Dont talk about what you dont understand.
John is right - they have been paid and disproven.
The phrase is ‘climate change’ - global warming causes the disruption of systems which leads in places to cooling. The coolness of 2008 specificaly is due to the weather pattern called El Nina but the trend is still up.
As to the original post before the video - Just about everything writeen their and stated as fact goes against the beleif of the vast majority of scientists.
Here are but a few large scientific organisations that support AGW and thus contest just about every point - AAAS, NAS, the G8 national acadamies, WMO, IPCC, NOAA, NCAR. So basicaly all the worlds climate scientists.
I am not claiming that all follow AGW but it is a very small group that do (Iv watched pleanty of these videos and the same names keep comming up).
As for the video itself, Im not even going to comment. Its a complete load of crap that goes against almost all scientific understanding, research and data.
My favourate part is when the guy apperently disproves the best scientist and equipment in the world with a tree and a dead woman. Yep, definately an expert.
Nice try, but your arguments are either irrelevant or fabricated.
Attempting to discredit the research of scientists who question Global Warming by claiming that they are being paid by the oil companies might satisfy your shallow method of thinking, but it fails to address the real, valid points they bring up.
It is so typical of unthinking, uninformed, so-called liberals to attempt to argue in this fashion. It only demonstrates that you believe your own arguments cannot withstand rigorous scrutiny.
How do you explain that fact that the temperature drop over the last 12 months has all but eradicated the warming of the last 100 years?
How do you explain that this winter’s snowfall over the entire Northern Hemisphere is the heaviest since 1966?
How do you explain that Canada’s government has stated that their observations show that the polar ice sheet has not only returned to normal but, in many places, is thicker than previously measured?
I’ll wait…
]]>Dr. David Legates
Associate Professor in Climatology, George Marshall Institute
Dr. Sallie Baliunas
serves as Senior Scientist at the George C. Marshall Institute
Dr. John Christy
a series of subsequent reports identified flaws in Christy and Spencer’s calculations, as Media Matters noted. One such study, published in 2003, reanalyzed the data using the corrected methodology and found more pronounced warming in the troposphere.
Dr. Nils-Axel Morner
Is at least a regular speaker at the George C. Marshall Institute
George C. Marshall Institute
has received $630,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.
In addition, the data presented in this program has since been contradicted.
The scientists who developed the original troposphere temperature records from satellite data, John R. Christy and Roy W. Spencer of the University of Alabama in Huntsville, conceded yesterday that they had made a mistake but said that their revised calculations still produced a warming rate too small to be a concern.
“Our view hasn’t changed,” Dr. Christy said. “We still have this modest warming.”
Other climate experts, however, said that the new studies were very significant, effectively resolving a puzzle that had been used by opponents of curbs on heat-trapping greenhouse gases.
“These papers should lay to rest once and for all the claims by John Christy and other global warming skeptics that a disagreement between tropospheric and surface temperature trends means that there are problems with surface temperature records or with climate models,” said Alan Robock, a meteorologist at Rutgers University.
The findings will be featured in a report on temperature trends in the lower atmosphere that is the first product to emerge from the Bush administration’s 10-year program intended to resolve uncertainties in climate science.
]]>