OOoooo.. Youtube as a reliable source. And a youtube coverage of a lawsuit by John Coleman, a guy with a journalism degree, no less. Because we all know none of those have ever been filed without good cause. And we all know journalists are experts in meteorology and ALWAYS give you the straight story.
The moment I hit 'reply' I began wondering if it would be youtube or a nutjob's blog you'd whip out as support. Seems to be a little of both this time.
Here, these are what those with some sort of scientific background call a 'source'...
A whopping 68 papers published since 2000 that challenge the theory:
And here's a World Meterological Organization document (in partnership with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the United Nations Environment Programme) using 4,617 papers supporting the climate change theory:
IPCC WG1 AR4 Report
Notice none of them are youtube? or a psycho ranter's blog?
Grownups call those 'Peer reviewed publications.'
"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity."
10/11 - 24, Smote on Feb 13
Last edited by MunkySpunk; 11-05-2009 at 02:54 PM.