I actually do remember that argument, and jessald was kind enough to post it for me.

First, what was posted was a relatively small list of scientists who don't believe in global warming, compared to an overwhelming number who do. Unless you have actually analyzed the peer review documents yourself then you are choosing to believe the minority over the majority for convenience sake (if global warming is right then that would mean more government intervention, which you don't want).

However, if you would like I will go through the list sparsely gave. I don't particularly agree with your strategy of quoting someone whose quoting something that's quoting people, but I guess sometimes it's more convenient to let others argue for you.

First off, if you actually looked at the report (seeing as you couldn't find the argument I would be surprised) you would see that one of the arguments presented by the scientists is that the current warming trend is part of a cycle. One of the scientists who claims this is S. Fred Singer. The evidence for the cycle he refers to is from ice core data from Greenland, that show that every 1500 years (or sometimes a multiple of 1500 years when the cycle skips a beat) the earth warms - not enough to melt the ice sheets, but a significant amount nonetheless. These warming periods are called "Dansgaard-Oeschger" events.

On the surface this seems like a convincing argument that global warming is a natural cycle, however, what one must consider is that these spikes in temperature were measured only in northern ice sheets. In order for the warming to be global it would have to be witnessed in both the north and south poles. So what do we see when we look at the south poles? We do see a similar pattern in fact, with one important distinction however. The spikes in temperature in the antartica correspond to opposite spikes in greenland. That is to say that whenever there is a dramatic increase in temperature in the northern glacial sheets there is a comparable drop in temperature in the southern ice core samples, and vice-a-versa. What this means is that the warming and cooling are in fact regional and not global warming events. What Singer did in his argument was cherry pick a relatively small sample of data and unreasonably extrapolate (either intentionally or unknowingly) on global temperatures. The full set of data shows global redistribution of heat during these events, not global warming.

Here is another argument presented in the report:

"The observed pattern of warming, comparing surface and atmospheric temperature trends does not show the characteristic fingerprint associated with greenhouse warming. The inescapable conclusion is that the human contribution is not significant and that observed increases in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases make only a negligible contribution to climate warming,"

This statement is just plain not true. Allow me to explain:

The troposphere has been shown to be warming, while the stratosphere has actually shown a cooling. This is exactly the pattern that one would expect to see if greenhouse gasses were responsible for the earth's current warming.

However, if it's not greenhouse gasses then what could it be? The most common answer I saw in the document was solar activity...let's examine that claim, shall we?

As I already said the troposphere is warming while the stratosphere is cooling. If global warming were real then we would expect to see a uniform warming in all layers of the atmosphere. This is obviously not the case. In addition, we would expect to see fluctuations in temperature that correspond to the suns 11 year cycle. This, once again, is not the case. Throughout this century the average temperature has been steadily increasing, (with the most significant increase in the last 40 years). Would this be the case if the sun was causing the warming? Of course not...the warming would instead coincide with the 11 year solar cycles.

Also mentioned is the unreliability of climate models for predicting future climate patterns. I must once again state that this is inaccurate, and in fact climate models have made very accurate predictions, and every year our models are getting better. For more information watch this video that debunks that myth.

Now I could go on and talk about how many of the scientists quoted are talking outside there expertise, or how some of the quotes that claim the earth is cooling are just plain wrong (see the chart I posted earlier) but I am going to stop here because I'm actually getting a little tired...tired because you pointed to a report to do your arguing for you (a report that I'm guessing you never really read). I would appreciate it in future arguments if you would actually present arguments about why climate change isn't happening, so I can deal with them instead of debunking a 255 page report.

It shouldn't surprise you, however, that Republicans and science don't exactly go well together...

The Earth has gone through stages of hot and cold for billions of years now, I don't think the dawn of factories is really what's causing Global Warming. The most close to home hypothesis is that we MIGHT be speeding it up by a few years.

Nope. We the warming we are seeing now is unprecudented in recent history, and we know for a fact that it has to do with the dramatic increase in CO2. Please look at this graph if you still don't believe that human activity has had a significant effect on temperature.

True, there is no way we can force other nations to stop emitting CO2, however what we can do is set an example to the rest of the world. To those nations who do continue to emit lots of CO2, we can impose sanctions, where this is possible. To African nations especially we can attach strings to any loans given to them from the world bank or any other institution we control. For China, it becomes more difficult, however, we can certainly work with them diplomatically to convince them to cut down on emissions. What you can be sure of is that they will not even think about trying to stop global warming, if they don't see us making a real effort on the issue first.

I do believe in alternative energy mainly because we do need to become independent. But regulating our lives for something that won't do shit is ridiculous and Authoritarian.

There is no reason to get all fucking paranoid about an authoritarian government. This is where the whole "global warming isn't real" myth came from: conservative anti-government groups that don't want any type of regulation...even if this regulation might help save the planet.

Global warming is very real, and we are causing it. This is what every major scientific institution agrees upon, and unless we make a move to stop it, there will be serious consequences.

Edit: forgot the graph

The whole Nazi thing was mostly a joke, so don't get your panties in a twist.

Anyway, what the guy is saying is that our culture is the best, and everyone that comes to our country should be like us.

First, assuming your own cultural superiority is arrogant, and second there is no one American culture, and hopefully there never will be. Is he suggesting that we all dress up in wigs and 17th century clothing like our forefathers? Or better yet, does he realize that the first people to come over here didn't bother to learn the native language. I suppose if we really wanted an American culture we could all buy tee-pees and wigwams...maybe do a rain dance around a fire. But clearly Mr. Thomas Pain didn't think about that.

You live in Texas correct? I'm guessing you know a little bit about Texas history as well then. You therefore know that Texas was originally a part of Mexico. If you're going to annex part of a country then you may have to put up with people speaking that other languages culture.

In addition, this guy doesn't seem to realize that the majority of our founding fathers were not religious, and some didn't even consider themselves Christian. For some reason though, this guy seems to have a problem with atheists. If you're gonna dress like your from the 18th century, at least know some history. Even Thomas Paine was against religion:

"All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit."

Historical inaccuracies, controdictions, and hypocrisy aside, his overall idea of "one nation, one culture" is still a pretty crappy one.

I understand why people who don't speak English would want to learn English if they came to our country, but what I don't understand is why people like the guy in the video get so damn angry at them when they don't, and I certainly don't think we should force them to learn the language. I thought conservatives were about no government intervention?

How about we consider the fact that some of the greatest cultural achievements in recent American history have been from those who weren't part of the mainstream culture, but instead part of a counter-culture.

The one thing I did agree with was that we shouldn't encourage tolerance. I guarantee, however, that my reasons are different than his. When I stub my toe I tolerate pain. Differences in our society shouldn't be merely tolerated but accepted, and even embraced. I don't understand why anyone would want to homogenize our society. If you want an example of how diversity is good, look at our food: Philly cheesesteaks, New York style pizza, Memphis bar-b-q, Louisiana jambalaya and so on.

Difference is good. We need different cultures to challenge our assumptions. I know that this isn't something you're used to doing, but maybe you should start.

Wow...okay last time I compared you to the KKK and you got upset, so I'm guessing that comparing what this guy is saying to Nazism is probably not going to go over very well.

To argue that diversity is a weakness of America is to argue that the idea of America itself is a bad one. This is what I don't understand about these "America First" groups; it's like they have never read a history book. Diversity is what has made this country great. The fact that we have different cultures and different perspectives makes us stronger.

Amazing creativity has come from the different cultures that exist in our nation. If you don't believe me look up the Harlem Renaissance, or the Beat poets, or Jazz.

He argues about language, but how often are you actually bothered by the fact that people speak other language? In fact, do you know one of the reasons why our codes were unbreakable in WWII? Navajo code talkers! That's right. The fact that people knew different languages actually helped us win a war.

I guess what sums it up best is probably the statue of liberty:

Give me your tired, your poor,

Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,

The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.

Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,

I lift my lamp beside the golden door!

Well, first I'd say that regional temperatures are not necessarily a good indicator of global temperatures. For example during the middle ages in Europe the temperature was warming then average, and this led people to believe that there was a "medieval warming period." When you scientists looked at the average global temperature, however, it was about average. Trust me, I know what your talking about, here in Delaware it feels like summer hasn't even started. We've had cool temperatures, and rain. As I said though, is doesn't have to reflect the world's climate.

As far as eventually getting colder, I'm pretty sure that it will actually get warmer before it cools down.

First off, we are continuing to put more and more greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere. This, in itself will cause the temperature to continue to rise.

We are also cutting down trees. Obviously trees convert CO2 into O2, so the less there are, the more CO2 is going to exist in the atmosphere.

In addition, the warming that is occurring now is causing large areas of ice to melt. Ice tends to reflect sunlight, and when it melts it exposes either water or ground. Needless to say, both of these surfaces absorb heat, meaning that the warming is actually causing more warming. This is known as a positive reenforcement system.

Now, I have heard that there is usually some tipping point that triggers an ice age to occur, and graphs of global temperature demonstrate this trend, however, I can't say that I know enough about the subject to understand what precipitates this change. I guess it's possible that that could happen, but once again, I don't think it's going to happen anytime soon.

If you want to know more about the subject there is a great youtube channel that debunks myths on the subject.

Hope that was helpful.

Seriously tugman? I thought you would have stopped arguing after I proved how ignorant you were on the subject.

It may be getting warmer but it has nothing to do with us

Wrong. Greenhouse gasses are playing a significant role in the earth's heating. What is producing the majority of these greenhouse gasses? Human activity such as the burning of fossil fuels. In addition, deforestation is exacerbating the problem because there are less trees to convert the CO2 into oxygen.

it have to do with the fact we are coming out of an Ice Age

Really? Take a look at this graph. I know that you're kinda thick, but even you should be able to see that the increase in temperature in recent years isn't just the result of us coming off of an ice age.

Liberals are changing it to Climate Change so when it gets colder they won't seem stupid when it gets cooler.

This is not a political issue. Whether it's liberals or conservatives or neither or both who support global warming has no bearing on the science. It wouldn't matter if it were the Nazi's who believed in global warming...or if they called it something completely different. None of that effects what is happening.

Actually, it's quite clearly a global warming. Check it out.

If you want to argue semantics, whatever, but what is happening is that the earth is warming at an alarming rate, and something needs to be done about it.

That's exactly what I said, and my point was that that doesn't make any sense.

What are you, 10 years old? Is English even your first language? Do you have some type of mental handicap that we should all be aware of?

Well actually most meat people eat comes from animals raised for the sole purpose of consumption (cows, chickens, pigs, etc...). If people stopped eating meat, then there would be no reason for farmers to raise this livestock, and therefore would not exist at all. In this way, people eating less meat would mean less animals.

Where you are correct is with animals like deer, or other wild animals. Because most of the local predators for these animals have reduced populations, or in some cases are completely wiped out, there numbers probably would increase. When you factor in the amount of domesticated animals, however, there would more than likely be an overall decrease.

This is possibly the dumbest statement I have ever read on this site...wait, no I take that back. This is the dumbest statement I have ever read in my life.

What you stated is equivalent to saying that I sped up and slowed down my car at the same time.

Global cooling is absolutely not happening, because global warming is happening. The two cannot exist at the same time.

I didn't make up those graphs. They were put together by scientists who researched the worlds climate using numerous different techniques including sampling tree rings, historical data, coral samples and ice core data. In addition, numerous other, independent studies of global temperatures have confirmed that these graphs are accurate.

What we want the facts to say is irrelevant. The only thing that matters is the truth, and the truth is that global warming is real.

You need to get your facts straight. The earth has not been cooling since 1995, in fact just the opposite.

Here is a graph demonstrating the average global temperature for the past 150 years.

Here is another one demonstrating the warming over a longer period of time.

As you can see in both cases, the earth has been warming significantly in recent years.