OMG why should I? 3 people have pointed this out to you in the thread so far. I give up. You won't hear from me again in this thread.
That works for me.
Brilliant!
Thanks for posting this!!

You do know that the video is a neo-con rightwing propaganda tool ?
Didn't notice the negative references to 'liberals' ?

I told you!! 
I'm trying to imagine what kind of maths degree and A level physics courses could leave someone so uninformed about dynamic stability; cybernetics; tipping points; metastability; the greenhouse effect; black body radiation; and the law of conservation of energy. Or at least unable to explain, even qualitatively, the mechanisms by which he believes they don't apply. And which also of course engenders such paranoia and mistrust of the very scientific community he seems so proud to be a part of.
And it's also odd that an actuary of all people should be unable to grasp that climatology is a statistical science based on the summation of many trends and processes.
I don't care who produced it, the content is fairly accurate!
I've never stated that the greenhouse effect doesn't exist.I claim that it provides little explanation about historical climate trends and therefore is equally useless at predicting future trends.
Actuaries build models to explain the world around them and use them to predict the future.
One of the key things you learn is that if your model is calibrated to historic data yet fails spectacularly to predict the future, you need to revisit your modelling assumptions because they are clearly fundamentally wrong or you are clearly missing other important factors!!!

Sidicks
Says it all.
The video is propaganda yet you consider it 'fairly accurate' 
The first few lines show it to be drivel.
"What about all the scientists that disagree" ?
"They don't count because they don't agree with me"
.... except the number of scientists that agree and disagree is not balanced. Nor do we dismiss them off hand because they disagree.
The sensible and scientific approach is to take the consensus amongest the scientific community.
That being there is evidence to support man made affects on climate change.
Anything else unless you are an expert, which an actuary isn't I am affraid, means you are argueing against the scientific consensus.
The propaganda comes from right wing groups not likeing that the scientific consensus doesn't agree with them. So they decide it's a conspiracy, it's a cover up and insider scam to get funding.
Shame they forget about all the other respectable scientists that do support it and don't think it's a conspiracy yet are not funded by or directly envolved.
The scientific approach is to always be picking at it, but to state you believe in the opposite of what is understood as the scientific consensus without being a leading expert in the field is sheer nonsense.
It makes no rational sense and smacks of political agendas, beliefs and a lack of understanding of science, the scientific method, and the scientific community.
PS: the scientific community isn't a gang of cohorts, it's a disparet group of scientists who would happily disprove each other given half the chance becasue that is the nature of science.
Falling for the idea that it is a conspiracy shows an accute lack of knowledge as a whole.
The disenting voices would be far louder and far more reputable, rather than crack pot politicians and Fox News.
Find me a list of respectable scientists that say climate change is a myth and I bet I can show most if not all to be linked to oil companies or political groups.
I bet I can make a huge list of scientists with no such affilations or finanical incentives who are highly respected that state it's happening.
Not one national or international scientific body disagrees with man made global warming as a reality.
They all can't be in the pockets of eco-marxists. There are dissenters against the theory of evolution and that the earth is more than 10,000 years old.
Maybe that's all a myth and scam to get funding for biologists and geologists 
But then I suppose for some it's who they WANT to believe.
We are lucky in some respects because the oceans balance the very slow climate change on land.
Due to the vast slow absorption and dissipation of thermal differences by the oceans they act as a sort of damper. This inertia ensures it will take many hundreds of years for climate change to take effect.
However, climate warming on land will eventually take effect no matter how the process is dampened and slowed down by the vastness of the oceans.
Man's contribution to climate change is only a small percentage, but that is all it takes to tip the balance (so we are told). To counter this though - a large volcanic eruption spewing all that muck and CO2 up into the atmosphere will very quickly balance out any effort man has made to reduce CO2 emissions.
It's a funny old world. The more we learn about the many natural complex systems which govern the climate the better. To assume we have all the answers and understanding of the natural processes involved would be foolish - we have a long long way to go.
It has been alleged in this thread that a lack of understanding in the science behind global warming has led to some skepticism. That might or might not be right but I would suggest that those who assume they have a clear scientific understanding of global warming try to take on board that a huge proportion of the world's (educated) population are very skeptical of the scientific community and their high-handed haughty "How dare you argue with me because I'm a scientist" demeanor.
Politics and the climate warming scientific community are very closely interwoven. Mistrust is rife.
So very true.
Whatever we do is insignificant.The planet will do as it wishes, as it always has.
The only effort we need to make is to improve our technology so we don't need to use fossil fuels anymore.Even then, it would only take a lump of rock from space to wipe the earth clean.We cannot predict what else nature is going to throw at us in the near future.More earthquakes which will lead to more volcanoes going off.
I'm starting to think the Myans were on to something here.
@Sidicks
Remember what Bill Hicks used to say.
'You are free to do as we tell you', I like to think that with his digs at the Kennedy assination and things that he would also be a man made GW debunker.