I know he's saying that it's not a pollutant, my point was that he thinks that there are people who think that it is a pollutant. If so then he doesn't even understand the theory of global warming so how could he disprove it? He can't.

I'M WORRIED ABOUT SMOKE. WHERE DOES SMOKE FACTOR INTO THIS EQUATION?

I think he is saying people refer to it as a greenhouse gas but not necessarily a pollutant. I still dont see how this is an attack "from the left" though.

Was it just a weak joke I missed or something?

What?

no joke. everyone in my country know the left flank of global warming is the weak front. this is why we have no global warming here. rofl. actually global warming is as real as jew holocaust. fool westerners.

EVIL ROBOT RULES!

Finally, someone with some sense posts in this thread.

Once more and then I'm done.

Global warming / Climate Change movement is funded by big business to create a speculative market in Carbon Trading. The focus on CO2 (Carbon) is to veer duped environmentalist away from real issues so they will not demand tighter regulations on real toxic chemicals (Volatile organic compounds, diesel fuel, gasoline, mercury oxides, arsenic oxides, sulfur oxides, nitrogen oxides, petroleum based fertilizers and herbicides, fungicides, rodenticides, depleted uranium) and to distract them from reforming our failed energy policy. Instead of funding renewable clean energy sources like they have in many other countries they focus on taxing "carbon offenders" for heating their homes and drawing hot baths.

Well, the first article has some errors in it such as stating that Phil Jones' data is "Crucial to the theory of climate change." I wasn't aware that a single person could be so important in a theory that has been around for over a hundred years or so.

The rest, I assume, are talking about how businesses have manipulated data, etc. While this all shows that individuals and groups are fraudulent, I don't see how it proves that global warming is not true. All you have is a logical argument, but global warming, too, is a logical argument. That and it has immense amounts of data and fact while you're simply speculating. You can't disprove global warming, apparently, only point to liars who have supported it.

Also it wasn't raw data that Phil Jones' team had. There's another flaw in the article.

Ok. :posh

The Great Global Warming Swindle has been exposed for using fraudulent data and making false claims on behalf of NASA and the scientists therein. Even the climate scientists who are confirmed skeptics that appeared on it denounced it for taking them out of context and manipulation of scientific language. It simply wasn't an honest special. Sure An Inconvenient Truth used only the most extreme examples and depended a lot on scary hypothetical scenarios that may or may not come true, but its data wasn't fraudulent.

Here's really the bottom line on scientific debates like this, unless you have studied the particular field in question extensively its always best to go with what the majority of scientists in it accepts. On the topic of man made climate change there is a significant majority. There is a chance they are wrong, but you won't find a scientist who is a skeptic of climate change say that decreased co2 emissions from cars and factories being a bad thing.

For man made climate change to be a fraud it would take an unprecidented conspiracy including thousands the most respected experts of the field. The only thing that keeps the public from accepting it is that the issue has become politicized, therefor tons of misinformation has been spread to muddy the waters. It is important never to let your logic be clouded by conspiracy theories and suspected scandal when there is no certainty. Unless you have the means to uncover it of course.

I also noticed that none of those articles are from scientific journals. Please know that it is important that you should get your information on such topics from papers published in a peer reviewed journal or articles that link back to the journal so you can verify it. YOU MUST YOU MUST YOU MUST put politics behind you when it comes to scientific matters.

He believes 9-11 was a conspiracy, so saying "For man made climate change to be a fraud it would take an unprecidented conspiracy including thousands the most respected experts of the field." is meaningless.

There is a romance and excitement to conspiracy theories I understand, and it can be easy to get lost in them if you don't stay properly grounded, but there is a huge difference between accusing government and science of conpiracy. One is stupid the other impossible.

This argument is taken into account but isn't capable of overturning what we know about the current anthropomorphic climate change. That would be like a man claiming a woman isn't pregnant with his child right now simply because she had been pregnant once years ago when he didn't know her. Yes its possible the same cause for her pregnancy before could be responsible now, but its much more likely that he is the cause.

What do we know about Global Warming / Climate Change? :confused:

CO2 needs to be taxed and a cap and trade system of carbon credits needs to be established to save the planet?

lolz

No, I'm serious. What's the solution if Global Warming turns out to be real?

Now THAT's what I meant by entertainment! :lol2

That's an entirely different discussion, and doesn't have any effect on its validity. You are clearly only interested in the political controversy and not the scientific one.

To know what there is to know about anthropogenic climate change will take independent research on your part into the scientific literature, and not political blogs. But you seem to like to watch things, so I will refer you to this series of videos by a scientist and former science corrospondant. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52KLGqDSAjo
He covers the evolution of climate change theories, how each of them work, opposing theories, and even covers the errors in the two big opposing climate change movies. It is a good starting point to understanding climate change.

SMOKE WILL DESTROY THE WORLD! I HAVE THE PROOFS!

I wish I could respond but I can't. I got warned so I will leave the forum. It's been nice talking to you all. I hope that global warming stuff doesn't come true.

We'll see about that. :conspiracy

hey coolinator how's the weather up on the cross today

I didn't read this thread, but it's the middle of March and I am freezing my nipples off.

Global warming is absolute horse shit.

If you mean that you were warned by a mod, well, I just have to say that that is bullshit.