Climate Denial Crock of the Week - That 1500 Year Thing

You talk about "Straw-man" arguments in some of your videos, but I must say, I see a lot of straw in your argument about "deniers" being paid off by big oil. Please, if this is true, back it up. It would lend validity to your argument and maybe change some minds. But please do the same for your side, because the money to be made in the carbon trade market is vast and growing, so many GW advocates must get the same scrutiny.

Great greenman3610. Thanks.

arnemyggen: You can't provide a single or even small number of sci papers that show the consensus about AGW is wrong. There aren't papers that say it's right or wrong, there are thousands & thousands of papers that provide evidence for or against one tiny aspect of the science or another. The VERY large majority of them (Naomi Oreskes couldn't find ANY) don't dispute that we're causing global warming but saying that doesn't meant there's anything like a consensus on how bad or when.

1 thing I can tell you is that some of the skeptics' claims that it will benefit us are clearly wrong. Ex: They say it will melt ice, expanding the land area available for agriculture despite areas that are flooded. However, recent research has shown that hotter and more CO2 is not necessarily better. Most plants in tropical areas will die out or decrease productivity/nutritional value at only 1 or 2 deg increase in temp. And arcttic areas areas that become available don't have viable topsoil.

arnemyggen: There are many, many articles and studies that analyze the cost/benefit analysis and virtually no peer reviewed articles or studies predict any overall benefit. You can't post links to web sites on youtube but Real Climate is a good place to start. They have links to many other sites. If you send me a personal message I can also give you some of the research I've done on people, organizations and web sites.

@sky - That's great! I went through a similar pattern. I've always been into meteorology, but some anti-AGW seemed to peak my interest.
After viewing their sites, I saw some pretty weak arguments with no bearing in physics.

I can see why some deniers hate AGW. It IS being exploited to make money. It also will be abused by big companies to weed out competition.

But... Saying that AGW is fake makes them look unwilling to do research.

CO2 fear mongering !

CO2 is not i repeat NOT a poison !

The global tax on a faked "warming" that is not there - is a crime and the real poison is the Global Government they're trying to set up !

Of course we shouldn't pollute the earth, but CO2 is NOT a pollutant! You're being fooled again !

Wake up folks !

Saying CO2 is a poison IS fear-mongering.

However, I do not agree that there is 'faked warming'. CO2 IS a 'greenhouse' gas and has a high probability of raising mean temperatures.

Mean temperatures are going up, even if there are anomalous areas of cold weather. Wildlife patterns have also been affected. Will it be as bad as Al Gore says? No, but denying it 100% is bound to slap you in the face.

Will it be as bad as Al Gore says? Actually, most of his opponents exaggerate how bad he says it will be, so it probably will. The reason many of us react with such a sense of urgency is because there's a small, but very real, chance that it could be MUCH worse. The skeptics keep pointing out how uncertain the science is but they don't grasp the fact that it's true. Meaning it could go the other way too.

It's very sad to me that some people are willing to take that chance with our planet.

Do you know what a strawman is? Nobody ever said CO2 is a "poison". They said it's a form of pollution. If you don't think that's the case, try locking yourself into a room with nothing but CO2 and see how long you live.

It may not be pollution for plants, but it most certainly is for us, just as Oxygen is a pollutant for plants. Isn't it nice how nature balanced that out?! :)