, and volcanic carbon is heavier than fossil fuel carbon. When measured, the heavier carbon barely makes a dent compared to the fossil fuel carbon.

It's called science. Learn it. Love it.

(We should also note, when lead was a popular anti-knock component of gasoline, a "scientist" who was funded by the gas companies said there was nothing to worry about. Turns out, he was grossly wrong. But he was getting paid to say it wasn't. Much like any junk scientist out there today. Hence why out of peer-reviewed articles, 100% agree that climate change is happening. Only 97% have come to the definitive conclusion it's man-made. Because the scientific method IS being used, this amazingly complex issue is slowly becoming clearer, and there will be ones who will try to find causes others haven't investigated, and if their studies bear out in the peer review cycle, then it's accepted and the theory is altered. Until those 3% come to the table with facts to support their hypothesis, their ideas won't be accepted. Again, it's called science, and this is how it works.)

There are 'scientists' who think Newton's laws of gravitation are wrong. Does that mean those few are right and the overwhelming majority of scientists are wrong? This example exists for any scientific theory that has been about as proven as gravity. There are and always will be detractors. That doesn't mean in any way that they are right.

What's the difference between the government using tax dollars to defend our land from a foreign invader or defending us against world altering Climate Change?

We need the government IE the public at large to do something about this, it's how our democracy should work. It shouldn't just be Capitalism and profits decide everything.

Heck there are scientists that want Pluto to still be a planet, despite how obviously wrong they are as per the definition.

stop feeding the trolls

we never asked you, dumbass. unlike religion, science works whether or not you believe in it. News flash, the world changes every day without consulting @lantern53. If you don't like what your taxes go towards, put your money where your whining mouth is and GTFO of the country.

we won't miss you

go back to whining about kids being on your lawn, it would be more productive for you.

This seems to be a semantic argument, much like the argument that evolution is "just a theory", you're saying it's "just a consensus".

And yes, a consensus for layman is just a majority agreement, and this does not make it reality. Lots of majorities believe really stupid shit.

A scientific consensus, however, is not just an agreement or a majority opinion. It is what the evidence points to. If there is no conflicting evidence, you will get a scientific consensus that it means a certain thing. Evidence is largely not up for much interpretation, unlike opinions.

It used to be that the consensus was that the earth was flat, because the only evidence we had was "it looks pretty flat", but more evidence invalidates that and so that hypothesis fails the evidence.

So far the evidence seems to indicate that that globe is warming and that people are at least partially causing it. There hasn't been solid evidence presented to counter it, save for flimsy opinions ("I think the sun is doing it!" etc.)

30 yrs ago the scientists said the earth was cooling.

Let me know when they make up their minds.

Now GTFO my lawn! lol