http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ScCNzHLV2NA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYUtPEgpEO8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gaGgJxURuY4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u-_cxJ3p4Zo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p2o-lLebzbU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ng7ZAXusjJ4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DFG6ZHOfYvs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gnxQWUDH7G0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fqxSwh591hE

Glad to see i'm not the only one concerned by the hysteria behind global warming, and the lack of proof and overly dramatic claims made within the media.

When did I say i disproved of the theory of global warming? Merely saying there's too much hysteria i.e. too much talk not enough action, too many hysterical warnings and not enough calm and rationale explanations or offers of solutions. Also Wikipedia is written by users not by any regulated dictionary people, they said the exact same thing about Loose Change when it was released

I'm adding to the problem with copious amounts of methane. Damn fish tacos.

This is the dumbest, unreliable thing I've ever seen. I don't know who funded this, but it was obviously a moron with an ulterior motive.

i don't understand. they explain that CO2 levels lagged behind temperatures in the past, peaking after the temperatures did, and therefore CO2 cannot possibly cause warmer temperatures. then 5 minutes later they explain that the oceans, which act as carbon sinks, emit more carbon dioxide when they are warmer, and that it takes hundreds of years for oceans to warm up. couldn't this explain how temperatures could peak before CO2 levels? if not, then why? there is no explanation.

this is an inconsistent logic.

and if i remember right, at least one of the interviewees explained that they take samples over not just years or decades, but centuries or ages, in order to measure climate trends. yet they continued to come back to the point that for a few years during the post war boom, the average global temperature decreased. this was touted as evidence that the longer trend, the warming trend over the past 150 years, is rendered moot since for some of that period temperatures did not fit the trend.

this is an incorrect statistical analysis.

next, the argument is made that what is behind the anthropogenic climate change movement are political and economic interests exemplified by thatcher and greenpeace. ahem. furthermore, tens of thousands of jobs and millions of dollars are tied to the idea that manmade climate change being a real problem. ahem.

this, according to mathematical logistical game-agency theory, is termed as 'the pot calling the kettle black.'

lastly, we cannot attribute today's weather patterns and icemelts to manmade global warming. well that's the smartest thing i heard in an hour and a half, and it's very true. we don't know enough to say that today we are experiencing the effects of a manmade trend of global warming, set in motion during the industrial revolution with the unprecedented release of CO2 via coal and oil-fired plants and machines. unfortunately, as we all (should) know, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

again, this is just poor logic.

these are examples of how not to think. and yet we are told that 'the global warming alarm is now beyond reason.' if the theory of manmade climate change is so wrong, then why is it so difficult to put together a few good arguments without resorting to falsities and fuzzy logic?

this is not a bad representative of those who would deny global warming. this is the best they've got.

i would say to them, stop wasting your breath.

I would bet everything that the funding of this documentary and others like it is from either an oil company, coal refiner, or automaker.

This is no different than in the 60's when tobacco companies produced commercials and documentaries saying smoking is good for you.

I feel that this documentory raises some good questions that need to be addressed. I will enumerate them to make it easier to respond:

1) Does the 800 year time lag of temperature change precluding CO2 change mean that CO2 change does not cause temperature change?

2) Does the time lag indicate that changing ocean temperatures are responsible for CO2 change?

3) Does the fact that temeratures in the troposphere have not increased at the same rate as the temperature on the surface mean the global warming model is inaccurate?

4) Does the fact that we are unable to accurately model the effects of water vapor (which makes up 95% of greenhouse gasses) mean the global warming model is inaccurate?

5) Does solar activity affect the climate?

6) Does solar activity correlate with climate change?

7) Does solar activity give a better prediction of climate change than CO2?

8) Is the current warming historically unusual?

9) Do historical warm periods, like the midevel warm period and the holocene maximum, correspond with extreme weather?

10) Should Africa take advantage of their coal and oil for more reliable electricty?

I haven't seen the movie yet because it's not working. But what it sounds like is the zeitgeist documentary.

http://www.milkandcookies.com/link/65157/detail/

You see in the comments I actually checked their "facts" and their not there.

But on to Global warming. There are people who are expoilting global warming for profit. But that doesn't mean its not happening.

Personaly, I feel that it is irrelevant to discuss if it does or doesn't exist when it comes to politics. If we find better sources for energy than fossil fuel. Then we should use them. And I don't think we need an end of the world excuse to just be clean.