Rather, fret needlessly, and take up valuable, revolution planning time, concerning onself with something one can do nothing about.

Human beings are a contributory factor to wobal glorming-again, crock of horseshit.

Seen the science, both sides, and I read tabloid magazines and bubble gum wrappers,too-Politicized clap-trap, don't even bother-I'd reather breathe the exhaust created by volcanoes, cattle, power plants, and under-sea rifts-

Enough already of meaningless hoo ha, Up vote for making fun where deserved.

c'mon now, all you Southpark, and Jewish heritage fans...don't slight the boys because of their politics...Twood truly be lame, if those who liked SP, voted this down because it tipped a holy, under-nourished, soon to be extinct cow!

lol, I just love Choggie's posts.

But I can't say either way about the whole global warming at the moment. With all the politics piled up against getting us believing one side or the other, i've got no f@#%ing idea what evidence to trust.

Will someone please do my thinking for me? I've got work to do

I shudder to think that Global Warming is considered politics...

Scientists all over the world reached concensus on the debate about 10 to 15 years ago. They no longer argue about global warming's existence or that humans are adversely affecing our climate. They only argue about how quickly the climate will change and by how much. So, there is no science backing the 'Global Warming is horse crap side'. There is PR and media campaigns against global warming, but not a sigle published paper or opinion in nearly 10 years in ANY scientific journal or given at ANY scientific conference.

That being said - upvote because tipping cows is always funny. Even when its an ignorant cow.

"Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.

There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period."

I suggest that all 'consensus-minded' people who think "consensus=man causes global warming" should read Michael Crichton's brillaint lecture, "Aliens cause Global Warming". I should warn you though - it's backed up with FACTS, not the emotional mob-inciting psycho-babble of Oprah's "Noah of Global Warming", Al Gore. So if you aren't prepared to be hit in the face with evidence that consensus is nothing but a load of honk, do NOT follow this link:

http://www.michaelcrichton.net/speeches/speeches_quote04.html

Seriously - these scientists of have 'consensualized' that man causes global warming simply can't be trusted. They have a vested FINANCIAL interest in saying that man does cause it. If they can go out and scare enough people into thinking it's true, and come up with some vague hypothesis, they can be in line for literally millions of dollars in Federal grants from American taxpayers. Those are stakes for which men will play a desperate game.

Enviro-nazis constantly say that big oil and big business cannot be trusted because of the profits they earn. So why are those who scare up cash for their 'we can prove global warming' projects not mistrusted because of THEIR lust for cash money? They literally do not look on you 'pro-green' types as believers. You're PRODUCT to them. They count on you to donate money because of their fear speak. It's literally their job. If you aren't donating - they get bupkis. And they know it. Which is why they get louder and louder and their predictions get more and more apocolyptic.

Have you ever asked yourself - how much money do you just GIVE to these people every year? And how many of your hard-earned dollars are they ACTUALLY spending to save the spotted owl? If they're non-profit organizations, I'd love to see some IRS auditors go through their books......

Drinking game!

Take a shot everytime "nazi" is added as a pejoritive modifier in a slyrr post.

Finish the bottle each time the "spotted owl" is raised.

Don't drink when the name "Limbaugh" is mentioned. Alcohol poisoning is no laughing matter.

Seriously Slyrr, every time you post you manage to reach new intellectual lows.

I won't address your moonbat theories, since obviously you show large favoritism towards big business that is more willing to rape America for a dollar then give a shit about it's future generations. Instead we'll look at your so called "facts".

Clearly you didn't read the paper that you simply link to, because if you did you would know that Micheal Crichton comments were on that belief in purported scientific theories without a factual basis is more akin to faith than science. That is true and I agree with that, what you fail to mention is that the speech was delivered in 2003. Nearly 4 years ago.

Why did Crichton do it? He had a book called State of Fear. Many of Crichton's publicly expressed views, particularly on subjects like the global warming controversy, have caused heated debate. An example is meteorologist Jeffrey Masters' review of State of Fear:

"Flawed or misleading presentations of Global Warming science exist in the book, including those on Arctic sea ice thinning, correction of land-based temperature measurements for the urban heat island effect, and satellite vs. ground-based measurements of Earth's warming. I will spare the reader additional details. On the positive side, Crichton does emphasize the little-appreciated fact that while most of the world has been warming the past few decades, most of Antarctica has seen a cooling trend. The Antarctic ice sheet is actually expected to increase in mass over the next 100 years due to increased precipitation, according to the IPCC. Additionally, Crichton points out that there has been no rise in hurricane activity in the Atlantic over the past few decades (a point unchanged by the record four hurricanes that struck Florida in 2004)."

However, 28 hurricanes and tropical storms took place in the 2005 season, which was 7 more than the meteorologists had names for because historically, 21 names seemed far above what was needed for a season. In addition, Peter Doran, author of the paper in the January 2002 issue of Nature which reported the finding referred to above, that some areas of Antarctica had cooled between 1986 and 2000, wrote an opinion piece in the July 27, 2006 New York Times in which he stated "Our results have been misused as 'evidence' against global warming by Michael Crichton in his novel State of Fear".

Crichton has also been criticized for having the protagonist of State of Fear assert,

"Since the ban of DDT, two million people a year have died unnecessarily from malaria, mostly children. The ban has caused more than fifty million needless deaths. Banning DDT killed more people than Hitler."

Even though the DDT ban specifically exempts any and all use for disease prevention from any regulation, and even though the total number of deaths from malaria worldwide in the period described is actually less than fifty million. None of it is true. USAID, the World Bank, and WHO, all fund DDT for malaria prevention.

Please next time find out what you are talking about before posting.

now then. How much carbon dioxide is realeased from a litre of petrol when you burn it?

Next, how many tonnes of petrol is used in the world in a day?

So how much Carbon dioxide is released into the atmosphere in a year?

I don't know which book of science you read choggie, but I think you can fill in these

http://www.pewclimate.org/state_of_fear.cfm

*

I also think that if over 900 intelligent people spread around the globe investigate an issue and come up with the same or very similar conclusions, then it is absolute rubbish. There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period.

I also suggest that all 'consensus-minded' people who think that "consensus=NaziLiberalspottedowlNazi" should read Michael Crichton's brilliant lecture, "Dinosaur Parks Are a Really Bad Idea" found in his seminal scientific work, JURASSIC PARK.

Ah, so this is the reasoned debate the pro-global warming crowd has at it's disposal - "go away ****head". Try reading another of Crichton's 'stupid' lectures - "Evironmentalism as Religion". To be found here.

http://www.michaelcrichton.net/speeches/

In which the 'he said it in 2003 so it must not be true' author lectured that the proponents of environmentalism and global warming behave exactly as if their tenants were a religion. Most of their doctrine is faith-based, and hence, they think it's inarguable. Facts and proof to the contrary are ignored, covered up or those who speak it are dismissed as "****heads".

Amazing how the free exchange of ideas just infuriates some people. It's words and ideas that they hate more than anything else. Specifically, words and ideas that they don't agree with. I'll wager Mr. "go away ****head" has probably attended protests, lectures or some such stuff and defended his own loud words as 'protected free speech'. But let someone speak an idea at variance with his own? "Go away". They don't want to hear it.

So - since it was written in 2003 as part of a book tour, it can't be trusted? Does that not prove the point I made about money? How can we trust Al Gore - who used "Inconvenient Truth" to earn millions of dollars, and contributed to global warming by flitting around the globe in private jets to promote it? If Crichton can't be trusted because he was just an author trying to peddle his book - how can Al Gore, the "Noah of Global Warming", be trusted when he's just peddling his movie?

"Oh, we can trust HIM. We believe."

And 'nearly 4 years old'? Trying to hint that it's outdated and not to be trusted as a result? Want something a little more recent? Go to the same link. There's another article backed up with charts, diagrams, facts and stats - dated 2005. "Fear, Complexity, Environmental Management". 2005. The very year of the Al Gore's summer of discontent. The year that he proudly declared that the above-average hurricane season was proof that his movie was gospel. (you guys love conspiracies - was it a coincidence that Al Gore rushed his movie to theaters durring the hurricane season with that movie poster showing a hurricane spewing out of a factory smokestack? Wonder how much cash money he managed to scare up with that little dodge...)

Not recent enough you say? How about the 2006 hurricane season? In which NO major hurricanes stuck? If Al Gore is to be trusted - shouldn't this hurricane season have been even worse than 2005? Yet 2006 has gone down now in history as one of the lamest hurricane seasons ever. So does that mean Global Warming was reversed? You guys are all into 'cause and effect' right? If Global Warming is getting worse every year, and 'killer hurricanes are brewed' by it - where were they all?

It's a mark of the tenants of the gospel of Global Warming that they get all excited for more death and destruction just so they can prove they were right. And yes, once the weather turns nasty again, they'll be back and just as loud as ever, saying the bad weather is 'proof' of their religion. Yet when the weather is good - well, that's proof they were right too.

And even more recent news? Just this week, The UN, your secular apostles, downgraded man's contributions to 'global warming'. It has also been decreed by scientists that cow farts puts more 'greenhouse gasses' into the air than cars.

Consensus? Far from it. Crichton was right - much as it hurts. There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period.

Slyrr, Gore hasn't made any money off of an inconvenient truth. He and Tipper are donating all of the money to fund more education campaigns about global warming, more info on the wiki, but you know whatever... Dirty capitalist making money off trying to save the world... grumble.. grumble.. grumble.. man bear pig.

P.S. - Your comment history reads like a regurgitation of right wing talking points, but those damn LIEBERALS are the lemmings, we will get them yet.

"Not recent enough you say? How about the 2006 hurricane season? In which NO major hurricanes stuck? If Al Gore is to be trusted - shouldn't this hurricane season have been even worse than 2005? Yet 2006 has gone down now in history as one of the lamest hurricane seasons ever. So does that mean Global Warming was reversed? You guys are all into 'cause and effect' right? If Global Warming is getting worse every year, and 'killer hurricanes are brewed' by it - where were they all?"

uh...ever heard of EL NIÑO?

*

*

Slyrr, ever thought of writing a book
It might do well with the ''what the fuck is global warming, if it means I can't drive my hummer and fly around the world for 10p then it must be bleeding heart liberal rubbish, no doubt to do with those bloody atheists or maybe muslims'' readership.


..............maybe

oh yeah, still looking forward to your first video.

If Slyrr's comment history looks like a regurgitation of right wing talking points, I wonder what the comment history looks like of 99.9% of VideoSift's most vocal members. Hmm......

I hate arguing on the internet. I'm going to hazard a guess that NOBODY here is a climatologist or an ecologist of sorts, so don't act like you are please. I enjoyed reading State of Fear, but I do agree with the majority of people here with regards to climate change and all that.

But I really hate internet arguments. You know what they say: "arguing on the internet is like the special olympics- even if you win, you're still retarded."

*

“I hate arguing on the internet. I'm going to hazard a guess that NOBODY here is a climatologist or an ecologist of sorts.”

As someone who started some of this discussion I should admit that I am an ecologist who does research and teaches at a US university. It is laughable that someone would suggest that the grant funding I receive is a function of my research results. The US congress appropriates money to fund the National Science Foundation (which funds climate research) without the ability to dictate the use of this money. So, there is no link between scientific finding and grant money appropriation. So, the argument that there is some vested self-interest in scientists claiming a fact to influence their individual research agendas has no support. It is an argument of the ignorant.

I am buoyed at the fact that I started some of this discussion by citing concrete data (no published study has called into question the assumption that human impact is changing the climate), yet all the rebuttals don't cite any FACTS [their emphasis, not mine].

Now on to this consensus issue. Scientific Consensus is the major mechanism though which we achieve understanding of our world. Scientific Consensus is real and by definition apolitical - its never voted on, lobbied for, and never declared defacto. Instead Scientific Consensus is a emergent property of how science is undertaken. When the evidence for one concept overwhelms the evidence for alternatives, then you stop seeing alternatives discussed and Scientific Consensus emerges.

Scientific Consensus is not FACT, that is correct. Concluding that Consensus isn't Science because it itself is not a FACT is a classic logical fallacy. The fact that Consensus isn't a FACT is its strength, and is exactly why Scientists Consensus is so powerful in generating understanding. Data and studies are FACTS, scientists individually interpret those data to reach concussions, and those conclusions taken together become Consensus. Scientists therefore leave that Consensus open to reinterpretation if new data becomes available.

So, the greatest scientists never ‘broke’ with Consensus. They produced new data that called the Scientific Consensus into question. When the Scientists of the time saw these new data, they did not vilify these scientists but they praised them. I suggest you read Kuhn’s Scientific Revolution for a great treatise on history on this subject.

It is clear that if you think Scientific Consensus is crap because you do not actually understand it. It is also clear that you do not ‘believe’ in human’s impact on climate because you have never studied the data.

*

Say you're right, Slyrr, and global warming isn't happening. But what's the worse case scenario if there isn't global warming and we try to be more thoughtful about how we live in the world? Nothing--price of gas goes up? A few CEOs might not get a Christmas bonus? Now, what's the worse case scenario if global warming is happening, and you're wrong? Why wouldn't we want to avoid a potential disaster, treat our world decently, and cut down on emissions? Aside from a rise in consumer goods, and gas prices, why wouldn't we want to treat this as a problem? Who does it benefit to ignore global warming?

"I think I've said a billion times that people shouldn't exaggerate."

I think I've said a billion times that people shouldn't be hypocritical.

*

I believe global warming to be real, but I still find this funny.

*dead

The link to this video has been flagged as dead. Fix it within 7 days or it will be discarded (dead called by gold star member deputydog)

Discarding this video. It was flagged as dead but not flagged undead within 7 days.