An absolutely amazingly well done documentary on the subject of global warming or climate change. Not a conspiracy video but an actual documentary with some pretty amazing facts. This is a must watch video for everyone.

With that title, I sincerely doubt it.

[EDIT]
One minute in, and they've already managed half a dozen soundbites straight off the list of climate change myths. Yeah, not watching this sober.

I think there is something to the "global warming" hysteria, but I also think it's gotten way out of hand, like McCarthyism in the '50's. It's an excuse for some people to make millionsbillions or even trillions of dollars, and the government likes it because it gives them more excuses to control you.

Although my belief that there is something to global warming has weakened considerably.

The global warming is real. It's not a conspiracy, and you can't make it go away by denying it. The scientists are not making stuff up, they are finding stuff out. Using the same process that made computers, nuclear weapons, and space travel possible. Why would you not accept the scientific consensus when it comes to climate change caused by human activities? What's different about it?

This isn't just one "evil" company that you can demonize, like Monsanto when it comes to GMOs, it's scientists all over the world that come to the same conclusions. More CO2 in the air leads to more heat from the sun being trapped in the atmosphere instead of radiating back into space.

Pollution of the atmosphere is heating up the earth. Ice on the poles and the mountains is melting, raising the sea level. Many islands are already sunken. These are facts.

Whatever you say, there will always be someone speaking against it, for whatever reason. In this case they are wrong, don't believe them.

That's what fans of the Zeitgeist movies say.

Watch this entire video before you comment. It has some very good, scientific data. I don't expect everyone to accept it, but at least give it a chance and watch it straight through with an open mind. Some of the scientific data is quite interesting.

I can tell that some are replying against this before even watching it.

Yes, because it's 99% likely to be bullshit

It doesn't matter what one guy says, it matters how he can back it up with actual data. And not just pretend that he can, by interpreting data in a way that fits with his preconceived notion, etc., etc.

Completely random Wikpedia article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias

APPEND: The point is this: If that guy think he's onto something, he has to convince scientists in the field that he is right, by showing them why he is right. That's how science works. Appealing to the general public when the relevant scientists won't take you seriously is a red flag. Most of us are not qualified to judge the science anyway, we have to judge who is trustworthy or not.

This is going to be an even bigger flamewar than our religious threads.

What more evidence do you need:

{"name":"nasa_seaice_1979_2012.jpg","src":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/b\/5\/b5de9553f2f6cc4406f3707e8a8f213e.jpg","w":800,"h":690,"tn":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/b\/5\/b5de9553f2f6cc4406f3707e8a8f213e"}

It's absolutely true that many "Green" movements are just scams for more money. But scams do not disprove logic. Just because the Red Cross steals aid money, doesn't mean people aren't starving or dying of malaria around the world.

Well, yes. A climate change "documentary" called "The Great Global Warming Swindle" is like a 9/11 documentary called "WAKE UP, SHEEPLE - The Great False Flag Operation" - unless the title is ironic, you don't even have to watch it to know that it's going to be filled with conspiracist bullshit. And the minute I managed to watch (again: not watching this sober ) was exactly the kind of shit I was expecting.

And as torhu pointed out, this is a matter of science, and we already know what the science says.

My thoughts exactly.

EDIT:

Also OP, you're in Canada. You should be able to see it from your house.

If the global warming people are right, then it would certainly help if they didn't keep "adjusting" the historical data.

The references to how many "scientists" support global warming is largely because of peer pressure, even the threat of jail time.

This is just the other side of the 1970's "ice age" scenario.

I don't doubt CO2 is considered a greenhouse gas, it isn't even the only or the strongest greenhouse gas. I just don't see that it's been proven human activity is a driving factor in the planet's changing temperatures, considered it's been well known to be cyclical, and it's following such patterns much more closely than the doomsayers' predictions. Also, as Arthur mentioned, editing past temperature recordings doesn't help their cause.

Pretty sure that NOAA adjusting records is because the way temperatures were measured. Some were measured on ships (near the exhaust), which created a constant difference when compared to bouys. All they did was fix the information on record--the adjusted data was already used in reports, etc.

And if global warming were a solar cycle issue, then all the planets would be warming at a similar rate (adjusted for distance and other factors, of course). They're not.

For the record, Venus probably had an earthlike atmosphere at one point. Its atmosphere is composed largely of greenhouse gases now, resulting in it being hotter than Mercury despite being much farther away from the sun.

Also, even though it was before my time, the 1970s "ice age" is a crap strawman: http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2013/06/04/the-1970s-ice-age-myth-and-time-magazine-covers-by-david-kirtley/ and https://www.skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970s-intermediate.htm

I think the argument goes that the CO2 raises temperatures slightly which increases water vapor, which in turn is the major "greenhouse gas".

Are you claiming we can measure other planets temperatures to a fraction of a degree Celsius? I doubt the readings are that accurate here (especially 100 years ago), let alone millions of miles away. Actually the sun seems to be rather weak the last few years, so another Mini Ice Age might be coming.

Understatement of the year. The atmosphere of Venus is more than 96% CO2, and it's 100 times as dense as well.

Here's 112 links to the published hysteria. It wasn't "just a couple of articles" as some claim.

And I read an article that the elusive batboy gave birth.

Only a few published scientific articles pointed towards a possible global cooling in that time. The media tends to exaggerate or outright fabricate stories in order to sell ad space, no matter the results. Credible scientific journals are not under this pressure.

Also the recent "yet another mini ice age" hysteria that climate change deniers clung to is again a strawman. If I remember correctly, it was prematurely reported and inaccurate compared to the actual research. Who would have thought?

This isn't one guy. Watch it, seriously, it interviews lots of scientists who have studied this and presents their data. Some of it surprised me, like the real source of warming (and cooling) trends which the data matched precisely. Watch the video to to find out where. This isn't one man, just a well done documentary with lots of legitimate scientists commenting. I will admit, I think the title could have been better done, but the documentary is not really like what the title would suggest.

Just please watch it, it's not what you think. It's really quite interesting and makes some good points. A few I never thought of.

I won't argue the issue, I just wanted to share some data and opinions from legitimate scientists that have studied this (and been silenced to a certain degree) of the opposite end of the coin on the issue which you don't hear. And I feel that in all fairness, everyone should at least give this a fair chance to explain their point of view and show you their data. Then once you have heard both sides, you can decide which you feel has a stronger case. But so far we just hear one side of the debate, and that in my opinion, is not very fair at all. Especially with what is at stake, and I'm not talking about the climate here, watch it to see what else.

Lets see if it is possible for people in these forums to be fair and then reply without swearing.

Please note that I wasn't trying to make a comment on the video. I don't intend to watch it myself as it's not a topic that interests me, nor do I have the background to determine if the facts presented are credible or not.

I was simply amused by the one line I quoted as I'd been having a discussion about the Zeitgeist movies earlier that day with one of my staff who is totally convinced that they are serious documentaries filled with real facts. He also believe a lot of other stuff about them as well, such as that they were banned from cinemas worldwide (No, they just wouldn't have made any money), and that it was treason in the US to own copies of the movies (I have no idea where that one came from).

Consider this: almost all scientists (or if you will: experts, people that do this for a living and has spent years studying it) in the field agrees that global warning caused by human activities is a real thing. But you, a layperson, choose to believe a few outliers instead. Why would you do that?

It's a bit like with GMOs. People don't like the idea of it, so they want to pretend that there's something wrong with it. But there probably isn't, it's just that there is a lot of scare mongering and conspiracy talk going about. Poeple are often so inflexible when it comes to relating to new ideas.

Basically, you should start with an open mind and follow the science, otherwise you are just setting yourself up for embarrassment

Highly relevant: http://youarenotsosmart.com/2010/06/23/confirmation-bias/

I've sometimes heard this idea followed by a point about the Copernican revolution. If I had a time machine, I would enjoy traveling to that time period to see how public opinion migrated on that, perhaps to provide insights to peoples' ability to change in general. Apparently, that one was particularly challenging.

My house is already 50 cm below sea level, and that is certainly not going to get better. I'm happy that at least my government is taking this problem seriously: NL Climate Agenda Of course we should be doing even more

I'm glad Limburg is on a hill

Clever people have a houseboat.

{"name":"609634","src":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/8\/c\/8c312fd03047bdf6361c35723960b4da.jpg","w":2592,"h":1944,"tn":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/8\/c\/8c312fd03047bdf6361c35723960b4da"}

Houseboats in Berlin.

Yeah, yeah, New York City was supposed to be flooded by now!

[EDIT] Neil, you really need to get on the bandwagon, all the cool kids are doing it!

[EDIT 2] you old codger...

Arguing against science with the faults of television is not going to work.

I've discussed with a "clima-sceptic" years ago. He seemed to grasp the subject better than me, so I had to resort to saying that I didn't understand the topic well enough to competently argue about it. I asked him where he learned all he knew. It turned out it was an American website by an obscure "institute" or "center" in Washington. About 4 mins of googling revealed that this "institute" received a large sum of $$$ from ExxonMobile. They were even so nice as to publish a big list of donations. After I showed this to him, he went on to say that none of it was relevant, because all the mainstream-scientists formed a large conspiracy, too, with big monetary interests behind them.

Relevant new Potholer54 vid (that even includes excerpts from OP's video ):

Love it! The interview with the "anonymous expert" made my day.

Unfortunately, I can't watch the original video ("not available in my country"). So the only thing I could do was to click the link. "World Natural Health Organization". Let's see... Errr... This seems to be rather obscure and religious. No one else seems to know this organization with the pretentious ("World..") name. Definitively no serious science. Ok, I'm not going to go through the troubles of trying to watch the video despite the block.

The people in this video are scientists, they have studied this as well and their opinion is as valid as anyone else's. The thing is, many scientists are against the idea of global warming and if you watched this you would see why. But believe what you wish. There is valid scientific opinion, lots of it, with valid scientific data in this video. I believe in hearing all sides before making up my mind, and on this issue, one side is attacked when they speak out against it, or silenced. Believe what you wish, it's a free country (so far anyhow). If you took the time to watch this, you would see why I think this is a good video, not some amateur conspiracy video.

You may have noticed by now that I don't particularly like bandwagons.
I have a brain, I like to use it and look at both sides of any issue. When the majority agree on something, I tend to question it as history has shown me that the majority is almost never right.

And proud of it. Looking forward to getting older and more... codgerish.

Anyhow, I post a serious video and nobody is interested, even though much of the points it brings up are valid, but look, a funny video!!! Wow.... you would think I would learn my lesson about posting in Off-Topic by now.

Okay. I watched it. The only thing interesting or informative to me was Margarete Thatcher's political role. I can dissect the arguments made but I really don't understand how you can believe this trash. This is not what people who believe in man-made global warming generally say. If you don't spot straw man argument after straw man argument, you need to learn to watch actual arguments made from people who don't clearly believe your "side".

While we're mentioning Venus, and the movie/ video is mentioning CO2 in the upper atmosphere and how "all the models" ... "every one of them" say that the upper atmosphere should be hotter from the warming. Well, Venus has a cold upper atmosphere and this effect, applied to earth with global warming, has been predicted since 1989, if not earlier. The troposphere gets cooler as elevation rises. This is not at all surprising in an environment high in CO2.

Bring up any other point made by the video.

If you don't mind, Ben Delacob, please be so nice as to tell me: is the scene with the "anonymous expert" who only appears as a silhouette part of this video?

{"name":"63069410.jpg","src":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/7\/9\/79762fc059180356329507a711d45074.jpg","w":400,"h":400,"tn":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/7\/9\/79762fc059180356329507a711d45074"}

{"name":"778504a98ae6db2843b9a151d9d67d3d.jpg","src":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/d\/2\/d2fbff31e5b3469a9da0427f6a25cdec.jpg","w":540,"h":285,"tn":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/d\/2\/d2fbff31e5b3469a9da0427f6a25cdec"}

Sen. Inhofe of Oklahoma helps explain the politics behind global warming

Global warming is accelerating!
So how can you explain lack of warming for last 15 years?
Uh, uh, it's gone into the bottom of the ocean?

And here's another old codger who doubts the hysteria, a bit more prestigious than Neil and I are.

Even in the video, he says global warming is a problem, but his point was it's not the end of the world like so many Chicken Little's make it out to be. Other problems are more pressing.

For instance, here's what an Arabic TV show thinks of Obama's statement that "Climate Change is the Greatest Threat"

Funny, with the biceps. These Arabs are not completely stupid.

Well, I'd never seen that, so I had to google for it. All I could find were variations on one clip where he was "lifting weights" while he was wearing a sweatsuit so I couldn't actually see his biceps. However, the sweatsuit outline seemed to indicate his arms were pencil-thin. What I mostly noticed was the weird routines he was doing, never seen those before. Maybe he read some blog on "how to work out" 50 times, but his sloppy form says to me that this was his approximately his third attempt at lifting weights ever.

I'd say this is more indicative of his athletic prowess.

I can do way better than that, and I only played softball when required in physical education. OTOH, I was in an awful lot of snowball fights.

After all Obama appears not so bad to me, i like him, there are much worse people.

I am glad Merkel is still able to lift her arms...

I was a bit harsh on the original video, since it did do a good job on stressing how big an impact sun variations have. Still, our effect is significant. Think of it like putting on a T-shirt and standing outside. Yes, it will be cold when night comes and hot in the day but that doesn't mean the shirt isn't important.

At 25:20 in the original video, talking about a 1991 study, shows data that cuts off at 1980. Let's look at the rest of that trend:

{"name":"609643","src":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/5\/4\/54ba8896ee45615c2042389741d4ea02.png","w":720,"h":540,"tn":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/5\/4\/54ba8896ee45615c2042389741d4ea02"}

It's also clear CO2 is over-represented as a factor. I suspect the recent mitigation is due to the sinking of heat into the oceans, the melting of polar ice and, more importantly, permafrost. These won't last forever but the primary effects might not be seen during our lives. Also, Freeman Dyson's probably on to something when he talks about farming techniques.

What's the point of the Arabic clip with the translation changed?

Ben Delacob, while I disagree with you, I do wish to thank you for an intelligent, well thought out response. I am more likely to look into anything you say just for being decent about it than anyone else. At least you look at both sides and then make up your mind, which is what I think everyone should do.

The thing is, CO2 is not a pollutant. We produce it all the time by simply breathing, so I am not convinced that the small amounts we produce has that big of an effect. I think the video made a really good point about the global temperature getting warmer in the 1940s when the industrial revolution was just getting started and not contributing much pollution at all, and then later on temperatures dropped after the industrial revolution got off the ground and we were producing a lot, yet it got cooler! I grew up in the 1970s and believe me, it was not getting warmer then! We had snow drifts that covered my school roof at the time.

The real damage that is being done is to poor countries who cannot afford modern technology, like they pointed out in Africa, that was an aspect I had never thought about before.

So, yeah. Some light reading.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas#Anthropogenic_greenhouse_gases

We are not producing a "small" amount of CO2 unnaturally. All the oil and coal in the world is from hundreds of millions of years of decomposed plant material that decreased the prehistoric levels of CO2. They would never have been re-introduced into the atmosphere naturally. As we burn them, we are introducing greenhouse gases that will destabilize the environment at a rate that is unprecedented.

And CO2 is not a typical pollutant in some sense, sure, but that's not what's being argued. It is a greenhouse gas. Again, Venus has an atmosphere largely ('96%', like the exact number makes a difference ) of CO2. It is hotter than mercury, which is considerably closer to the sun. Gee, I wonder why.

Increased levels of CO2 also pose a problem in the oceans. The ocean has warmed considerably, which has allowed the atmosphere to remain cooler. And warming the ocean is no small feat: the amount of energy required is incredible. It's similar to the power of a hurricane. It requires far more energy to maintain a hurricane than we will use in energy for everything man-made a year, and hurricanes are tiny compared to the ocean.

Your school roof's temperature != global average temperature. That's purely anecdotal and has no scientific meaning whatsoever.

You do know that your (indirect) use of fossil fuels way exceeds the CO2 you emit by breathing?

Err, that's about 90-190 years too late. But you're right in so far as the use of fossil fuels probably wasn't that significant before.

Yeah.... Global Warming is a misnomer/straw man. It's Climate Change. One area could get cold as hell, but that doesn't mean the world is getting cooler. The climate system doesn't work that way.

{"name":"al_gore_climate_change-game-.jpg","src":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/d\/d\/dd199d3dbfe89180fb4bb8a1ef9ff48f.jpg","w":525,"h":389,"tn":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/d\/d\/dd199d3dbfe89180fb4bb8a1ef9ff48f"}

I'll absolutely say that Al Gore, and Green Energy have tons of exaggerated claims to make money. But just because someone exploits the truth for financial gain doesn't mean the truth is invalidated.

I suppose you'll all find out, by and by. Hope it turns out well.

I'd almost say Global Warming is a gigantic red herring. Pollution in general is damaging to our society, our lives, our children. If we clean up our society and stomp dumping waste into our rivers--even if global warming is false--we're still going to benefit greatly.

Is lower cancer rates and lower child birth defects too small of a benefit to care about?

A couple of weeks ago I went on a trip across NC and SC. I ended up at a dye plant vendor where they take textiles and color them. You know what they do? They literally dump everything into the city's sewage system. All chemicals. Thinning agents, dye, binding agents, cleaners. Everything. They "buffer" it in a gigantic water tower so that it fills up throughout the day but only injects as much as they are allowed to by hour, per city regulation.

I get called a monster for letting some drops of car oil leak into my grass, but these guys are pumping thousands of gallons of the same stuff into our waters every day. And they weren't even a big company! Less than 100 employees!

How the hell is that legal?

I'll agree that pollution is a proven problem that needs to be resolved, as long as it can be agreed that CO2 is not pollution.

Climate change skeptics remind me of anti-vaxxers. There's overwhelming evidence of anthropogenic climate change, but because a handful of research either suggest less dramatic changes or outright deny the effects, that's the truth and the rest is a giant conspiracy! Oooooh.

I mean, seriously. I have a hard time dealing with irrational thoughts and behaviors, but given enough thought and willpower I understand that these same thoughts and behaviors are indeed irrational. Kind of like an extreme phobia.

But to willingly deceive yourself, that's something.

And some other people act like alarmists and opportunistic green industry vultures. When the science is "settled" and refined enough to be agreed upon by the rest of the natural sciences, then maybe progress can be made.

Is NASA a good enough source? You know... the guys capable of space travel and who put all those weather monitoring satellites into orbit?

http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

It'd be pretty hard for any of us to say we know better than NASA in a field without lots of concrete evidence.

And then the big oil companies pushing ads and so on to discredit genuine research is in some way different? That's capitalism for you. Luckily, the global science community is not one individual or organization with a political or monetary agenda.

In fact, the political and monetary interests stifle a lot of research that would otherwise be done simply because there is no immediate interest or effect. And scientists can't perform research without some sort of income.

Global warming is real! This past June was the 66'th hottest evar!!!111

Are you serious? One data point (edit: of one area, no less!) in recorded climate history is, in any way, "proof?" That article, for the record, is filled with misconceptions about how data is used.

2014 (last year, just if you weren't sure) was the warmest year in record: https://www.nasa.gov/press/2015/january/nasa-determines-2014-warmest-year-in-modern-record

Similarly, it's been warming since mass usage of fossil fuels (i.e., industrial revolution). But because it snowed somewhere or there were hotter days, global warming isn't true. Ok.

There is more CO2 in the atmosphere now then has been in millions of years. Millions of years ago it was warmer. If we keep it up, we may be able to restore the climate to when land was covered in ferns and trees hadn't evolved yet (unless you are going to tell me evolution is bullshit, too, woo)! Sounds fun.

Actually Mother Nature invented "wood" 400 million years ago, and it took fungi an additional 50 million years to figure out how to break it down, so the wood just piled up for that 50 million years, to produce the giant coal veins from the Carboniferous Era. That's when the CO2 plummeted, because it was tied up in all that wood.

Yes, and how does that disprove the point? What do you think will happen when the coal is burned and returned to the atmosphere?

(As an aside, I wasn't clear: I know trees evolved hundreds of millions of years ago, and fungi/bacteria that could break down wood until millions of years later. That was my point: do you want all that carbon to return to the atmosphere? What do you think is going to happen? The temperature won't rise? Sure... Reminds me of Ken Ham's "observational science" and "historical science" distinctions... as if the same conditions will create different effects simply because it's now and not then, ok.)

edit: Unless your saying the CO2 dropped because the fungus destroyed the wood. No. That's not how it works. When sequestered in a solid, the carbon is not going to affect temperatures because it's not in the atmosphere!

We have a long, long, long way to go to burn all the coal Indeed, we'll only be able to get a tiny fraction of it no matter what.

well, duh!

But we're not burning just coal. We're burning oil at a similar rate, and there's also natural gas. Although coal is a worse offender (see http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=73&t=11), it's not like gas and so on are considerably better.

Is your argument that simply because we won't return to CO2 levels some half a billion years ago that it's okay now to burn as much as possible, disregarding the notion that returning to the climate and temperature of 60 million years ago would have catastrophic consequences on most current life?

This chart shows that the amount of coal outweighs the oil and gas combined.

Since the previous link I posted showed that we can only get a tiny fraction of the total coal, I'd say that shows we can only get a tiny way toward the amount of CO2 that the dinosaurs enjoyed.

But it doesn't show how much is being used relatively. It doesn't matter how much there is if it's not being used!

See page 29, "Consumption" for more http://www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/keyworld2014.pdf

Cherry picking facts and figures while disregarding the whole picture just shows dishonesty.

But the coal and oil that remains in the ground keeps the bulk of the CO2 that was making the climate so dinosaur-friendly out of the atmosphere.

[EDIT] This link says the level of CO2 in the air was five times (500%) greater during the time of the dinosaurs than now. It goes on to say the original source of all that carbon dioxide were all those evil volcanoes.

http://www.livescience.com/44330-jurassic-dinosaur-carbon-dioxide.html

So if the coal seams and unrecoverable oil deposits aren't subducted into the magma, the CO2 in them won't be available to volcanoes either. Of course on a geological time scale they will get subducted eventually (millions of years). Then the climate will be "normal" again.

Guys, there's no point in arguing with deniers. They're not interested in the actual science. Give them a link to Skeptical Science, potholer54 and James Powell's consensus charts and they can educate themselves if they actually want to - but they probably don't.

That one's from "Conspiracy Theory with Jesse Ventura". OP's video has the "paleoclimatologist" who's actually a geochemist.

Only a dinosaur would enjoy a dinosaur's climate.

A distinguished scientist indeed.

This chart claims that CO2 has increased from ~315ppm to ~400ppm in the last 50 years.

{"name":"600-keeling.png","src":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/5\/c\/5c6eadb003561d41c6963a566f175d6e.png","w":600,"h":500,"tn":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/5\/c\/5c6eadb003561d41c6963a566f175d6e"}

Never mind that the CO2 axis doesn't start from zero, a trick they learned from "How To Lie With Statistics", and that the points seem to roughly shove the numbers out of the way like ill-mannered hooligans.

So that's an alleged 26% (85ppm) increase in 50 years. To get to the 500% (2000ppm) value of the Cretaceous era would take 500 years.

To scare the schoolchildren into getting on the bandwagon, global warming alarmists keep pointing to Venus and saying global warming will destroy the planet before they grow up.

To get to the level Venus has (96% carbon dioxide at 92 times the density) goes like this

400ppm = 0.04% CO2 in the atmosphere
96.0/0.04 = 2400 times higher percentagewise
2400 x 92 times the density = 220800 more CO2 per unit volume of atmosphere
220800 / 0.00017 increase per century = 1,298,823,529.41 years.
That doesn't include the fact that Venus is only 3/4 of the distance to the sun,
so 1.0/(.75^2) = 1.77 times as much solar radiation per unit area on Venus.

Now, once again, I'm not saying there isn't global warming, I'm just saying it's blown way out of proportion.

[EDIT]

Just re-reading made me question this. NASA is run by the same government that brought you the Patriot Act, the TSA, the Pentagon Papers, you already know this. And why would NASA be invulnerable to some asshat higher up with an agenda of his own? Especially since they're on such a tight budget already.

If it really was a conspiracy by the government (more or less all of them, except Canada, Australia, maybe North Corea^^) AND most of the scientists, then what for? Don't you think it is so much more likely that dull and lazy people just don't want to change their habits / views and fossil fuel companies don't want to ... make less profits?

Control? As always.

Right...

{"name":"609652","src":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/d\/6\/d6d2dfabd06e11894fb97b53d5bcc4a0.jpg","w":550,"h":432,"tn":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/d\/6\/d6d2dfabd06e11894fb97b53d5bcc4a0"}

But there have to be thousands involved, I don't think it's likely in that case. Humans, even evil conspirators, are not that perfect. I wouldn't say "they" won't profit in a way or another (don't know, maybe we'll see more surveillance, control of emissions one day?) but I don't think it is planned with such an objective in this case.

The problem is complicated, because "freedom to emit" would probably have to be curtailed in some way some day, either by regulations or by increasing the costs. Of course that's never going to be popular.

Conspiracy... Yeah, Snowden is a liar and fugitive from justice too.

At least the cat's protected, too.

"They" would do their job rather badly if they said otherwise.

Why would C02 levels be 0?

Maybe, the source of this graph is questionable at best. The artistic elements are in fact hilarious, with the C02 overlayed on countries throughout Europe and Africa in the background.

Why are you sharing a terrible version of a graph and then complaining about it? Of course it's crap. Where do you even get this garbage?

There was once a Reddit AMA about a group of scientists studying climate change denial. One of their goals was how to better educate people like Neil and Arthur i.e. how do you crack a crackpot?

So, as a climate change denier, you've got the following:

1.) no good evidence to prove your point
2.) no good evidence to prove your point
3.) no good evidence to prove your point

and finally

4.) people studying your stupid ass to figure out what makes your ass so stupid

Hey, if you can go through life ignorant, why not?

So it's Reddit, is it?

http://www.reddit.com/r/climateskeptics/

Rational people don't give a damn about the insults your mutual admiration society slings trying to be "cool" and "hip".

Personally, I am rather a fan of the idea that I, with little education in the subject, am able to interpret the data and intuit the meaning and trends. It very much appeals to my sense of intellectual vanity.

As to the "NASA scientists", that seems to be a rather small group of mostly retired people with no relevant expertise in the field who brandish the fact they worked at NASA (and their PhDs) as "arguments". Link There also seems to be a link to the obligatory fossil fuel lobbyist.

can distinguish dubious propaganda by lobbyists from science

Yeah, I'm saving this web page to my hard drive, so when the next boogeyman comes along in 10 years, I can say "Kids, don't fall for this 'The Sky Is Falling' crap like these guys did, after AGW turns out to be a flop (well, not as big a flop as the Y2K problem turned out to be, but just the same...)