Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 7

(Keep in mind Scott that I'm addressing Iman here.

Global warming depends on a lot of analysis, and there are differing interpretations of the evidence.
Global weather trends are not something we can immediately physically see for ourselves, so no, it is not
a matter for direct perception.

"It seems the lack of curiosity with each other’s views is due to a dishonesty with ourselves…" Where is
your curiosity to find out what the right has to say about this? Have you read reasoned arguments about it
from the right at all?

Now I'm going to post a lot of stuff here on the subject of climate change. My feeling is that we should
always investigate taboo topics. In all these articles and videos, you will see a lot of attempts to censor
the opposition. Is the science on weather already decided so much that we have no reason to even discuss
it? For me, censorship is a bad sign. If climate change is true, then there should be no problem to
question or probe it in any way.

Don't get the idea that I have made up my mind about what I'm posting, because I haven't. In fact, I'm not
sure anyone can predict what's going to happen with the weather with any real reliability. I'm only
posting this for your sake so you are exposed to some facts you may not be aware of, as well as to show
you that the right really does reason these things out. You can disagree with their conclusions, that's up to
you. For me, I'm agnostic, and because of that and other reasons, I'm not in favor of carbon taxes. More
about that below.

Here is a graph for the last 500,000 years. You can see that we have not yet reached the hottest our world
can get. This in itself says that we are already in a warming trend irrespective to any man-made factors at
play. These graphs alone lead me to question what we're being told.

I also think, as a species, we'd be wise to pay attention to these temperature extremes and plan our
civilizations accordingly.

This graph shows temperature vs carbon for the same period. You can see there is a strong correlation,
but certainly there are periods where carbon levels and temperature do not match. Correlation does not
equal causation.

This graph shows the last million years.

Here is a graph of more recent times. You can see that at 1100 BC temperatures were much hotter than
today. You can also see how drastic the temperature can fall and rise over relatively short periods of time.
Here is one over 550 million years. We're not even close to the hottest temperatures this planet has seen.

There have been many scandals amongst climate scientists. This is a very big source for doubt.



Climategate: the final nail in the coffin of 'Anthropogenic Global Warming'?



"The assumption that younger adults are more liberal when it comes to global warming does not hold up;
if anything, they are even more skeptical."


Personally, I'm far more concerned with all the toxins and plastics being released in the air, earth, and
water than I am with CO2. CO2 is not toxic. It may be a measure of global warming, but I believe the
science is not definitive that carbon is driving warming. So why do we focus on this one issue of carbon?
Because our governments can make a lot of money on a carbon tax on both an individual and national
basis. Also, many also want this to be a global tax, and only the U.N. could enforce and collect this tax.
This gives more power to a global government that further erodes our national sovereignty. All this talk
of CO2 distracts us from doing any real work on cleaning up the environment, while making us feel
good that we are doing 'something'. I think it's sad that well-meaning environmentalists have been
hijacked into the CO2 debate and brought to such a frenzy over any disagreement on the topic. Again,
I'm not so much concerned about changing weather as I am about the toxic junk in the air, water, and
land. When is the left going to talk about that again? The environmental movement has lost some steam I
think, and all this focus on carbon isn't helping at all.

Does taxing carbon actually lower carbon use?


There are some scientists who in fact think we're in a cooling period.

"Future solar cycles will serve as a test of the astrophysicists’ work, but some climate scientists have not
welcomed the research and even tried to suppress the new findings."



Climate Change in 12 Minutes - The Skeptic's Case

This video is an excellent presentation and summary of the data.


The Science of Abrupt Climate Change: Should we be worried?

"We generally consider climate changes as taking place on the scale of hundreds or even thousands of
years. However, since the early 1990s, a radical shift in the scientific understanding of Earth's climate
history has occurred. We now know that that major regional and global climate shifts have occurred in
just a few decades or even a single year. The most recent of these shifts occurred just 8200 years ago. If
an abrupt climate change of similar magnitude happened today, it would have severe consequences for
humans and natural ecosystems."

"In one case 11,600 years ago…the ice core record showed frequent sudden warmings and coolings of
15°F (8°C) or more. Many of these changes happened in less than 10 years."


See how this guy hardly gets any time to speak? The commentator, a non-scientist, has to add that he
'thinks' that this scientist isn't reporting facts. Bill Nye didn't look good here. Remember when you watch
this, we are still leaving an ice age and are in a natural warming trend.

Climate Realist Marc Morano Debates Bill Nye the Science Guy on Global Warming


Climate Scientists Laugh at Global Warming Hysteria


The experts explain the global warming myth: John Coleman

"John Coleman is the founder of the Weather Channel, the original weatherman on Good Morning


Warmists Stunned by Roger Pielke in Senate Testimony on Climate Change

Seeing this debated in the Senate is very interesting.


Professor Bob Carter - The Faux "97% Consensus" - 10th ICCC


Al Gore Slammed By Congress Over Global Warming hoax

Al Gore is trounced in Congress and shown to be capitalizing on the carbon tax and through this
connected to Goldman Sachs

NASA Global Warming Stance Blasted By 49 Astronauts, Scientists Who Once Worked At Agency


Lord Christopher Monckton vs Al Gore on Climate Change Power Shift 2011 Global Warming
This video give us the math that shows why trying to reduce carbon emissions makes difference to the
environment. A carbon tax would make the U.N. independent of American funding. This is taxation
without representation, as the average person does not elect their U.N. representative.


Al Gore is a fraud and refuses to debate global warming

Neither Al Gore nor David Suzuki will debate Lord Monckton. Also how the left cherry-picks those who
they will debate or converse with public policy, how bias enters into science by who the government
chooses to fund, and how we end up taxed and regulated even more than we already are.


Climate Scientist Gavin Schmidt runs in fear from a debate

John Stossel asked twelve scientists to debate Roy Spencer, who you will have seen from the video on
the debate on the Senate floor, and none would. Gavin Schmidt would only come on the show if it
wasn't going to be a debate. "Forcing unrealistic expensive energy solutions upon the poor is going to
kill people."

More CO2 makes the planet greener. Forests are growing around the world. Matt Ridley, "So literally
the burning of fossil fuels is helping the rainforest in the Amazon to grow. That's a very unwelcome
message for the environmental movement. It just happens to be true."

Many climate scientists don't agree with the standard line because they are afraid to lose their funding.
"Congress doesn't give money out for things that are not problems."


Global Warming Fraud - Lord Christopher Monckton Before U S Congress

Bogus techniques to interpret graphs is explained. (Facebook wouldn't post this video - they said it was
'spam'. I tried three times. I even tried to post other videos of Lord Monckton before congress and they
were still rejected as spam.) One congressman tries to characterize Lord Monckton as being a
conspiracy theorist.


(These next two were also marked as spam. Could it be that I was commenting too much on Iman's
Nobel Laureate in Physics; "Global Warming is Pseudoscience"
I don't agree with his 'one child per family' suggestion, and he also recommends that we go nuclear, but
anyway this guy has some unique points to make, and is pretty entertaining.


THE GLOBAL WARMING FAD - Paleoclimatologist Bob Carter: Climate Context As A Basis For
Better Policy


Please do know that I will only be interested in talking about this with you if you do your homework and
read/watch the information I've posted here.

So if and when you have informed yourself about what the opposition has to say - do you still think the
right is unreasoned on this subject? The idea that conservatives are just ignorant fundamentalist science-
denying red-necks isn't at all true. It's complete propaganda. In my mind, all that I have presented here
has completely shattered the standard argument both scientifically and politically. Now let's talk about
the open-mindedness of the left!