Former NASA Climatologist explains

if you do find pictures of giraffes can you explain why they have the same number of neck vertebrae as humans.... just longer bones.

This enables them to reach high leaves, which would also have been an advantageous 'adaptation' for horses, cows, zebra, etc etc but they didn't develop it. Not one other animal DID take up that 'mutation'
Perhaps contrary to the theory of evolution?

This is a better one it explains about emissions and acidity in the sea.

The last guy, the fisherman, I thought had the best idea which is for the policy makers to make the right changes.

I do not believe a "carbon tax" is the right change.

Reeling in the bad practices of the multi-national companies would be a right change.

There is obviously a lot in that but changing the emphasis of those companies from making a profit for the shareholders to one of environmental responsibility above all else, is heading in the right direction.

I too don't really know how carbon dioxide became the poison that it is today. Plants love the stuff. There are many other chemicals humans produce and dump that are much more harmful than carbon dioxide. Are there not many more pressing environmental issues around today which could be sorted out instead of being concerned about some sort of boogy man in the future that might make our childrens' childrens life a living hell?

Did I mention that one of those Spencerian pamphleteers actually was pretty cute?
Woulda made a move, but she was accompanied by some sort of a matron.
Definitely not a 3-some situation...

... just thought I'd lighten up the thread...

Yeah, I'm not convinced by this argument at all: It might be this, it might be that. We just don't know. We don't have the data. We haven't ruled everything out.

To me this is clutching at something you want to be true; the environment we live in is fine.

Then at the end he goes black and white extreme and proposes the only way we can deal with this is by going back to the stone age. It's either the end of our environment or the stone age. Those are the two options in his argument (after he forgets his original argument that it doesn't exist anyway)? And he has the gall to call people that are warning us about climate change hysterical? WTF?

It seems blatantly obvious to me that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Surely we can all agree on this?

It also seems obvious that we are emitting more. We have the data on this. Also we are flattening forests. So our actions are producing more CO2, and less forests to soak it up. Surely we can all agree on this too?

Sure it might be something else, but it seems very, very unlikely. Us producing more CO2, a greenhouse gas, and reducing things that soak it up seems a pretty obvious reason things are getting warmer. Occam's Razor (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor).

The worst case scenario for taking action against CO2 is some change to industry (there is always change anyway) and greater energy efficiency. The worst case scenario for not taking any action is much worse, and as most people like to ignore a really, really bad scenario for the economy.

Look, the data IS there. This guy just pulls stuff out of his arse, comments like "the past ten years weren't the hottest on record, like scientists predicted". You the viewer just take that as fact, or perhaps try to use it as fact in a debate because you saw it on a youtube video. THIS IS WHAT YOU WANT TO HEAR. In fact the last ten years WERE the hottest on record: "The eight warmest years on record (since 1880) have all occurred since 2001, with the warmest year being 2005." www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/recenttc.html

Other comments that just come out of nowhere, and sound appealing to some are "...convenient for politicians and profiteers who are intent on regulating global energy for their own power and financial gain". This is beautiful as it appeals to people's fear of both Socialists and greedy Capitalists. It's a paranoid fantasy. Of course we won't see many profiteers in the paper this week saying how pleased they are with the Carbon Tax, and Julia isn't scoring too many political points with it either. It's a tough ****ing sell.

I think us people that actually trust the scientific method (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method), with its own built-in bull**** detectors, are just ****ing tired of pointing out the facts again and again and again and again. And again. I'm tired of listening to these so-called opposing viewpoints again and again. They are old arguments, and stupid, and are designed to make the viewer feel smarter than they really are.

I think this thread is getting to the point of:-

"If you can't blind them with science, baffle them with bull shyte."