Great Global Warming Swindle ABC Debates Part 6/9

[fusedchromosome]

at 6:00 Evans says "The thing I find extraordinary about this debate is the sheer bloody-mindedness, the desperation that is now manifest on the part of the anthropogenists, as I call them, who are convinced, despite all the evidence, that anthropogenic CO2 is the main driver of climate"

Wow. That's some serious verbal diarrhea. Evans has made it pretty clear that "all the evidence" is the last thing he's concerned about.

[shawso7]

WATCH PART 7/9 starting@ 1:50 lead GlobalWarming scientist FINALLY ADMITS ice core data proves TEMPERATURE LEADS CO2 INCREASES, then@ 2:49 he confesses ICEAGES & WARM PERIOD CYCLE is CAUSED by EARTH's ORBIT AROUND THE SUN! "But its certainly true that in those iceage interglacial periods that carbon dioxide DID NOT LEAD the temperatures. It was actually the temperatures starting first." Then sun's warmth releases more CO2 from earth which exponentially adds global warmth. FIRST CAUSE is the SUN!

[bubbah]

Wow, that old senile man is really embarrassing hiimself.

[spirov]

Tony Jones is a dirty shock jock

[spirov]

Tony Jones is a shock jock



[slytown]

"Companies are rational entities." Great argument woman that represents companies protecting thier PR.

[johnnytheprick]

@0:38 "around 98% of them".........lolololololo isnt that like making up numbers to fit the theory?

why do we need to spend millions of dollars on satelites when a thermometer works just fine? my latest data indicates local cooling! (i live in melb)

[vicashbaugh]

i thought this debate was about the flaws in the doucmentary? notice how the debate moved to risks and things we need to do to prevent significant damage from c02 emissions like its fact. until the floor is given to a skeptic. and then it shows people laughing in the background when he tries to make a point! this whole debate is a great piece of byassed journalism. yes theyve got a panel made of both sides, but who gets the most floor time? hmmmmmm.

[LendMeYourHand]

Who are one of the mass producers of sodium fluoride....China... What do roughly 80% of greenhouse gases consist of??? Fluoride.. Which element in CFC is a negatively charged particle that fluoresces under ultraviolet light?? Fluoride.. What is the main ingredient in prozac,paxil,zoloft,lipitor, & all SSRI's?? Fluoride. CDC recommends 1ppm daily dose of fluoride is safe. How much fluoride is in toothpaste??? 1000-1500 PPM... CDC recommends 4mg/l, yet people are on 50mg of Prozac.

[LendMeYourHand]

Anyone with half a brain can do about 15 minutes of research to discover that this is all bullshit when the Earth system depends on the greenhouse for the sustainability of life. And that it falsely models a greenhouse effect in general is lies within itself when all these elements are dragged into the vacuum of space. Tax humanity for breathing while oil companies drill into the side of volcanoes & Nuclear plants have so much waste that they put it in our food,water & medications(fluoride)

[LendMeYourHand]

OH no!! greenhouse gases consists of 98% water vapor. we better ban H20. No more pesky water on our planet, we need to get rid of all the water. What they dont tell you is that alkyl halides are the most dangerous to the heating of the surface, namely Fluoride as it is a electronegative ionic particle that emits radiation. Or any element that is in a state of decay like carbon-14 which is not to be confused with carbon. Oh, & CO2 does not settle in low atmosphere, it rises. DUUUUHHH!!!!!

[bubbah]

@LendMeYourHand Are you retarded?

[LendMeYourHand]

@bubbah I assume you have something intelligent to say? Your whole statement really outlines how much of a knucklehead you are.

[bubbah]

@LendMeYourHand The stupidity of the ignorant, dishonest, lying scumbag who made this propaganda flick is rubbing off. Just listening to his idiotic drivel makes people dumber.

[LendMeYourHand]

@bubbah What does that have to do with my statement? I clearly outline that corporatization is responsible for polutants without accountability. The truth & science is background radiation. The radiation is all around us as cancer has greatly increased globally. But these madmen build a fake arguement combating Carbon, as it merely amplifies background radiation, in attempt to empower the nuclear industry. The source is clearly outlined in an extensive list on the CDC.gov website. = Flouride

[bubbah]

@LendMeYourHand Cancer rates are increasing because people are growing older. Age is the #1 risk factor for cancer.

But what on earth does cancer have to do with anything? This is about the greenhouse effect - the fact that CO2 causes warming.

[LendMeYourHand]

@bubbah Cont. So it doesnt matter whether Global Warming exists or not, as corporations dump Hexaflourascilic acid in our water, put Sodium Aluminum Phosphate in our canned foods & baked goods. When nuclear plants are only mandated to prevent leaks 30% over safe levels. Its simple, Get rid of the radiation & find a renewable source of energy. Force accountability from industry & imprison the criminals for genocide.

[bubbah]

@LendMeYourHand Yes, it does matter whether global warming exists or not. Denying it because you want people to focus on something else is just pathetic.

[bubbah]

@LendMeYourHand And you are almost as bad. Your ignorant ramblings are so completely idiotic that you must have listened a LOT to this douchebag.

[Dayversion]

China's 'green economy' will have to wait

China is neither green nor clean. It's a major polluter that promises to clean up its act — someday.

Doyle McManus

China burns more coal (by far) and emits more greenhouse gases than any other country. It sells more automobiles than any other country too (it passed the United States last year). And all those bad numbers are still going up, because China's No. 1 goal is increasing industrial production, not protecting the environment.

[masterofdisguise1]

bandwagoning is a bias, therefore saying most cientists agree should not be an argument

[sleepyronchargers]

Australian, is selling itself to China at least the minerals. Every environmental scientist feel as though we can not stop GW without China. I don't see China stopping anytime soon. I do love when people stand up and say "Do as I say not as I do."

[oOkumaOo]

only industry people support this global warming idea .....im not convinced

[psalm69er]

My point being that the fossil fuel companies are being badgered into being seen as 'eco-friendly' through bad PR and government legislation. I agree they don't want to stop people using fossil fuels, but it is in their best interest to act like they do. That's why I think it's incorrect for pro-global warming people to claim that action taken by fossil fuel companies is 'proof' that these companies think global warming as real.

[CotardDelusion]

GLOBAL WARMING, TERRORISM, SWINE FLU... its all the bloody same bullshit my friends...

[goog2k]

9 of last 10 years were the HOTTEST on record. 2009 = 2nd HOTTEST on record & solar irradiance is at 35 year low Search: Data @ NASA GISS: GISS Surface Temperature Analysis: Graphs See: Ranking (Top 10 Warmest Years) The latest on YouTube: It's so Cold, there can't be Global Warming /watch?v=sAvqabAPIr4&feature=s­ub 50% of arctic sea ice & mountain glaciers have disappeared in just 30 years. Plants, animals & insects are all migrating north Search: Climate Change: NASA's Eyes on the Earth

[93msinclair]

USA do not let these Ausie communists walk over you. Vote no on copenhagen treaty

[koyima]

Just check out what I mention and then you might stop taking everything they say for granted.electric cars were slow and batteries had problems, yeah right. Money is the answer to all your doubts,who will benefit? Is what you should ask

[monsteronmydesk]

I love that the ipcc has now abandoned the infamous hockey stick.

[human20freedom]

to nionionionionon tae nimo kate mono itendaeo...to nionionionionino :p

[sega23date]

한번만 다시 생각해보신다면 이 프로는 굉장히 단순한 로비에 불과합니다.

석유회사에서 뒷돈 혹은 지원을 받는 과학자들(그들 중 대다수는 과학자도 아니죠)이 사람들이 남용하는 화학연료로 인해서 지구 온난화가 심각해지니 이것들을 줄여야만 한다, 대체 에너지를 개발해야만 한다.

..과연 그들이 이런 얘기들을 꺼낼까요??

[sega23date]

이거 아마 영국인가 그쪽에서 첫 방영되었던 프로그램 같은데 그쪽에서도 상당히 논란이 되서 나중에 언론에서 해당 다큐에 등장하였던 과학자들을 뒷조사하였더니 석유회사랑 관련있는 것이 밝혀졌습니다.

[Timosaby]

Why is a corporate CEO lady having a debate with scientists? She sounds like a dumbass hippy

[pheynixll]

Yes, they put the coal and oil CEOS because they apparently should be the ones that are skeptics, but they just hinder the debate with cliches about acting now... well the program is supposed to be a debate!

[wrjamescom]

She's a whore. Unlike ethical whores who put out, she whores expecting others like you and me to put out.

[rileannas]

The WWF guy was fantastic too. Talking about risk management, saying "we don't need to wait for certainty. We have enough knowledge; we know it's enough of a risk."

Anyone seen the Manpollo videos? :)

[rileannas]

The guy who went "IPCC committed fraud and should be put in jail" really denounced his credibility.

It would be VERY hard to get away with fraud in peer-reviewed science....

[koyima]

not if you are all dependent on the same source of Funds.

[rileannas]

Nick Rowley was great here. Talking about how scary it gets and that yes, the models don't always match up with reality - reality turns out to be much worse.

[St37One]

thick dark glasses and effeminate attitude can say a lot about an experts opinions on climate change and science in general.

fashionable nonsense!

don't get with the times, change is ongoing.

[odin2nd]

This is not advocacy for the non-believers, this is true rational discussion.

May I remind some here, that the industries have conciously, even before the popularity of global warming, aimed to reduce both use of fuel and the emissions they make. Also, it is industry which first got the thesis on a role (James Hanson, NASA), as well as developing alternative fuels and transportation. The argument towards the industry is only childish self-contradicton.

[koyima]

So link to a power plant or oil rig that was shut down and replaced with a wind farm or solar farm. The technology exists (Cool Earth Solar) why aren't they investing in that? Oil money is easy money that's why and if you get a carbon tax bonus that's even better.

[psalm69er]

They use the fact that many fossil fuel companies are jumping on board the man-made climate change bandwagon as evidence to support their theory yet then acknowledge that there is a lot money for them to made if they green up their industrial processes... these companies are jst following the money and trying to neutralise a PR nightmare for them if they deny man made climate change.

[koyima]

exactly

[VarykGerai]

@psalm69er wtf? in what way extra funding to rewamp the processing is good for business? also if consumers go green (alternative fuel, hybrid or low consumption in general) that means less demand = bad for business. Youre talking rubish.

[HarryBallbag]

"98% accept", ignoring the intimidation, funding withdrawals and joblessness that might result from not accepting, "the basic science". Reds are reds whether they're benefiting from anti-racism, "gender" issues, or global-warming. It all ends up with tax-hikes and social-engineering. Enjoyed the BBC-esque tactics employed to discredit the skeptics too. Pathetic.

[koyima]

Selling you something that they also say is creating problems to guilt trick you into paying even more money for it.

[batteries76]

@HarryBallbag are you on drugs? can you prove any of this? or are you now peering through your blinds with a tin-foil hat on your head? just another conservative rant, swinging wildly at everything that you can't get your head around to try and hold some pointless status quo. i welcome any evidence you can manage.

[tornadomaximus]

@batteries76 People do worry about their jobs and livelihoods especially if they're a scientist who gets by through government grants. They may feel the pressure to compromise their integrity by accepting a particular idea just so they can pay the bills.

People swept up in the hysteria of GW may also physically threaten scientists if they don't agree with the "universally accepted" idea of GW. It has happened before.

The idea of AGW has been perverted by politicians to serve their own ends.

[batteries76]

@tornadomaximus but you don't KNOW that any of this is true. science doesn't work in the way you think it does. scientists don't look for a certain outcome - they investigate a particular scenario to find out the data and then publish the results. but instead of accepting this you'd rather believe that they all fudge the results to go with the consensus. how did the consensus start? are all the scientists who review it in on it too? can you show any evidence that this is occuring?

[tornadomaximus]

@batteries76 I never said science worked like that. I said PEOPLE sometimes work like that. Sometimes people choose to use certain data which they know to be of questionable veracity in order to support the ideas or results that helps them put food on the table.

Tell me, if it came down to having food and shelter or sharing the truth, which would you rather have? Really think about this, don't just blurt the response that you think people want to hear. Answer what your inner nature tells you to.

[batteries76]

@tornadomaximus you are saying that scientists won't get funding if they come up with the wrong conclusions. but scientists get the funding to investigate a certain proposition, then give the results, not the other way around. and of course i agree that money can be an incentive - but why do you think this is occurring? you are assuming your conclusion. the simpler explanation is that they aren't rigging the data. any evidence at all? if money was so vital these guys would do something else.

[tornadomaximus]

@batteries76 I think it's happening because it currently supports the political agenda to do so. Not the ideological agenda, but the personal one (ie greed).

Scientists might not get funding AFTER they publish results of experiments/research that might disprove or contradict popular ideas. They might be discredited by opponents and lose chances at future funding.

Never underestimate the ability to mud-sling an opponent. You want evidence of mudslinging look at the 50's with McCarthyism.

[batteries76]

@tornadomaximus the baseless suggestion that thousands of scientists are rigging data to support a consensus (formed presumably because the early data was good enough) is mud-slinging. if you can show that scientists don't get funding in certain situations and that good scientists are being abused for contrary results then i'm happy to listen. if not it seems a strange thing to assume this is taking place. you statement is full of what 'might' be true but is nothing more than a vague conspiracy.

[tornadomaximus]

@batteries76 purely out of curiosity, did you watch the great global warming swindle or did you just watch this biased video about it? The IPCC's number of scientists that "agree" about GW is inflated due to some bureaucratic juggling. BTW, my argument was about CO2 being the cause of GW, not that the climate is not changing.

I think the best way to settle this argument is to do your own research and make up your own opinion and not just repeat what you've been told.

I'm done with this. I'm out.

[batteries76]

@tornadomaximus i watched it. i also saw how many holes were in that ridiculous piece of rubbish. it's a heinous production and durkin is a swine. what research can you do? if it's watching this tripe then it doesn't count. you don't have a science degree let alone the time and experience to work it out. now you have more unfounded claims about bureaucratic juggling because it sounds good. you have made it clear that you will believe what you want to believe - it isn't rational, it's emotional.

[VarykGerai]

@tornadomaximus thats exactly the data that the durkins film was based on.

[VarykGerai]

@batteries76 furthermore it is much more likely that the industry emiting co2 is would try to discredit scientists to save huge amounts of money. Business "ethics"!

[Bzerker01]

@VarykGerai your not biased at all...

[VarykGerai]

@tornadomaximus why would polititians want to have a problem with which they will then have to deal with?

[tornadomaximus]

@VarykGerai the obvious response would be that there was no real problem, but even I do not believe this. CC is happening, but CO2 is not the cause. It seems more likely that politicians jumped on the bandwagon so they could extend their own influences. In order to make an apathetic public actually pay attention, they would have to inflate numbers to outrageous levels (or simply imply said outrageous numbers *cough Gore *cough).

It's just a ploy to keep the public scared and therefore malleable.

[batteries76]

@tornadomaximus the number or times this boils down to an obsession with governments and their 'power'. and chrissake, am i tired of hearing about al gore. who cares what al gore thinks? i'm happy he got it into the public domain, but that's about it. just look at the bloody science. besides, what do you really think the government can do with the extra power anyway, even if true? i don't like politicians, but seriously..

[VarykGerai]

@tornadomaximus what is the cause then?

[CaptainCrumple]

@VarykGerai thats the thing no one knows and we wont find the answer until people stop going on about CO2 

[VarykGerai]

@tornadomaximus and how is it not a problem for polititians if the GW is true? country is big business, so same applies as in the reply to spalm69er

[BerettaStormPX4]

Notice how lopsided the panel is favoring global warming. Typical.

[BeondaPale]

lol - just like real life, huh?

[BatoNY65]

Not like real life at all, in fact. This is being driven by the elites, not by popular support or thousands of scientists who dispute anthropogenic global warming.

[BeondaPale]

It is? Are you aware that a Harris Interactive poll in 2007 found that the vast majority of climatologists agreed with AGW?

- 97% agreed that global temperatures have increased in the past 100 years;

- 84% say that human-induced warming is occurring

 - Only 5% said that that human activity does NOT contribute to greenhouse warming

- 84% believe global climate change poses a moderate to very great danger.

These were not "elites" Were you not aware of this poll?

[koyima]

Well except from the fact that any of the stats you just posted doesn't answer the question: is the total increase of temperature over the past 100 years due to human activity? No, they answer other questions that give you the impression that man is responcible.

[BeondaPale]

I see. So you point to scientific uncertainty as a reason not to take action on the climate change humans may be causing. Fair enough. Let me ask you a question then:

It's documented that human activity has increased the amount of CO2 by 40% over the last century. If uncertainty is a reason NOT to take action on climate change, do you also believe that humans should to continue this exponentially increase in CO2, without knowing for certain what the overall effect this increase will have?

[koyima]

Well instead of funneling millions into research, they should funnel millions into solutions. They could have made quite a few solar parks with the money they have spent. Search for Cool Earth Solar to get an idea

[BeondaPale]

Nice dodge!! - here's the question again:

Do you believe that humans should to continue an exponentially increase in amount of CO2 into the atmosphere, without certain knowledge of what overall effect such an increase will produce?

[koyima]

I think that we should move towards alternative power sources. Taxing us is just money making to me, especially since that money won' be directly funneled into clean energy. I don't see you turning off your PC though, as it seems you would rather prefer starving people use the one panel they can afford.

[koyima]

And yes "Pan metron ariston" is always best , but I didn't see any factories closing down, nor did they replace power plants with clean energy plants, they say the solution is to tax us for living with the car they selected - electric taxis were the norm in 1914 New York - search Wikipedia why electric cars were "discontinued" - the money as in this case was the leading factor, not science. Also check Tesla's funding by Rockefeller and how it stopped.

[koyima]

Sorry J.P.Morgan was funding and then asked where he would put the meter.Of course when the answer was no meter, funding was pulled, were is the science in that?

[koyima]

Basically people aren't doing the excessive CO2 emission, industry is, so industry has to change. Do you go out and burn stuff all day? Don't you recycle? Do you leave your lights, appliances etc on without reason? Why should you be taxed? Why should laws be passed that control your actions? Isn't it more logical to start from the sources? Company isn't producing electric cars - TAX, company is using coal, switch or TAX. What can you do to stop emitting CO2? Ah yes you are breathign, STOP

[koyima]

Also I have a Smart, which is pretty clean and safe, but other than that I can't see what you should stop doing in order to decrease my CO2 emissions, so this all just sounds like an other way to give money value.

[koyima]

And finally it all sounds a bit like the ancient south Americans using the Sun's cycles to impress, sacrifice and tax people (they were called offerings to the gods) and of course the sun turned black and they started cutting off heads until it went bright again, nice stuff.

[moxinghbian]

I am him, I AM this guy. 2:00 . him.

I m not scared of warming, I am scared of uncertainty. scared to death. serious-shit can-happen kind of uncertainty. not hurricanes, not ice melting (itself), they are trivial compared to the uncertain stuff.

[koyima]

Everything is uncertain in life, get a grip. We are on huge rock with a core of fire floating towards the center of a black hole while at the same time going round another huge ball of fire. The only thing that is certain is that they will still force you to submit, either through fear or money.

[BeondaPale]

So if you had been in New Orleans just before Hurricane Katrina, you would have encouraged people to ignore the warnings to evacuate, right? I mean the hurricane could have changed course at the last minute, right?

We've DO have to live with uncertainty. But that doesn't mean playing games chicken with nature.

Btw, I think it's going to be a while before we'll be swallowed up by the black hole in the center of our galaxy

[koyima]

Weren't they warned? Did they leave?I don;'t know the details, not American so I didn't learn details.

Anyway that's not my point, being uncertain is one thing, trying to impose a bunch of non-democratic stuff on people in case something happens is not cool at all. Working towards a solution is better.

[BeondaPale]

Well, if we are working toward a solution to something, we must first define what problem needs solving, right?

What would you say that problem is?

[koyima]

The problem is we are still using fossil fuels when we have renewable resources virtually abundant. All they can think of is Carbon Tax, Carbon Trade and Laws that will allow them to enter your home without a warrant. No fossil fuels, no extra CO2 no man made idea of a problem

[BeondaPale]

So are you suggesting banning the use fosil fuels world wide?

[koyima]

I'm suggesting fast replacement, not this pansy ass making money off hybrids blah blah blah. Start making the things we need to stop using them. Greece was number 1 in the 1980s now they are last in Europe in Wind Energy. We have wind and sun, but we still use some form of coal for Electricity and instead of making solar they are making more coal factories, well at least until last month.

[koyima]

Meaning this better safe than sorry thing you are saying and stuff isn't going to be done with taxes. Of course you can't stop in a day, but they are just dancing around trying to figure out how much money they can make off the hysteria. If you were really afraid you would push everything solar to become mainstream.

[BeondaPale]

Good idea, politically improbable though -- it may come to that however

[koyima]

So let's make a quick buck then?

[BeondaPale]

No think about it. What you are suggesting would REQUIRE the power of a dictator. It might work in China, where a dictatorship is in place, but in western democracies the profit motive must be used to incentivize such a movement.

[koyima]

The power of a dictator to start using solar energy? You are retarded, I'm out.

[BeondaPale]

Ok, I'm game, how would this pansy-less "fast replacement" be accomplished through existing government structuresin the western world?

[koyima]

well taxing the citizens isn't going to help, nor are laws allowing them to enter homes without warrants. Just give huge tax incentives towards electric cars, make importing costs on solar materials 0, cut money from the army-push it to alternative power sources

[koyima]

Take out a loan, build plants for solar materials, each and every country did it to save the banking system (ha), why can't they do it to save the environment. Finally get some balls, cos the oil industry will be onto you, but if you ask for extra highly paid protection while doing this stuff, nobody will say no. Electric cars have been built in the thousands and been destroyed with a simple payoff by the oil industry. People have been killed for a lot less.

[BeondaPale]

Like I said, it will eventualy come to all of what you're saying, but I have a feeling we're gonna be in a heap of trouble by then

[DrDave953]

Anyone notice that the 'big oil' are 'jumping on the bandwagon'? This is a travesty of a debate!!

Dave.

[doford]

Where is the pro man made global warming in this program? This is simply nonsense.

[MojoPin07]

Yes, because we all believe that BP are developing clean technologies because they are socially responsible! I do think that the best proof for the issue is to follow the money though.

[slayerman89]

Listen to the politician getting people's emotions rising and their minds clouded.

[caldeuxfrog]

Global Warming is a fact. Not just on earth, but throughout the solar-system. The ice-caps on Mars are melting. Moons of Jupiter were once ice. Now they are liquid.

Do the research. See the evidence for yourself. GW is caused by the Sun getting hotter. It's not caused by CO2.

[Markennz]

Yes well then wouldn't that be do to solar activity (the sun) then? Because there are no men on Mars or the moons of Jupiter to heat them so it is the sun that must be causing the bulk of the warming there and here. I think that you are misunderstanding the main point of this debate yes a side argument is maybe global warming isn't as significant as we are told but the main point is is global warming mainly cause by mens activities or by the Suns activities i believe the data shows its the Sun.

[BeondaPale]

What you call EVIDENCE of GLOBAL warming on Mars, is PHOTOGRAGHS of a single icy region in the southern hemisphere

Pluto orbits the Sun once every 248 yrs - it was DISCOVERED in 1930 - ABSOLUTELY IMPOSSIBLE to draw ANY conclusions.

And there is EXTREMELY little evidence of a global warming on Jupiter as well.

To infer from your drops in a bucket a common mechanism for global warming on Earth is RIDICULOUS! It is incorrect reasoning and based on faulty understanding of the data.

[Jason84575]

Hey GW deniers,

How do you explain the FACT that 95% of nations in the world signed Kyoto?

All of these nations have more than enough resources to confirm what the Kyoto scientists concluded.

Many countries said that the Kyoto agreement would hurt thier economies yet they still signed. In fact its the reason Bush pulled us out of Kyoto and we know how good of a pres he is.

Prediction: The deniers will dodge my question.

[n4359y]

Well, its been 2 months and deniers did dodge the question. And the answer: The IPCC displayed an actual graph of the Earth's temperatures, which contained all warm periods and high levels of CO2. Since nobady did anything, they created the false "hockey stick graph" which scared everyone. If it was true, signing Kyoto would be well-spent money,and Other counrties are more liberal than the U.S., so they are willing to take that risk. Bush knows damn well though that these are false IPCC reports.

[brengun42]

Consensus is not science. People who tout consensus as reason to believe are in the same boat with Galileo's contemporary opponants; the consensus of an earth-centered universe didn't make it so.

[n4359y]

Oh my god!!! the sky is falling!!! there is a concensus of 50,000 scientists!!! It is caused by the Jews!!!

I'm kidding. But GW is just as ridiculous.

Oh... and I'm not racist at all. I respect Jews actually. Theyre good people.

[brengun42]

Anyone asking you to believe in something because of a consensus is asking you to believe in something that is merely popular. Consensus is meaningless; Galileo, Einstein, Gandhi, Martin Luther King Jr, etc, all struggled against consensuses that were bunk. Rationality often flies in the face of popularity. We should judge the GW debate on rationality, and discard the consensus nonsence for the attempted emotion manipulation that it is.

[BeondaPale]

You have it EXACTLY BACKWARDS -- Galileo's did NOT base their opposition of Galileo's findings ON SCIENCE, but on religious dogma

[koyima]

Yep, but believing in a theory that has not been proven can also be considered religion. Investigate until you have the answer.

[BeondaPale]

So you're saying all scientific theories are like religion, until proven.

Hmmmm...

A theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is based on observation and empirical evidence through use of the scientific method.

Religion is a belief in the supernatural

Please describe how these two seemingly different concepts are the same -- if you can

[koyima]

Theory is assumption, it has to be proven, it is a well estimated guess, but not a valid explanation until proven correct. Believing without knowledge of the facts is like believing in the supernatural, yes. No evidence of God, indications that CO2 might be the cause of global warming, when the planet is moving around the sun in a slightly different orbit every year sounds a lot more powerful than the ants we are.

[BeondaPale]

And that well estimated guess you speak of in science is based on observation of known phenomenon - FACTS and logic

so the thing you said is NOT in a theory IS in a theory

You're right there is no evidence of God, and you're wrong there IS evidence of CO2 induced global warming. Hence not like religion

[koyima]

Also check the part about Thatcher being a strong supporter of GW caused by man made CO2 and her ambitions concerning nuclear power. This is important stuff to take into account when investigating the source of the theory.

[BeondaPale]

Ahh so the "Iron Lady" was in on this fraud too, right

Thatcher was a good friend of Ronald Reagan, another strong supporter of Nuclear Energy.

Would you say that Ronald Reagan was part of this enormous conspiracy to enslave us all as well?

[koyima]

Well it's not exactly fraud, the would say to their inferiors that it would be really helpful to find something to back up our nuclear power ideas (which we can still charge for). When the theory is found, inferior gets pay rise and promotion, funding is funneled to prove theory. Scientists are faced with the dilemma: money - no money, also it seems to them that no harm can come, we are polluting right? Well yes, until they pass laws they can bust into your house without a warrant.