"Jim Stewart" wrote in message
...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cdxaxJNs15s

I probably should not bite at this but here goes:

This video talks about all the other anti AGW climate scientists that are
ignored. There are about 12 people who publish papers in peer-reviewed
journals that regularly question and criticize bits and pieces of other's
work in global warming. This is a good and heathy thing. Their criticisms
are answered in other papers and back and forth and so on. None have come
close to disproving AGW while there are THOUSANDS of papers supporting it.
The criticisms of certain research get distributed in the anti-AGW
propaganda. The responses do not.

Supposedly there is this vast conspiracy of scientists to promote AGW to get
funding. Have you ever considered that the coal and oil companies (and Saudi
Arabia who own most of Fox news)are already spending on lobbyists, think
tanks, and PR firms to try to promote a FUD (Fear Uncertianty Doubt)
marketing campaign against AGW. How much would they pay for some really
meaty, VALID research disproving AGW once and for all?

The only real scientist to testify in congress against AGW was a chemical
spectroscopist who claimed that since the atmosphere was already opaque in
the infrared due to CO2 that the effect was already as large as it could be
and more CO2 could not increase global warming (he never bothered to submit
this thesis for publication). Any undergraduate physics major will tell
(should be able to tell) you why that conclusion is bunk.

There is a real parallel here with what happened with tobacco research, only
in this case the stakes are much larger. Doctors knew since at least the
1930s that smoking was harmful and addictive. Yet even in 1994 the tobacco
CEOs testified that nicotine was not addictive. Today, some of the very same
PR firms that claimed smoking is not harmful are being used to influence
your opinion on AGW.