I’ve gone online a few times talking about global warming/climate change, mainly to say how much the deniers piss me off. It’s one thing when people disagree with you and you have different value systems so you think their opinion is crap. But what infuriates me about global warming deniers is that their arguments are direct lies. The crap they spout is literally the direct opposite of the truth.
Their ridiculous arguments have been debunked again and again, there is NO peer reviewed science that supports their position, literally none, and it makes no fucking difference. They simply will not shut up. They even lie about wanting to “debate”. They don’t want to debate, that would involve listening to the other side and acknowledging when the truth is spoken. All they do is launch a non-stop verbal assault and try to batter their opponents into submission.
Every single aspect of their position is dishonest and quite frankly contemptible. Which is why I refuse to indulge them in their little game. Any of their talk about “engagement” is meaningless lies and so fuck them. I’ll just enjoy my time insulting them because that’s all that’s left to me.
A separate issue to the truth of climate change which lying fucktard deniers tend to say is the same issue is whether or not carbon trading is a viable solution. My short answer is I don’t think so. It reeks of bullshit. There’s a good article here covering why carbon trading plans are likely to fail and a really funny one by Matt Taibbi in Rolling Stone that’s mainly ripping Goldman Sachs apart but also points out the fact that their promotion of carbon trading almost guarantees its failure.
Also, I had fun ranting about it on YouTube.
Angry 365 Days a Year 
Entertaining video as always.
Carbon trading/offsetting sounds like a good idea – in principle. But for the kind of reasons you’ve referred to, it really does seem like it’s not going to work in the real world. Perhaps some restricted versions of it could be made to work with sufficient oversight. I remain sceptical for now.
I hadn’t thought of it before watching this, but it’s definitely hilarious that some deniers (many of whom are real free-market worshipping types) would complain that corporations might cynically take advantage of carbon trading to make money without ensuring any real environmental benefit. Surely they’d think that that was a good thing?
I do have a minor corrective point to make about your video. Yes, the weight of scientific overwhelmingly points towards global warming being real, and being substantially driven by human activities – to the point where objections by non-scientists really do seem as ignorant as you’ve pointed out. However, while I understand that in these short, punchy videos you’re trying to deliver a point as succinctly as possible, it really isn’t true to say that there is ‘not one peer-reviewed paper’ that claims to show that climate change is not due to human activities or carbon gas emissions specifically. Here’s one (yes, more recent papers have refuted the conclusions, but this research is still part of the scientific literature, and there are more papers like it). There are published climate scientists who do not accept the scientific consensus (just not very many). potholer54 has an excellent series of videos explaining climate change (an hour and a half well spent), and #2 in the series is the most relevant one, as it covers the climate skeptics within the climate science community.
The existence of a handful (and it is only a handful) of these people does not detract from what you say about the bulk of the deniers (most of whom probably couldn’t name one of the genuine anti-AGW scientists, let alone understand their research) as their arguments usually have nothing to do with any real science.
I am not ‘concern trolling’ as I enjoy the way present your videos and blog posts (I saw your recent tweet about those whose complaints focus on ‘tone’ by the way – your response is spot on), and I think you are very much in the right when it comes to the reality of climate change – I just think it’s always worth correcting inaccuracies where we see them, even (and perhaps especially) when they come from people we agree with.
yeah, carbon trading is BS. Didn’t anyone notice what caused the GFC? Derivative schemes cooked up by banksters. Do we need more of them, no, I don’t think so.
Hello Angry,
Climate change has been happening for millions of years and I do not dispute human activity is contributing to climate change.
What I do know is an chart which was here in 2009.
http://www.decc.gov.uk/en/content/cms/statistics/climate_change/sea_level/sea_level.aspx
Can now only be found here.
http://www.decc.gov.uk/en/content/cms/statistics/climate_change/impacts_cc/impacts_cc.aspx
One link is to a excel file and the other link is to a PDF document.
The chart showed the mean sea level around Britain rising by 20cm over the last century. There was a pattern of it going up and down in cycles lasting roughly 7 years on average. This is similar to the sunspot cycle of 7 years.
The alarmist suggest sea levels will increase 100 fold and rise by 2 metres by 2030 and not appropriately 3.2cm as the chart (that was removed) showed.
Here is another chart that I have found that does show this rise of appropriately 3.2cm per decade.
From this site.
http://www.epic-lincolnshire.org/archived-news/
Here’s the thing: equivocating, cherry picking and weasel words aside, here is the simple truth. ALL peer reviewed science says that what is happening is NOT part of any natural change. There is radical and potentially catastrophic change (the exact nature of what the change will be is certainly up for debate) because caused by human activity. NOT natural cycles. NOT volcanoes. And not the fucking sun.
Anyone who says otherwise is either pathetically ignorant, or a supremely evil politically motivated lying piece of shit. Both of whom are utterly beneath contempt. Deniers are absolutely despicable.