I think anyone who does even a cursory amount of research would conclude that the "global warming movement" is and has been a steaming pile of horse shit since its inception.

Dude, its supported by Al Gore. Haven't you seen South Park and their episodes on manbearpig?

Idc what anyone says. South Park does so many parallels and representations its ridiculous. The writers are actually highly intelligent and it takes an intellectual to fully admire their work in all its elements. So if you can't see it, good. I don't want you knowing about it.

I'm confused as to what point you're making. Is this meant to be sarcasm?

I don't really see how it's a relevant response to my original comment if I'm being honest - maybe I just missed the joke.

His point is that most people know it's a load of shit, as demonstrated by south park making Al Gore a character who goes around scaring everybody about an imaginary creature that's half man, half bear, and half pig, and it's called "manbearpig".

It's a pretty simple analogy for south park.

They also directly make fun of global warming in their episode "two days before the day after tomorrow" S9E08 where the town of beaverton floods because Stan and Cartman crashed into the beaver damn in a boat, but the adults blame it on George Bush (the liberals) or Al-Qaeda (the rednecks) or FEMA (stans parents). The gov then says it's global warming and they all start blaming each other ( Chris yelling at Jimbo for driving an SUV ).

The show in general does a really great job at showing how absurd and stupid people are, all of us.

You are so right about South Park. It seems like most people feel like South Park is just silly toilet tumor. I think that it's so much more entertaining and interesting when you start noticing their constant use of metaphors. It's my favorite part of the show now, honestly.

Thanks. I hadn't seen that episode before - makes perfect sense now.

I'm saying everyone is retarded for believing manmade global warming in the first place.

I was just confused since I've never seen that episode before. I figured you were agreeing with me - thanks for the clarification.

It's a newer one. I recommend all of South Park, especially the old ones. Way funnier than almost anything on TV for the past 6 years.

I think anyone who does even just a cursory amount of research would conclude that the "global warming movement" is and has been a steaming pile of horse shit since its inception.

If you don't look deeply into it, you are likely to be reading the talking points that public relations firms hired by the oil companies have prepared. Some of these are the same firms hired by the tobacco companies to cast doubt on the link between cigarettes and disease. These public relations firms are trying to fool you and they are experts at fooling people.

It is well documented that oil, gas, and coal companies are spending millions of dollars a year on these efforts to mislead you.

When scientists talk about global warming, they have to be careful in what they say, using only the best research and emphasizing the limits of what they know. The public relations firms are not limited by that. They distort the facts and send simplistic messages. So, they sound more convincing than the scientists, if you don't know their tricks.

• Report offers field guide to the climate change denial industry
• Video: The Koch Brothers & Their Amazing Climate Change Denial Machine
• Book: Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming
• Video: Lecture by the author of Merchants of Doubt

http://www.socialistproject.ca/bullet/907.php turns out the global warming scheme is there to get socialism going, its been that way the whole time, awfully convenient that the people who initially pushed the "global warming" meme were socialists and the "solution" to global warming just COINCIDENTALLY happened to be socialism. What are the motherfucking chances?

Wasn't global warming an excuse to institute a carbon tax?

If you read this article from some small-town newspaper, you can see how carbon tax is being sold as "revenue-neutral," which means "the revenue is returned to taxpayers."

Returned to taxpayers, though, is probably code words for redistribution.

A lot of this is traced back to Agenda 21, and redistribution of wealth through environmental change.

Global Warming or Climate Change is probably being used as leverage.

But don't we want wealth re-distributed? Isn't all the wealth being condensed into a few hands? Not saying I support a carbon tax at all, or that's that the way to go about changing how the wealth is distributed, just saying...

No, redistribution of wealth is totalitarian socialism. We don't want that. It doesn't work in principle--only in theory. If this were to be implemented, then the head honchos at the UN would become the hands in whose wealth is concentrated instead of business owners, but they would be saying, "it's okay, it's okay, because we're giving money to the poor, too."

I see your point, but have to ask: if wealth is going to condensed into a few people's hands virtually no matter what, wouldn't it be preferably for the wealth to be in the hands of people who, at least ostensibly, intend to give some to the poor? It's not like the poor of the world have much to lose. I suppose the UN could try to take even more wealth from the poor than is being extracted from them now, but that seems unlikely and impossible.

I see your point. And, I guess there is some value to that.

But, I would prefer to have a more libertarian government than totalitarian. And, have the poor be taken care of through other means than the government.

Yeah, I agree government is more often the problem, and any sort of distribution of wealth would likely be commandeered by the same who control the wealth now.

It would be your wealth going to third world countries, that's the plan laid out in Agenda 21, you don't want that. If you live in the US and you make 30,000 a year, you are in the top 5% on the EARTH. So it will be coming from your pocket. The ultra wealthy are the people PUSHING this idea, so don't count on it hurting them in the least.

/r/UNAgenda21 for more on this!

I never understood people who say that we shouldn't care about climate change because global warming is a myth.

There are plenty of other reasons to cut down on carbon/methane emissions even if you don't believe that they will cause the annihilation of man.

And I couldn't agree more about carbon tax. Whether you believe in global warming or not, the carbon tax is a silly half measure that is just another example of the government trying to regulate the market and failing spectacularly at it.

This statement could not be more truer. Thanks for sharing.

Here is the problem: Our technology is rapidly advancing, but it isn't "ready" yet as it isn't cost-efficient enough to use on a massive scale.

So what you end up with is the government giving their friends like Jeffery Immelt a bunch of money to put up shitty windmills all over the midwest farmland and fuck it up.

Here is the kicker: At one point, obama made a speech about how smart this type of thing was and that the windmills will "pay for themselves in just 20 years!" Turns out the service life on those is only 12 years.

This is all just a transfer of money from the poor to the rich through more debt and taxation of the slave class.

You forgot to mention the sun is going into hibernation, this years solar maximun was pathetic, many scientists believe this will trigger an ice age.

Millions of years from now...maybe.

No, if those scientists are right then we will see a full blown ice age around starting in 2015.

That is just completely false.

So according to you the energy from the sun takes millions of years to reach us?. OK bro.

Technically yes. Every photon takes millions of years to even leave the core of the sun and be ejected into space, but that is semantics. Ice ages do not occur over a span of 2 years.

The number is bogus anyway. How is it possible to survey every scientist to say a percent of all scientists agree on something?

(97% of the 34% who took a stance, 66% of scientists think its too early to take a stance). Those statistics look a little bit different.

Which survey are you taking about? There have been a few, and the consensus gets stronger every year.

• Surveys of scientists' views on climate change
• Scientific opinion on climate change

Science is not consensus.

True. Usually, when there's an issue of science that's important to public policy, the government convenes a panel of the top experts in the field.

When the first panels were convened, back in the early 1970s, the scientists said that there wasn't enough information. By the late 1970s, they had built models that said that there was going to be global warming, but the models were very simple and many of the parameters weren't known very accurately and the models assumed that the unknown factors would stay the same.

By the early 1990s, much more was known and the panels of the top experts in the field said that the climate was warming and humans were a major part of it.

In the 20 years since then, we've learned even more about the climate and the scientists keep getting the same answer.

So, if you decide to ignore consensus and, instead, go by the opinions of the top experts who have been specifically tasked to study the issue, you get the same answer.

The governments--all of them-- have been hating the answers they have been getting all along. It's a problem that is very expensive to solve and requires international cooperation to be effective. It's a nightmare. It has costs for everybody, but particularly large costs for some very powerful players. The benefits of acting are actually very large, but spread out over so many people and over such a long period of time that few people will actually perceive a benefit. There's little incentive for any politician to do the right thing. It's unlikely to win him votes or campaign contributions.

So, no, government involvement does not set off any alarms for me.

Hockey stick found in NOAA ice core data

Please show anyone still afflicted by the CAGW delusion this article. It's short, to the point, and puts things into much needed perspective extremely vividly, even for the non scientific types. It shows all the inconvenient data the climate science establishment has been hard at working hiding in the past to bolster their..ahem..."theory".

That was the main reason why I chicken the link. Highly disappointed I found no stick but glad I sticked around for the read.

Thank you for this post!! I initially bought into Al Gore's global warming hoax. And until recently, I still thought that your everyday average joe contributed his or her part towards global warming. However, I've since woken up and after research have come to the conclusion that "climate change" is not some new thing nor is it something that will be stopped by this new tactic or whatever. I, too, am someone who cares for the planet, their environment, nature and I do believe in respecting the Earth...but I don't think that the car I drive is going to kill it. In fact, if anything, it's probably those damn chemtrails that are doing more damage than anything I do in my daily life!

[deleted]

[deleted]

He's O'Brien. I wouldn't be surprised if you are put on a list just for visiting infowars.

As someone who refuses to believe manmade CO2 has zero impact, but is otherwise receptive to new information, I like the cut of your jib sir.

http://www.socialistproject.ca/bullet/907.php turns out the global warming scheme is there to get socialism going, its been that way the whole time, awfully convenient that the people who initially pushed the "global warming" meme were socialists and the "solution" to global warming just COINCIDENTALLY happened to be socialism. What are the motherfucking chances?