I forgot to add a scientific explanation!
WARNING: If you expect "climate alarmists rhetoric" you will be hugely disappointed!
This is part 1 of a long-ish series on the topic. I submitted this on the old site and due to recent discussions I submit it again.
This is done by potholer54, a blogger, YES, however all claims can be verified as the references to peer reviewed papers and research is given.
This was started in 2008 but the science (despite the recently published article that was of course used by papers and bloggers for their agenda but they were also debunked rather quickly) is still correct in general.
If anybody has a better source of information or can identify any flaws with this (backed, of course, by peer reviewed scientific research) I would encourage them to post it in reply or as a submission.
Comments
(Old Spike)
unfortunately you've probably lost the argument already when you said it's done by a blogger. climate change deniers form their opinions on soundbyte-sized pieces of information like that, and can't take the important details into account. a blogger presenting peer-reveiwed research doesn't get their own box aside from other bloggers who don't.
(Short Spike)
Partially true.
Someone who is not a technocrat or recognized specialist in the field can still be privy to valid information. Especially in this era as valid information is now free and we have passports to access those that study and practice theory in what ever. Some of us though dont have as much time as this guy.
I read somewhere where a smart farmer was sick of purchasing unreliable tractors that didnt last or perform to his expectations. So he studied the mechanics of every component and their structural relationships to order parts online and built his own. Kind of like how I couldnt afford a good PC in the early 2000's and built my own only farmer/tractor was obviously more complex and admirable.
If the sources are reliable, an outsider or impetuous layman's report can be just as valid, albeit very obscure. NO-ONE OWNS THE TRUTH. We should avoid those that claim they do. I like potholer because he makes the effort in seeking what he's talking about, justifies the claims, seems to have an objective agenda while evidence focused and we know his background as he's honest about it. He's basically the anti-Molinyeux in my eyes.
(Old Spike)
Yep, cowards like the biastoid demand you look at submissions showing their point of view although they don't provide any scientifically valid content, just opinions of someone making a video of stuff they like and that may even validly address part of the field, but also JUST THAT, a PART.
The comedy is rather unentertaining, though. They seem to be really afraid to learn something that may contradict their opinion. Sad people, they are.
It's like the "spectacular review" of the scientific paper: None of the twats even took a closer look at it because it is in the "too difficult basket" and if it is in there it can't be right now, can it?
Or the submission that climate data are manipulated for finland by the same authors. If they don't even understand the basics how the fuck can you trust anything they are blogging?
For some science is good enough when someone cuts out their cancer or cures their desease, and of course when it enables them to travel or blog but once it interferes with their comfortzone (i.e. bias) it's all voodoo or a conspiracy! Just put some globuli on it and it will cure itself.
(Old Spike)
Suspicious observers provides nothing but scientifically valid content. All you are really saying is that your YouTube blogger is legitimate and the suspicious observers YouTube bloggers are not. Both reference peer-reviewed scientific papers, and sometimes they're even referencing the same papers.
(Old Spike)
Well. you demanded watch your submissions, which I did in part at least, did you watch the potholer series?
Did you actually read the whole paper recently "discussed" on here?
Of course you didn't is my guess because you're too chicken, arentya.....
(Short Spike)
Well if you choose to believe something, it's probably important to not look for information online to reinforce the spurious idea and spurn on contradictory fact to bolster your own narriative. I didnt choose to believe in global warming. I wish it wasnt real and would love to join the side of hysterical accusors. But these videos he makes are damn convincing. Belief is definetly a choice. I just can't help fo think that deniers are scared of change, the elite who promulagate the idea are paid to debunk...and that a 2nd industrial revolution is coming in our life times. I guess I chose to some extent to believe that. I guess we'll find out whos right when whatever the state of the world ends up in because of whatever observable cause. Warm air holds vapor and when the oceans warm, we see these storms. Hurricane irma was recorded to have the strongest winds in history.
(Old Spike)
I must agree that the "deniers" are either too scard or too dumb to understand that nobody "promoting" the man made portion of global warming (minus al gore and the likes) actually benefits of it, wants it to happen or is happy about it and the inconvenience it causes.
(Old Spike)
That's what we're all shooting for here. A truly accurate understanding of what drives global climate change. So that we can make intelligent and effective decisions based on that accurate understanding. A whole truckload of embarrassment was dodged with the nixing of the Paris climate Accord. The scientists who admitted their error did a good thing, especially considering the fact that they would undoubtedly know how the results of their paper would be misrepresented by what you call the deniers. Those would be the people who deny that humans have any effect whatsoever on climate change.
(Long Spike)
Climate change is a hoax perpetrated by the Chinese to weaken the U.S. Have you been asleep for the last year and not heard the facts from king cheeto?