Speaking of outcomes...

- Arctic summers ice-free 'by 2013':http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7139797.stm
- Arctic ice 'grew by a third' after cool summer in 2013:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-33594654

Questioning things does not automatically mean you have an agenda.

1) It isn't getting warmer. NASA doctored historical data a few years ago for political reasons (blame Al Gore and his legislation), got caught, people didn't care.https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/...the-year-2000/

Temperatures have been stagnant for years and in the longer term temperatures have been fluctuating within a fraction of a degree for a long time as you would expect as solar irradiance changes over time.

2) Even if it was getting warmer, we know that CO2 doesn't drive temperature. Temperature drives CO2. This should be obvious because CO2 is an insignificant greenhouse gas. CO2 itself is regulated by the oceans. Even the climate alarmist cult admits that there is no evidence that CO2 drives global temperature. Their computer models that used this theory led to the wildly erroneous predictions of people like Al Gore and NASA that the arctic would be ice free by now and we would all be meling. After this was debunked they claimed that the antarctic was melting. Recently this was shown to be nonsense also, the antarctic is cooling. They have never made a single correct long term prediction.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/06/...s-temperature/

3) Higher CO2 is a good thing. Agriculture depends on CO2 concentrations and rainfall.

4) There never has been a stable climate or a climate optimised for humans. Much colder and a large part of the northern hemisphere is inhospitable. Colder means less rainfall also.

People like you are part of the problem. You've jumped on the political bandwagon, declared the debate settled (based on no evidence whatsoever other than doctored data and failed computer models) and discounted the opinions of thousands of scientists. You've hijacked environmentalism with your backward luddite nonsense. Instead of fighting against pollution, wildlife preservation and improving agriculture, governments are wasting trillions in a pointless fight against a natural and benevolent gas.

Life=suffering
global warming = end of all life
global warming will end all suffering.

I see no downside compadre

I dont have time to watch that doco but can someone tell me what they stand to benefit from saying that its real? apart from taxes, is there anything else?

had no idea there were actually people that think global warming isn't real..

ice caps would like to have a word with you.

these Ice caps? LOL!

and dude it's not called "global warming" anymore since that was proven false after "global cooling" went the same way. now it's "Climate Change" this way as long as the climate doesn't stay the same it will always be true.

We know that global temperatures are changing constantly. The debate is whether it is ultimately down to man-made CO2 emissions or not. For example, after WW2, global temperatures went down for decades despite CO2 emissions dramatically going up. I recommend you watch the documentary before you post.

Lmao. You people always post the absolute worst sources on earth to back up your argument.

"NASA is totally lying, but here's some bullchit Wordpress site that was built in 2017 that explains the truth."

Get phucking real, will ya?

stevegoddard.wordpress.com and wattsupwiththat.com are more credible than NASA??? LOLOLOL. Jesus Christ.

or all the emails that surfaced that proved "scientific" journals were intentionally suppressed data that contradicted their preconcieved conclusions before the Copenhagen Accords? this isn't the first time either nor is it the first time data has been falsified to keep the agenda going. hell even Al Gore's movie was a total farce with more special effects than a Micheal Bay movie.

Do you shower with your tinfoil hat on? Or do you take it off before you go in?

brother do u read or just glance at links? your prejudice led you to look ass backwards because if u clicked that "****ty wordpress site" you would see it contains numerous citations and studies. Literally had to gaze at a website for 5 seconds to understand this...

The overwhelming majority of the people that study this sort of thing think that humans are contributing to global warming.

# of smart, ethical people I've seen/read that believe in global warming: 100s

# of smart, ethical people I've seen denying global warming: 1-ish (maybe)

Even if global - warming isn't real, what's wrong with trying to move to clean energy to reduce pollution and reduce our reliance on foreign oil?

Are people really dying to work in a coal mine. Seems like a really, really chitty job to me.

[QUOTE=ThisIsSceaming post_id=1507493271]The overwhelming majority of the people that study this sort of thing think that humans are contributing to global warming.

# of smart, ethical people I've seen/read that believe in global warming: 100s

# of smart, ethical people I've seen denying global warming: 1-ish (maybe)

Even if global - warming isn't real, what's wrong with trying to move to clean energy to reduce pollution and reduce our reliance on foreign oil?

Are people really dying to work in a coal mine. Seems like a really, really chitty job to me.[/QUOTE]Rly?
FYI bolded a few of the more well known critics, including some Nobel laureates, astrophysicists, intellectual heavyweghts and even a former head of Greenpeace
[URL=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...global_warming[/URL]
[QUOTE]Scientists questioning the accuracy of IPCC climate projections
These scientists have said that it is not possible to project global climate accurately enough to justify the ranges projected for temperature and sea-level rise over the next century. They may not conclude specifically that the current IPCC projections are either too high or too low, but that the projections are likely to be inaccurate due to inadequacies of current global climate modeling.

David Bellamy, botanist.[18][19][20][21]
Lennart Bengtsson, meteorologist, Reading University.[22][23]
Piers Corbyn, owner of the business WeatherAction which makes weather forecasts.[24][25]
Judith Curry, Professor and former chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology.[26][27][28][29]
[b]Freeman Dyson, professor emeritus of the School of Natural Sciences, Institute for Advanced Study; Fellow of the Royal Society.[30][31][/b]
[b]Ivar Giaever, Norwegian–American physicist and Nobel laureate in physics (1973).[32][/b]
Steven E. Koonin, theoretical physicist and director of the Center for Urban Science and Progress at New York University.[33][34]
[b]Richard Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan emeritus professor of atmospheric science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and member of the National Academy of Sciences.[35][36][37][38][/b]
Craig Loehle, ecologist and chief scientist at the National Council for Air and Stream Improvement.[39][40][41][42][43][44][45]
Ross McKitrick, Professor of Economics and CBE Chair in Sustainable Commerce, University of Guelph.[46][47]
[b]Patrick Moore, former president of Greenpeace Canada.[48][49][50][/b]
Nils-Axel Mörner, retired head of the Paleogeophysics and Geodynamics Department at Stockholm University, former chairman of the INQUA Commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution (1999–2003).[51][52]
Garth Paltridge, retired chief research scientist, CSIRO Division of Atmospheric Research and retired director of the Institute of the Antarctic Cooperative Research Centre, visiting fellow Australian National University.[53][54]
Roger A. Pielke, Jr., professor of environmental studies at the Center for Science and Technology Policy Research at the University of Colorado at Boulder.[55][56]
Tom Quirk, corporate director of biotech companies and former board member of the Institute of Public Affairs, an Australian conservative think-tank.[57]
Denis Rancourt, former professor of physics at University of Ottawa, research scientist in condensed matter physics, and in environmental and soil science.[58][59][60][61]
Harrison Schmitt, geologist, Apollo 17 Astronaut, former U.S. Senator.[62]
Peter Stilbs, professor of physical chemistry at Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm.[63][64]
Philip Stott, professor emeritus of biogeography at the University of London.[65][66]
Hendrik Tennekes, retired director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute.[67][68]
Anastasios Tsonis, distinguished professor of atmospheric science at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee.[69][70]
Fritz Vahrenholt, German politician and energy executive with a doctorate in chemistry.[71][72]

Scientists arguing that global warming is primarily caused by natural processes

Graph showing the ability with which a global climate model is able to reconstruct the historical temperature record, and the degree to which those temperature changes can be decomposed into various forcing factors. It shows the effects of five forcing factors: greenhouse gases, man-made sulfate emissions, solar variability, ozone changes, and volcanic emissions.[73]
These scientists have said that the observed warming is more likely to be attributable to natural causes than to human activities. Their views on climate change are usually described in more detail in their biographical articles.

Khabibullo Abdusamatov, astrophysicist at Pulkovo Observatory of the Russian Academy of Sciences[74][75]
[b]Sallie Baliunas, retired astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics[76][77][78][/b]
Timothy Ball, historical climatologist, and retired professor of geography at the University of Winnipeg[79][80][81]
Ian Clark, hydrogeologist, professor, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa[82][83]
Chris de Freitas, associate professor, School of Geography, Geology and Environmental Science, University of Auckland[84][85]
David Douglass, solid-state physicist, professor, Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Rochester[86][87]
Don Easterbrook, emeritus professor of geology, Western Washington University[88][89]
William Happer, physicist specializing in optics and spectroscopy; emeritus professor, Princeton University[90][91]
Ole Humlum, professor of geology at the University of Oslo[92][93]
Wibjörn Karlén, professor emeritus of geography and geology at the University of Stockholm.[94][95]
[b]William Kininmonth, meteorologist, former Australian delegate to World Meteorological Organization Commission for Climatology[96][97][/b]
David Legates, associate professor of geography and director of the Center for Climatic Research, University of Delaware[98][99]
Anthony Lupo, professor of atmospheric science at the University of Missouri[100][101]
Tad Murty, oceanographer; adjunct professor, Departments of Civil Engineering and Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa[102][103]
Tim Patterson, paleoclimatologist and professor of geology at Carleton University in Canada.[104][105]
Ian Plimer, professor emeritus of mining geology, the University of Adelaide.[106][107]
Arthur B. Robinson, American politician, biochemist and former faculty member at the University of California, San Diego[108][109]
Murry Salby, atmospheric scientist, former professor at Macquarie University and University of Colorado[110][111]
Nicola Scafetta, research scientist in the physics department at Duke University[112][113][114]
Tom Segalstad, geologist; associate professor at University of Oslo[115][116]
Nir Shaviv, professor of physics focusing on astrophysics and climate science at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem[117][118]
Fred Singer, professor emeritus of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia[119][120][121][122]
[b]Willie Soon, astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics[123][124]
Roy Spencer, meteorologist; principal research scientist, University of Alabama in Huntsville[125][126][/b]
Henrik Svensmark, physicist, Danish National Space Center[127][128]
George H. Taylor, retired director of the Oregon Climate Service at Oregon State University[129][130]
Jan Veizer, environmental geochemist, professor emeritus from University of Ottawa[131][132]

Scientists arguing that the cause of global warming is unknown
These scientists have said that no principal cause can be ascribed to the observed rising temperatures, whether man-made or natural.

Syun-Ichi Akasofu, retired professor of geophysics and founding director of the International Arctic Research Center of the University of Alaska Fairbanks.[133][134]
Claude Allègre, French politician; geochemist, emeritus professor at Institute of Geophysics (Paris).[135][136]
Robert Balling, a professor of geography at Arizona State University.[137][138]
Pål Brekke, solar astrophycisist, senior advisor Norwegian Space Centre.[139][140]
[b]John Christy, professor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, contributor to several IPCC reports.[141][142][143][b/]
Petr Chylek, space and remote sensing sciences researcher, Los Alamos National Laboratory.[144][145]
David Deming, geology professor at the University of Oklahoma.[146][147]
Stanley B. Goldenberg a meteorologist with NOAA/AOML's Hurricane Research Division [148] [149]
Vincent R. Gray, New Zealand physical chemist with expertise in coal ashes[150][151]
Keith E. Idso, botanist, former adjunct professor of biology at Maricopa County Community College District and the vice president of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change[152][153]
Antonino Zichichi, emeritus professor of nuclear physics at the University of Bologna and president of the World Federation of Scientists.[154][155]
[b]Kary Mullis, 1993 Nobel Laureate in Chemistry.[156][/b]

Scientists arguing that global warming will have few negative consequences
These scientists have said that projected rising temperatures will be of little impact or a net positive for society or the environment.

Indur M. Goklany, science and technology policy analyst for the United States Department of the Interior[157][158][159]
Craig D. Idso, faculty researcher, Office of Climatology, Arizona State University and founder of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change [160][161]
Sherwood B. Idso, former research physicist, USDA Water Conservation Laboratory, and adjunct professor, Arizona State University[162][163]
Patrick Michaels, senior fellow at the Cato Institute and retired research professor of environmental science at the University of Virginia[164][165][/QUOTE]

I'm all for protecting our environment, decreasing pollution, conservation, et cetra.

However, my general gestalt is that there are two types of people pushing "global climate change": 1) Useful idiots - Typically emotionally driven liberal simpletons and 2) Controllers -who seek to either make money or control the population with fear mongering

Use your brain here for a second. I know it might be hard since you type like a retard.

Which is more credible: wattsupwiththat.com/stevegodden.wordpress.com

Or......NASA.gov

I mean......Come on. It's obvious. Citations and studies don't mean phucking anything. Is that your cop out for validating a chitty phucking source?

If you cited "wattsupwiththat.com" in a research paper in school, they would fail you.

Meanwhile, a couple months anda few extreme weather eventslater...

It's a blog that uses scientific citations. The blog itself doesn't conduct the research retard.

And if you read my earlier post you will remember that it was NASA who doctored the historical temperature data (this isn't a conspiracy, it was a well publicised scandal in the media)https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesta.../#380b451f6184
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/eart...ming-data.html

because in the 90s (when it was global warming, not "climate change") the American government needed the data to support the idea that temperatures had been rising since recording began, as CO2 has risen. To do this they had to eliminate the huge warming spike in the 1930s, after which temperatures cooled for4 decadesculminating in the famous cover photo



Of course they have abandoned global warming since then, and now we have to deal with "climate change" which is a mode of political fear-mongering based on convincing people that there was a stable/optimal climate for humans in the past and we are veering away from it due to human activity, none of which is true.

What's more telling is that all the pro-AGW arguments in this thread are appeals to popularity, as though every single scientist believes in AGW. The truth is that the 97% claim is bogus, most privately-funded scientists do not support AGW anymore, it's a position of governmental science departments, journalists and activist groups. AGW is no different to gender social construction theory.

Most public policy is based off some very non-scientific science from a very select group that reviews eachothers papers in a circle jerk and does its absolute best to hide the data from anyone else, while also silencing any other opinion in every greasy way possible. The messaging has gone from 'global warming' to 'climate change' specifically because warming can be scientifically verified. It's more political than scientific, and individual career aspirations and the postmodernist desire to destroy western civilization are important factors to consider, just like everywhere else in politics.

Anyone who expresses a strong opinion either way is a fool.