Comment: Your headline is as confusing

(See in situ)


Your headline is as confusing

Your headline is as confusing as the topic as a whole. Thanks for the link; I'm enjoying the videos. I'm one third through. I find the narrator aligned with your thrust in general, much debunking to do on both sides of a real issue that is largely manufactured or oddly hyped in its tangents. The narrator is a bit more ruthless against the "deniers", and this is evident in video #6. He is guilty of the same thing he accuses the "leaked email alarmists" of doing. He does well in muting the alarm on the controversial language in those emails, but he falls short in acknowledging what it is that Rush Limbaugh compares in believability among conspiracies. The narrator emphasizes "millions of pieces of data" presented in "thousands of scientific papers" as defense against the notion of conspiracy. The narrator fails to include Limbaugh's contextual claim that all that data in all those papers are of a common source. The Jonestown Massacre did not involve poison applied individually to cups of Kool-Aid. I also like the narrator's reoccuring reminder that CO2 is but one factor in the Greenhouse Effect. I take it one step further though, by wishing to remind him that all the gasses together are still not the entire picture. The greenery itself is largely overlooked in being a factor. Regulating the climate in a greenhouse varies wildly upon adding or removing plants [and the manner in which the plants are planted]. I hold out that man's effect on climate has less to do with our effect on atmosphere and more to do with our impact on the Earth's surface. I'm laughing now as I finally read your headline a bit more sensibly with a simple comma, "Proving Agenda 21 supports it, doesn't disprove climate change." :D