And then the big oil companies pushing ads and so on to discredit genuine research is in some way different? That's capitalism for you. Luckily, the global science community is not one individual or organization with a political or monetary agenda.

In fact, the political and monetary interests stifle a lot of research that would otherwise be done simply because there is no immediate interest or effect. And scientists can't perform research without some sort of income.

Are you serious? One data point (edit: of one area, no less!) in recorded climate history is, in any way, "proof?" That article, for the record, is filled with misconceptions about how data is used.

2014 (last year, just if you weren't sure) was the warmest year in record: https://www.nasa.gov/press/2015/january/nasa-determines-2014-warmest-year-in-modern-record

Similarly, it's been warming since mass usage of fossil fuels (i.e., industrial revolution). But because it snowed somewhere or there were hotter days, global warming isn't true. Ok.

There is more CO2 in the atmosphere now then has been in millions of years. Millions of years ago it was warmer. If we keep it up, we may be able to restore the climate to when land was covered in ferns and trees hadn't evolved yet (unless you are going to tell me evolution is bullshit, too, woo)! Sounds fun.

Yes, and how does that disprove the point? What do you think will happen when the coal is burned and returned to the atmosphere?

(As an aside, I wasn't clear: I know trees evolved hundreds of millions of years ago, and fungi/bacteria that could break down wood until millions of years later. That was my point: do you want all that carbon to return to the atmosphere? What do you think is going to happen? The temperature won't rise? Sure... Reminds me of Ken Ham's "observational science" and "historical science" distinctions... as if the same conditions will create different effects simply because it's now and not then, ok.)

edit: Unless your saying the CO2 dropped because the fungus destroyed the wood. No. That's not how it works. When sequestered in a solid, the carbon is not going to affect temperatures because it's not in the atmosphere!

But we're not burning just coal. We're burning oil at a similar rate, and there's also natural gas. Although coal is a worse offender (see http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=73&t=11), it's not like gas and so on are considerably better.

Is your argument that simply because we won't return to CO2 levels some half a billion years ago that it's okay now to burn as much as possible, disregarding the notion that returning to the climate and temperature of 60 million years ago would have catastrophic consequences on most current life?

But it doesn't show how much is being used relatively. It doesn't matter how much there is if it's not being used!

See page 29, "Consumption" for more http://www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/keyworld2014.pdf

Cherry picking facts and figures while disregarding the whole picture just shows dishonesty.

Guys, there's no point in arguing with deniers. They're not interested in the actual science. Give them a link to Skeptical Science, potholer54 and James Powell's consensus charts and they can educate themselves if they actually want to - but they probably don't.

That one's from "Conspiracy Theory with Jesse Ventura". OP's video has the "paleoclimatologist" who's actually a geochemist.

This chart claims that CO2 has increased from ~315ppm to ~400ppm in the last 50 years.

{"name":"600-keeling.png","src":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/5\/c\/5c6eadb003561d41c6963a566f175d6e.png","w":600,"h":500,"tn":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/5\/c\/5c6eadb003561d41c6963a566f175d6e"}

Never mind that the CO2 axis doesn't start from zero, a trick they learned from "How To Lie With Statistics", and that the points seem to roughly shove the numbers out of the way like ill-mannered hooligans.

So that's an alleged 26% (85ppm) increase in 50 years. To get to the 500% (2000ppm) value of the Cretaceous era would take 500 years.

To scare the schoolchildren into getting on the bandwagon, global warming alarmists keep pointing to Venus and saying global warming will destroy the planet before they grow up.

To get to the level Venus has (96% carbon dioxide at 92 times the density) goes like this

400ppm = 0.04% CO2 in the atmosphere
96.0/0.04 = 2400 times higher percentagewise
2400 x 92 times the density = 220800 more CO2 per unit volume of atmosphere
220800 / 0.00017 increase per century = 1,298,823,529.41 years.
That doesn't include the fact that Venus is only 3/4 of the distance to the sun,
so 1.0/(.75^2) = 1.77 times as much solar radiation per unit area on Venus.

Now, once again, I'm not saying there isn't global warming, I'm just saying it's blown way out of proportion.

[EDIT]

Just re-reading made me question this. NASA is run by the same government that brought you the Patriot Act, the TSA, the Pentagon Papers, you already know this. And why would NASA be invulnerable to some asshat higher up with an agenda of his own? Especially since they're on such a tight budget already.

Control? As always.

But there have to be thousands involved, I don't think it's likely in that case. Humans, even evil conspirators, are not that perfect. I wouldn't say "they" won't profit in a way or another (don't know, maybe we'll see more surveillance, control of emissions one day?) but I don't think it is planned with such an objective in this case.

The problem is complicated, because "freedom to emit" would probably have to be curtailed in some way some day, either by regulations or by increasing the costs. Of course that's never going to be popular.

At least the cat's protected, too.

"They" would do their job rather badly if they said otherwise.

There was once a Reddit AMA about a group of scientists studying climate change denial. One of their goals was how to better educate people like Neil and Arthur i.e. how do you crack a crackpot?

So, as a climate change denier, you've got the following:

1.) no good evidence to prove your point
2.) no good evidence to prove your point
3.) no good evidence to prove your point

and finally

4.) people studying your stupid ass to figure out what makes your ass so stupid

Hey, if you can go through life ignorant, why not?