That reminds me of the debate on whether cigarettes caused cancer or not. "We need to include experts backed by the cigarettes companies!". Not every issues have two legitimate sides, foxnews.

Yeah, you MUST believe in global warming. Or else...

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/04/01/psychohistory_to_fight_climate_change/ [theregister.co.uk]

Follow the money, the climate change scam is big business.

Follow the money

Yeah that's what I do and it always ends up with big companies and their political lackeys resisting changes that might impact their short term profit margin. I would never bet on the conscience of greedy corporations to ensure the protection of the environment and our long term welfare.

Follow the money, the climate change scam is big business.

Climate change is clearly a scam. It is beginning of April and if climate change were real I would be sitting here at 27°C having ice cream at my desk, instead of the shivering at normal 10-15°C.

But wait. It is beginning of April the temperature is 27°C outside, I just had some ice cream and the air condition is running full speed.

Climate change is clearly a scam. It is beginning of April and if climate change were real I would be sitting here at 27°C having ice cream at my desk, instead of the shivering at normal 10-15°C.

The idea is that global warming disrupts normal weather patterns. It does not mean that temperatures increase every day, week..year until we become Venus.

Climate change is clearly a scam.

Anyone who doesn't think that this gluttonous planet isn't dumping weather-altering amounts of heat into the atmosphere. Try farting in a tent.

Case closed :)

Don't confuse "weather" with "climate". They are not at all the same thing, but they are related.

Don't confuse "weather" with "climate". They are not at all the same thing, but they are related.

Like "tree" and "forest" - and you can't tell much about the biodiversity of a forest from identifying the age and height of a single tree.

Like "tree" and "forest" - and you can't tell much about the biodiversity of a forest from identifying the age and height of a single tree.

Actually, you can. Above is stated backwards... you can find out about individual trees by studying the biodiversity of the forest... since the tree grows in the forest and requires the forest for its growth, etc.

What some are calling "global warming" or "climate change" are ignoring the fact that there has been LITTLE to no change in temperatures over the last dozen decades and CO2 from human activity is barely measurable. "Global Warming" and "Climate Change" however, ARE political statements and have been in use since as far back as the 1920s... "find something to scare the public with then tell them how you can save them if only they vote you in or support your policies".

Agreed Tangor. And in the old days we would sacrifice virgins, livestock and whatnot to please the Gods. Nowadays we pay money to please the CO2 traders, government or whatever... It a lot more of the same thing and it won't help.
But a hoax it is.

For the people who qualify the veracity of what politicians, so-called activists and the media like to call 'climate change' - based on their own experiences: please read up a little on the differences between endogenic and exogenic - and how it applies to research.

Maybe start here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endogenic_and_exogenic [en.wikipedia.org]

Also note a small but important distinction between:

the climate change scam is big business.

and

[implications of a] gluttonous planet

The two are not mutually exclusive and probably have very little to do with another.

I tend to think that our 'way of life' is certainly unsustainable (e.g. yep, we're farting in our own tent) as we keep depleting non-renewable resources.

Finally, define 'normal' weather patterns... Edit/add: do you think the Kondratieff cycle could apply to other large 'natural/chaotic' systems? [en.wikipedia.org ]