hi its me again
dollarlayer@812 -- Sorry bud, but you are not convincing me of anything. Anything I argue, I've already made up my mind on. Your views, opinions, and sources are meaningless to me, especially when they are government sources. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7jzBWmpzifc
Would you like to supply evidence contrary to any of the facts that I have given you? Truth is determined by evidence, not by how you feel.
There is a great irony in telling others to do "actual research" when the only argument you've made is linking youtube videos that show a lack of basic understanding of the science. A quick search of Christopher Monckton reveals that he majored in latin and journalism and has never conducted a scientific study or published a research paper in his life. He's also not even a real lord.
You have expressed your belief that politicians aren't trustworthy and presented yourself as a skeptical person, so why do you believe this politician? Have you spent any time or effort to fact check or research any of his claims? It appears that you have ignored facts in favor of a charismatic speaker with a fancy title telling you what to believe, the exact situation you convinced yourself you were avoiding.
And just to address the few points that you have brought up;
Hell even the whole fact that they largely changed the term from Global Warming to Climate Change should kind of give you a hint. They realized that they were inaccurate by saying man was responsible for an increase in co2 which directly increases temperature.
No "they" didn't, CO2 directly increasing temperature is not inaccurate and is still the scientific consensus, I implore you to find any credible literature that states otherwise. As for the terminology, global warming is simply one consequence of climate change, one does not replace the other. Climate change has become more widely used because it more accurately and broadly reflects the whole situation.
If that were the case we wouldn't see some years that were colder than others
Short term climate variability is well documented and does not disprove long term warming.
we wouldn't be seeing a large expansion of polar ice shelves. Hell even NASA says there has recently been a large increase in antarctic ice: http://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/nasa-study-mass-gains-of-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-than-losses
You're actually correct! (But I thought NASA wasn't reliable?) Antarctica is currently gaining ice at about 80 Gt/yr. Unfortunately the Greenland ice sheet is melting at a rate of about 270 Gt/yr. That's a net loss of 190 Gt of ice every year, even while ignoring glaciers and sea ice. Were you saying something about cherry picking? Curiously enough the very article you linked explicitly states that the ice gain is slowing down, and even has a quote from the glaciologist that wrote the paper the article is summarizing explaining that the ice gain will be reversed within several decades. Surely you read this article before citing it to support your argument, right?