There is no “universal agreement among people on the science of global warming”. That’s a myth. Even some scientists on the IPCC don’t agree with the political conclusions it made.

The things that Gore is creating the hoax about is the causes of that warming, as well as exaggerating the effects.

I’m not opposed to reforms at all. But we have to understand what the problem is before we can find the right solution to solve it. That’s the problem, we don’t know for sure what the cause is.

You forgot this one:
4. I will provide an answer that you aren’t expecting, showing you have misconceptions about my opinions, as well as showing that I believe we need to understand what the problem is before we try to solve it.

Let’s make the radical assumption (remember, this is an assumption “a-s-s-u-m-p-t-i-o-n”) that Global Warming isn’t real. That the whole thing is an elaborate hoax by Al Gore and teh liburals to steal money from hard working CEOs and all that BS. Many of the emission of carbon dioxide also emit other crap, which cause a host of other problems. Tell me, why are you opposed to any reforms that would also solve other problems, such as O-zone depletion, increased rates of skin cancer, and general poisoning of the air?

Again, I expect one of three things to happen.

1. Ricky will ignore the post and hope it goes away.
2. He will refuse to answer the question for cowardly/BS reasons.
3. He will just say what he thinks everyone wants to hear, and completely miss the point of my post.

What evidence would you like me to provide? I’ve already listed a bunch of evidence in one of my earlier comments, so it is not valid to claim I have offered no reasons.

“There’s a lot more that disagrees with you, yet you continue to claim you have overwhelming evidence. I don’t understand that part. I’d ask you to explain, but you are clearly too stupid to do so.”

I’ve already provided some information, and have asked for what questions you have for followups. You completely ignore all that, and instead choose to attack me personally. You don’t want to deal with the evidence, you just want to yell at me.

“Fuck you, you illiterate asshole.”

Gee, another personal attack. I just referred to what the actual article that you quoted said. If you can’t handle that, it’s not my fault.

“You said scientists were claiming that there was global cooling going on. That never happened.”

Actually, it did. Your article referred to them, it just tried to dismiss them because they weren’t in the right publications.

“Fuck you, you piece of shit. It’s clear you have no interest in an intellectually honest debate and choose instead to lie.”

Gee, another personal attack instead of actually dealing with the facts. Tell me, how do carbon credits work?

Yes you are. You are dismissing them claiming they are wrong, but you offer no reason to accept the fringe guys you support over the vast majority of other scientists.

“I also stated that there was plenty more references and information to be provided. What did you not understand?”

There’s a lot more that disagrees with you, yet you continue to claim you have overwhelming evidence. I don’t understand that part. I’d ask you to explain, but you are clearly too stupid to do so.

“Sorry, but even that article admits there was some truth to it.”

Fuck you, you illiterate asshole. You said scientists were claiming that there was global cooling going on. That never happened. They said that there wasn’t enough information to make a conclusion. The media said there was global cooling.

Me: “Be more energy efficient. How can that be harmful?”

Retard of the Day: “Global warming alarmism isn’t about energy efficiency. It is about redistribution of wealth.”

Fuck you, you piece of shit. It’s clear you have no interest in an intellectually honest debate and choose instead to lie.

You are no better than Young-Earth Creationists.

No, I’m not ignoring them, I’m pointing out they are wrong. Those who claim the debate is over when that’s clearly not the case are the ones ignoring facts.

“You posted 8 links, you fucking retard.”

I was specifically asked for climatalogists who disagreed with the alarmism, and I complied. I also stated that there was plenty more references and information to be provided. What did you not understand?

“That’s not overwhelming, that’s a mere blip.”

Ya, which is why I noted there was a bunch more information available.

“This is a fucking lie spread by a political ideology that has nothing but lies to tell.”

Sorry, but even that article admits there was some truth to it. It talks about the state of the understanding at the time, and how claims of cooling were based upon that limited knowledge. it talks about how there was cooling during those times, but it was just a change in the overall trend line.

This is all my point, namely that we shouldn’t take action that may cause more problems than it solves if we don’t know everything we need to know. And we clearly don’t.

“Be more energy efficient. How can that be harmful?”

Global warming alarmism isn’t about energy efficiency. It is about redistribution of wealth.

Which is you. You ignore the vast majority of scientists and accept only the fringe that agree with you.

“I listed a bunch of climatologists… The evidence is overwhleming”

You posted 8 links, you fucking retard. That’s not overwhelming, that’s a mere blip.

“In the 70′s, the same scientists who today are talking about warming were coming up with crazy solutions to deal with the cooling,”

This is a fucking lie spread by a political ideology that has nothing but lies to tell.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=94

“Because if we choose to act the wrong way, we can do more harm than good.”

Be more energy efficient. How can that be harmful?

The debate is over only to people who don’t want to look for the truth. If what I’m saying is such “bunk”, then you’d be easily able to debunk it. Please feel free to try, instead of just trying to dismiss me. If what I’m saying is that bogus, you should have no problem, right?

“There was plenty of debate in the peer review process earlier,…”

What peer review process? What debate?

“…the only difference now is that the evidence is so overwhelming, no one can argue against it without resorting to unscientific nonsense.”

That’s where you’re wrong. The evidence has been manipulated and you’ve been misinformed about the science. I listed a bunch of climatologists who use plenty of science to show that the alarmism claims are what are really bunk. The evidence is overwhleming that, as worst, the debate isn’t over and we don’t really understand the climate.

In 1924, the NY Times was writing about global cooling. In 1935 they were writing about global warming. In 1975 they were back to cooling. Today they are back to warming. This was all based upon the science they they claimed was overwhelming at the time. In the 70′s, the same scientists who today are talking about warming were coming up with crazy solutions to deal with the cooling, like spreading soot over the north and south poles to help melt them and warm the planet. At worst we need to make sure we know everything we can before we act. Because if we choose to act the wrong way, we can do more harm than good.

This is fucking pathetic. There was plenty of debate in the peer review process earlier, the only difference now is that the evidence is so overwhelming, no one can argue against it without resorting to unscientific nonsense.

“Anyone who believes Gore and “his kind” without looking into the facts are the idiots.”

And anyone who ignores the facts accepting only the fringe that agree with them is ideologically blind.

Man has had extremely little, and likely nothing, to do with it. Almost assuredly, it’s cycles in the sun that cause the temperature change, and CO2 levels trail temperature change because of how the oceans react to the change in temperatures.

Anyone who believes Gore and “his kind” without looking into the facts are the idiots.

Ha, just a typo. Trying to do too many things at once.

Here’s just a few climatologists:
http://www.cdispatch.com/articles/2007/05/16/local_news/area_news/area01.txt

http://www.kgw.com/news-local/stories/kgw_020607_news_taylor_title.59f5d04a.html

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=19409
(and yes, I know all the claims about this guy, but try to prove anything he actually says to be wrong)

http://www.longrangeweather.com/
related article:
http://www.longrangeweather.com/ArticleArchives/GlobalWarming.htm

http://www.adn.com/life/v-printer/story/8756517p-8658008c.html

There is also Patrick Michaels, the U of Virginia’s state climatologist.

And then there’s the statement from the founder of the Weather Channel:
http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog/comments_about_global_warming/

There’s also Reid Bryson, known as the father of scientific climatology:
http://www.iceagenow.com/Dont_make_me_throw_up.htm

There are also IPCC scientists that are trying to get their names pulled from the report because they fundamentally disagree with the political conclusions, since the political conclusions don’t match the science.

There’s a whole bunch more I could inform you about. Don’t believe the lies when they say the debate is over.

Freudian slip?

“Sheppard is in the midst of concocting a conspiracy in which former Vice President, Nobel Prize Laureate, and Oscar and Emmy winner Al Gore is hyping global warming in order to enrich himself.”

or this:

“Clearly the path to financial nirvana is making documentaries about global warming. That is, if you’re a stupid conservative. Like Noel Sheppard, and the Media Research Center.”

He never refers to any of the investments that Gore has made into those green technologies. Oliver ridicules the claim, in fact.

Gore’s a hypocrite either way, since he doesn’t practice what he preaches. Carbon credits, for example, do absolutely nothing to reduce the emissions he says are the problem, and he pays those credits to a company which he owns. He flies a private jet, lives in a huge house, and so on. That’s not “fake outrage”, it is clear proof he’s a hypocrite.

Making money as an entrepreneur isn’t a bad thing, but basing it on false claims and hysteria is a bad ting.

I have real climatologists on my side. Deal with the facts, not the ideology.

If Al Gore wasn’t invested in new energy technologies, cons like yourself would claim he was a hypocrite (like when your kind started the fake outrage about energy usage at Gore’s house). Now that he is helping to prove that entrepreneurs can make money promoting green technologies, which will draw more enlightened investors into making this world better.

As far as your global warming denialist claims, they all have been dismissed thousands of times by real climatologists. If you aren’t swayed from your views by now, I’m not going to waste my time trying. You aren’t worth it.