What We Know about Climate Change

Support Climate Denial Crock of the Week - go to
http://www.greenmanstudio.com

This is the same video as "What do we know about Climate Change?", except it has a small typo -- I've left it up since so many places already have it embedded.

In the many responses I get to these videos, it appears that a number of people want to deny, or are not even aware, that there is a scientific foundation to the overwhelming consensus on climate change.

In fact, the science is built on thousands of publications and many decades of observation.

In this video we'll go over some of the fundamental discoveries, the
basic facts that we know beyond a doubt, about global warming.
Of course, many people will never believe science, because they believe that
anything that challenges their world view, is all part of a secret,
global conspiracy.

Increases in Longwave forcing inferred from Outward longwave
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/...
Trends in Forcings
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cg...
Downward Longwave Radiation
http://landshape.org/enm/wp-content/u...
Downward Longwave Radiation
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009...
29000 data sets, press release:
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/new...
29000 data sets
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abstracts/2...
Global Energy Imbalance:
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abstracts/2...
Isotopes:
http://www.bgc-jena.mpg.de/service/is...

• Category

  Science & Technology

[CrownJules84]

"Damn scientists"

[Andrew Pierson]

Some BULLLSHIVICK PLOT!

[MrPilotans]

it doesn't, much like many people that live in denial despite all the evidence.

[greenman3610]

good luck with that. Let me know when the dog gets it.

[MrPilotans]

If any proof was possible we would be teaching monkeys at universities...

you just cant prove to a dog that the sun is a star, the dog needs to understand it all by itself.

[Elle Mercurio]

"People want to see proof. That's not how science works."

Who needs proof when you can dupe the masses with pure speculation, hypotheses, theories and junk science? A 2012 report by the National Academy of Sciences indicates fraudulent or suspected fraudulent data was at work in over 40% of retracted studies. Fraud was most common in U.S. and German studies while plagiarism and duplicate publication was a bigger problem in Asia. Of course, what isn't mentioned is the fraud that is published.

[drummer703]

You sound a little bitter. Lol. Don't get your panties in a bunch