My comment, posted to the UVA site was:



Reading the comments here I am disheartened by the apparent lack of critical thinking available at UVA starting with a critique by Foreman, who never bothered to hear the argument he dismisses, to others who mock skeptics by saying next they will question the law of gravity. Here's a news flash: The way gravity works is still very much a debate.

Here are a couple of other pieces of information you may wish to consider: The number of climate scientists who have issues with the "settled science" are increasing and include UVA prof Fred Singer and former prof Patrick Michaels.

There are skeptics because science is hard and proving a claim such as man-made global warming is very hard because it depends on establishing:
1) What is the earth's temperature?
2) What is the trend and what is the uncertainty?
3) What is the cause of the trend?
4) What is the cure and how do we prove it's the cure?
5) Is the cure worse than the disease and do we risk over-correcting?

Finally, consider that the global warming debate is highly political and driven, on one side, by people, such as the UN Intergovernmental Panel, who want to rule over you and tell you how to live, as politicians always do. That vested interest should make you very suspicious of their claims, especially when you find out that the summary portion of studies are written by politicians and not the scientists who do the studies, many of whom disagree with the summary.

In the late Dr. Dixie Lee Ray's book "Environmental Overkill - What ever happened to common sense?"
(ISBN 0-06-097598-9 published in 1994) there is and outstanding chapter on Global Warming. I was exposed to some of this objective thinking while getting a degree in Aero Engineering at Cal Poly SLO by a professor who was Jewish scientist forced to work on Hitler's V2 projects. Dr. Ray does an outstanding job of destroying the myth of the man made climate change by using the scientific method. One of the crucial observations made in her book ( Chapter 2 page 17) "Roughly 30% of incoming solar radiation is reflected back into space, 20% is absorbed in the atmosphere and 50% penetrates to the surface to cause warming. A fraction of the heat that reaches Earth returns as infrared radiation, which contributes to further by being absorbed by certain constituents of the air called 'greenhouse gasses'. These gases are mainly carbon dioxide, methane hydrocarbons aerosols, and ABOVE ALL WATER - the water vapor in the atmosphere ... is responsible for 98% of all greenhouse warming."

That is why water vapor is excluded from the Kyoto accords as a contributing factor in global warming because they can't do anything about it. There is no way to extort money from producing nations to redistribute if you account for the impact of H2O compared to the other so called greenhouse gasses. It is just another "the ends justify the means " attack on capitalism and productivity.

Environmentalism is an ideology driven by a radical theology where the state is the deity, all in the name of the public good. The public good be damned, I'll have no part of it.
Cheers!

So hundreds of people will read the author's libel of a film he didn't even see, and believe even more that unassailable science supports GW and 'climate change.' Meanwhile a much smaller number saw the film.

Hopefully, the UVa paper will also publish commentary on the film from someone who actually saw it and has a rational, un-brainwashed view regarding the science and knowledge of the funding behind climate 'science.'

Perhaps someone will also note the conflict of interest of someone ( the president of the UVA Environmental Sciences Organization) whose future career depends upon a wide public belief in the vailidity of the thusfar arguable conclusion that actions of man have a significant, widereaching effect on climate and that those actions are causing changes that the earth's biosphere cannot automatically adapt without a wider loss of human life than will be caused by a return to the pre-industrial age.

Our computer weather models can predict the weather fairly well for the week, and we trust them as accurate, yet 95% of those computer models can't back up the "climate change" theory - but that doesn't count.
Funny how Liberals will believe in corporate welfare for everything else under the sun, but can't see the money driving this.

Sadly for some who believe in global warming their selective facts can't be disputed but let's face it since they don't stand up to the light of day they aren't facts they're fiction. For them science is a belief system not provable reliable fact. You can't reason with someone like that.

Typical liberal child holds his hands over his ears and yammers. Science, yeah, right.

Guy sounds like a friggin loser. I do some work with global warming nuts. They are crazy people. It's like a bit cult.

I was particularly struck by this part of the article...
............
"Climate change is not a subjective issue; it is proven science, backed by hundreds of studies and research full of empirical data. Climate change has been proven by researchers such as Prof. Mann, government agencies such as the EPA and many private universities and institutions. Hard science is not something that should be debated the same way we debate other topics, such as those found in political science. Subjects such as politics or philosophy have no clear definite answer; either side can make a compelling case as to why its beliefs are correct. However, the same cannot be said for climate change. There is one proven answer, and it is protected by scientific fact. "
--------------

The author, in my never-so-humble opinion (imnsho) really does not have any clue as to what the Scientific Method is or how 'science' works, if they say stupid things like that.

Just a few days ago, I saw a graph that implied a beautiful correlation between frequency of sunspots and global temperature.

If data continue to support the hypothesis of a relationship after observing an apparent correlation, theories may be developed. But anyone who says 'the discussion is over and our side is right' in things like this is mentally defective. (imnsho)

What tripe! What idiotic writing. I bet this nut is a journalism major, like Al Gore before him. I at least minored in biology and earth science. As a former reporter, I can tell you, you do not give such statements as saying debate should NOT be allowed. A scientist once told me, there are no facts in science, only temporary beliefs.No matter what, debate, in all fields, is essential in finding the truth. Worse, the easily-led students who commented, were drinking the same kool aid. He fails to mention the hundreds of scientists who do not believe in global warming, no called climate change (climate has always changed). It irks me that none of these talking point heads ever mentions nor calls for investigation into the effects on climate of HAMP (Hurricane Aerosol and Microphysics Program) or HAARP (High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program). Then there are the Russian versions of the same, as well as corporate versions, none regulated nor fully researched.No, it is only the activity of the individual that they want to control, and thus must drum up followers to repeat the global warming mantra enough times that they can then declare it true. These brainless wonders never question nor cite research, never ask where the temperatures were gathered, never consider the activity of the sun - only spout talking points.

Research scientists live off grant money. If they say global warming/climate change doesn't exist, then their funding from sources that are promoting it will dry up. The climate has been changing for millions of years. Most recently is the medieval warming period and and then the little Ice Age that almost wiped out humanity.

Weather is not climate change. According to these same "climate scientists" back in the seventies, we were headed into an Ice Age. None of their computer models can predict today's climate when fed data from a hundred years ago.

I always laugh when I hear the term "consensus science". True science is not by consensus. Science is creating a theory, conducting experiments, and evaluating the data to prove or disprove the theory.

Oh yeah, and the Great Lakes froze over for the first time in how many years?

I find it funny that the climate change alarmists keep using the title Scientist. When you use the phrase "the debate is over," you subvert the scientific method and should therefore have your scientist card pulled.

if you say something over and over again even if it is not true you begin to believe it. Such is the case with this fellow at the university. The reality of the weather that is taking place is something he can not see. it is tantamount to not seeing the forest because the trees are in the way.

I find the whole thing dripping in a level of undetected Irony when the UVA paper cites a Climate Fraud Scientist who has been caught **SEVERAL DIFFERENT TIMES** faking evidence as the paragon of Climate Change.

I agree with not showing up. It just validates them, giving unscientific members of the media the idea that they can report it as a two-sided issue without point out that one side is what we wish were true and the other side appears to be true.

Have you screened it at a conservative school? Admittedly, there aren't many. Hillsdale, perhaps?

How did the screening go? Did many students show up? Often clas instructors give extra credit for showing up to listen to guest speakers. Was the film appreciated in this manner by any of the departments?