Barack Obama Bashes Hillary Clinton

	Duration: 10:54 minutes Upload Time: 2008-01-23 00:46:03 User: benisontenet :::: Favorites :::: Top Videos of Day
Tags: barack  obama  hillary  clinton   Description: Click more!: http://www.missclasses.com/manpollo/ more info on the guy in the video No one on the IPCC doubts that there are cycles and natural factors. The question is whether the global warming observed since the mid 1970's has a significant human cause. The IPCC says yes with 90% certainty. Sir David Attenborough was once a climate skeptic, believing that it can all be explained by natural causes and cycles. He changed his mind, this is why http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S9ob9WdbXx0 Natural causes alone (Milankovitch cycles, sunspots, solar activity, volcanoes etc.), cannot explain climate variations since the mid 1970s. but adding human causes we get a prediction much closer to observations Could humans have changed the earth's climate? CO2 was slowly absorbed by plants over millions of years and locked away in coal and oil. In the last 200 years we released a large part of this CO2 back into the atmosphere. CO2 is at its highest for at least 800,000 years. CO2 is a greenhouse gas - easily demonstrated in the lab. New Scientist magazine addressing the main skeptic claims http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/dn11462 NASA intro to climate http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Library/GlobalWarmingUpdate/ UK Government's Meteorological Office debunking of climate-change-denial myths http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/myths/index.html Oxford University intro to climate http://www.begbroke.ox.ac.uk/climate/interface.html Do you believe that tobacco causes cancer? Yet the tobacco industry denied this and funded their shills to create confusion. Big Oil is doing the same now: who should we trust mainstream science or big business shills? http://www.environmentaldefense.org/article.cfm?contentid=4870 (The CEI is a paid-for 'thinktank') The vast majority of climate scientists believe that humans are now a major cause of climate change. The issue is a scientific one, based on observations. As individuals we can each study the evidence to post-doctoral level. Or, if we do not have the talent or time the next best thing is to rely on the consensus of those who have studied the matter in depth. If you were ill would you trust a fellow blogger, a wingnut on the internet or someone who studied medicine for many years? If one maverick doctor disagrees with the consensus would you trust your life to them or the majority opinion? Who are the real experts? Is there enough evidence for them to come to a consensus conclusion? National Science Academies would be a good place to start. The National Scientific Academies of the following countries issued this statement in support of the IPCC
Comments