NASA Video Illustrates 130 Years of Global Warming, Hansen Expects New Global Temperature Record Within 3 Years

What "jury" are you referring to?
Certainly not the tens of thousands of the world's leading scientists who concluded over a decade ago that global warming is real and man made. There is not one peer-reviewed scientific paper that disputes this fact. You must be referring to jury by media.
Did you even bother to watch the NASA video above? It says it all! How can you not see this???

"...tens of thousands of the world's leading scientists who concluded over a decade ago that global warming is real and man made."

Absolute bollocks.

The entire quote is:

"We should also consider official scientific bodies and what they think about climate change. There are no national or major scientific institutions anywhere in the world that dispute the theory of anthropogenic climate change. Not one. "
http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus.htm

Shame you can't think of your own propagandist statements for yourself.

Your point?
How does this help your argument?

Just shows you'll parrot any old propaganda statement that you like the look of whilst lacking your own ingenuity.
This doesn't help my argument, the data supplied in previous comments does that very well, hence the reason why neither you nor your alarmist-in-chief are ever able to explain why real-world evidence deviates wildly from what alarmists predict, and what extremists say is happening now. As I stated earlier, had the planet been even a tenth as bad as you like to portray, there wouldn't be any life left.

I'm only stating the facts. There are no national or major scientific institutions anywhere in the world that dispute the theory of anthropogenic climate change. There are no peer-reviewed papers that dispute anthropogenic global warming. NOT ONE!
How can you watch the NASA video above and not see this?

"There are no peer-reviewed papers that dispute anthropogenic global warming. NOT ONE! "

There are many, but you choose not to see them. And to preempt your next comment, no, I cannot be bothered to dig out some links for you to ignore, as you usually do.
If you really wanted to read peer-reviewed literature you would already know where to look for it and already know the conclusions of those papers that dispute the theory of man-made global warming.

Does the video prove any warming was caused by man?
Does the video explain about the removal of most surface stations from the records?
Does the video explain about poor siting of thermometers?
Does the video explain why the current warm period started long before man could have had an influence?
Does the video explain why one third of land-based thermometers show no warming over the entire instrumental record?
Does the video show recent cooling?
Does the video explain why NASA GISS shows such a warm trend in the arctic while having a very limited number of actual thermometers there?

"How can you watch the NASA video above and not see this?" Because I am not as easily led as you are. I have read too much, talked to too many people and seen too much to be sucked in by propaganda.

Oh, so now acid rain is a hoax according to you. All those forests and lakes didn't really die over the past 40 years due to acid rain from coal fired power plants. The Clean Air Act wasn't needed and didn't reverse a lot of the damage.
Your arguments get more rediculous by the day.

If things were even a tenth as bad as people like you want us to believe there would be no life left on earth. Your arguments get more ridiculous by the day.

Source with proof?

If you were so up on all this climate scam stuff you would know exactly the source and wouldn't need the proof. Keep up!!!

Tsk, tsk... If you want to make wild accusations about world renowned scientists, you at least ought to show your work. I need to compare your info/sources with mine to see how they match up.

I'm fairly sure your sources will show an unbelievable swing towards climbing temperatures and approaching tipping points. If you had an unbiased interest in this you would know how Hansen/GISS have changed the temperature record, maybe you just choose not to see it?

How can I see it when you refuse to share your source?

Don't tell me you don't know about Hansen/GISS temperature adjustments?
I'm fairly sure you could find a better unbiased source of information than I could supply you with ;)
The fact that you repost a Romm blog post speaks volumes - I severely doubt anything I could write, or any link I supply would sway your beliefs one inch.
Enjoy the climate ;)

Funny isn't it Wake Up People? I've never seen one of these deniers willing to go to jail for what they "believe" in.

Because nonviolent civil disobedience is only a weapon for truth, and they have none.

I am one of the majority that believes in Global Warming,and if we are wrong we'll have to be ready for alot of embarassment and ridicule.
But what happens if your side is wrong? Because by the time you people decide its time to act its going to be too late.

My 'side' is constantly evolving with new empirical evidence that is showing that CO2 and man's actions have not been responsible for any weather or climatic events. As new evidence comes in it is looking less likely that the models used by climate 'scientists' display any level of accuracy.
Do something if you will, if it makes you feel better then great, but you won't change the weather and all you'll end up doing is wasting billions (€$£) that could have been better used to help people who are affected by the constantly (i.e. for billions of years) changing climate.

Whereas all the extremists have is Romm reposts and propaganda spewed from the likes of Gore and Hansen. Others, like JanforGore, also have censorship on their side. If the truth is inconvenient, or if they are shown to be alarmists - get it banned.
Strange how Current is so quick to ban my comment, I thought a failing organisation like Current would welcome a little bit of controversy that may attract another badly needed reader or two. The UK has already sent a signal to Current by dumping its TV station, not surprisingly, I don't think anyone ever watched it anyway, I certainly didn't.
People are turning their backs on lunatic-left extremism, and about time too.

Do you "believe" in the greenhouse effect, or is that part of the conspiracy too?

Actually, there are the scientific facts and those either paid to discredit those facts or those who simply sow doubt about them because of ideological or political biases. Just the fact that they call all those who know those facts "left wing extremists" already shows you what they are all about.

I read some hilariously strange things here on Current, but this is absolutely side-splitting!
Thanks Coolplanet.

Whereas those who align themselves with failed politicians, JanforGore, are obviously free-thinking, scientifically minded independant people who welcome free speech and debate... sure!!!

Free speech is not about lying to confuse people about crucial facts nor is debate about challenging well-established scientific findings with dogmatic propaganda.

Nice photoshop job.
But we have yet to see any sources or peer-reviewed studies from you because they don't exist.
"Last updated on 1/27/2012" by WHOM exactly?

Remember last time you asked for peer-reviewed literature and I supplied a long list of it, all of which showed that your assertions were utter crap? You didn't respond to that comment did you?
You also proved you don't even read the text in the articles you vote up and comment on; when I quoted from a recent article you accused me of making it up not realizing it was right under your nose and existed on the very page you were were writing on.
You openly show a lack of regard for human life; "Well i want to know how many kangaroos, koala bears and dingo dogs died. Who cares about 10 humans?" - Coolplanet January 12th 2011.
So tell me why I should waste my time digging out more peer-reviewed articles for you to ignore?
Chart in previous comment is AMSU-A data. Strange, isn't it, how you accuse me of Photoshopping every piece of (inconvenient) data I show, whereas anything Romm posts is taken as indisputable gospel truth.
And get this Coolplanet, your planet is cooling down, surely you should be happy about that? It's obvious you think temperatures during the Little Ice age were the correct and ideal temperatures for this planet. If those temperatures ever occur again you'll be praying for global warming, because it won't be pretty to live in. You are lucky enough to live in an amazingly agreeable climate and all you can do is complain about it and look for someone to blame for it! Get real.

But you are accusing NASA of tampering, not just Hansen.
It's difficult to believe a bunch of science nerds conspiring.

I don't rule it out, but unlikely.

What would you fakes have if not to trash Al Gore. You aren't fit to shine his boots.

What would you extremists have if you didn't have Gore and his cronies? None of you have independent minds or thoughts, you're all basically parrots and followers of a failed politician turned failed environmentalist, or whatever he thinks he is.

Unlikely, maybe, maybe not, there's a hell of a lot of evidence out there if you care to dig a little.
There is a proven record of tampering with temperature records, and not everyone is happy about it. Recently GHCN, who use GISS data, were found to have adjusted Iceland's record to make current temperatures warmer than the known warm period in the 1940s.

"...we have learnt that GISS temperatures for Iceland and Greenland have been artificially adjusted, with the result that current temperatures appear much warmer than when compared with the warm period during the 1940’s. Temperature data for Reykjavik from the Iceland Met Office confirmed that this adjustment was wholly artificial and resulted in a net warming of about a half a degree centigrade since 1940 and that the actual mean temperatures in the last decade are about a degree less than GISS show."

The Iceland Met Office were contacted about this. Questions and answers are:

a) Were the Iceland Met Office aware that these adjustments are being made?
No we were not aware of this.
b) Has the Met Office been advised of the reasons for them?
No, but we are asking for the reasons
c) Does the Met Office accept that their own temperature data is in error, and that the corrections applied by
GHCN are both valid and of the correct value? If so, why?
The GHCN “corrections” are grossly in error in the case of Reykjavik but not quite as bad for the other stations. But we will have a better look. We do not accept these “corrections”.
d) Does the Met Office intend to modify their own temperature records in line with GHCN?
No.

Although you may like to think the historic global temperature record is pure, complete and totally accurate, it doesn't take much to discover that it is, in fact, corrupted and probably not worth the paper it's printed on. Now, whatever is going on with the climate, I don't think anyone can agree that tampering with historical records and re-writing history is a good thing.

And we all know that is why you are here. Simply to distract with BS. Just another RW plant using Al Gore because it is all you have. I was an environmentalist long before I knew of Al Gore, but I'm glad I got to know of him. Your predictable tactic believe me has been duly noted. Oh, and I don't censor here. Personal attacks are against the guidelines here. Perhaps you need to read them and stop whining.

Do grow up.

It's all about their precious money with them, not real beliefs (except their fanatical worship of mammon god-money).