great post man, how is the global warming treating you on the west coast?

Thanks for asking Krumzy, I just moved to the West Coast last summer, so I just experienced my first Vancouver Island "Winter" (it snowed twice, it's still snowing out east) I can tell ya, if Eastern Canada gets these types of winters as a result of Global Warming most people won't complain.

yea we didnt get much snow back in Toronto, people didnt seem to mind, but the summers are horrible here. I think you said you used to live here back in the TAYtv days so I'm sure you know what it's like.

One word for Summer in Central Ontario: Muggy

I don't care if the planet is destroy I wont live to see it any ways.

-1 for nickreal03

Al Gore is kicking himself for not thinking about a graph on the floor! What a great idea!

"Being sure" is not scientific proof, nor is a consensus opinion.

A graph that looks straight out of an aspirin commercial isn't going to convince anyone unless they already believed it anyway.

The good socialists of the world can't wait to "adapt and modify" your behavior...right into the poor house. You're going to love living under their green thumb. You may even see the contrails of their jets from your mud hut.

Gee who should I listen to in regards to science and Nature? Sir David Attenborough or quantumushroom?

You must watch too much TV if you believe the graph being displayed in this clip looks like it belongs in a pharmaceutical commercial. It makes me sad to see that you believe that by becoming interested in the Environment and Nature it will lead us all to living in mud huts.

The irony of your comment is, because of western overconsumption many poor people around the world do live in mudhuts even while they manufacture that keyboard your clacking on.

Former US military leaders have called on the Bush administration to make major cuts in greenhouse gas emissions.

In a report, they say global warming poses a serious threat to national security, as the US could be drawn into wars over water and other conflicts.

They appear to criticise President George W Bush's refusal to join an international treaty to cut emissions.

Among the 11 authors are ex-Army chief of staff Gordon Sullivan and Mr Bush's ex-Mid-East peace envoy Anthony Zinni.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6557803.stm

Who else do you want to back this before you believe? The Fucking Cyclons?

Yes, this is definitely something to be concerned about, I'm not even sure if the world is going to be habitable for my future children, as they grow up.

Wonderfully simple demonstration of what we're doing to our planet.

Sad that it's well within our power to stop it, and yet so many money hungry departments and areas do their best to halt us from moving away from fossil fuels.

I agree. I think with a concerted effort, most of the world could be off of fossil fuels in under 10 years.

Ummmm... it's a MODEL... MODEL's are not proof of anything...

bullshit

The concern for Mother Earth is flattering to Her, yes. I don't deny the good intentions of Climate Panic-makers...where I must draw the line is people with feelgood intentions fking things up and not giving a damn about the consequences or being dead wrong because their "hearts were in the right place".

It's First World technology that frees people from living in squalor. The standard of living for less tech-savvy countries rises with more industry and wealth creation, not less.

Don't be so quick to give up your freedom to theories of those with ulterior motives, because once freedom is gone you don't get it back.

Don't for get those pesky volcanoes, undersea rifts, the sun and his cycles, and the all the things about our planet, and her place in the solar system, that we are NOT being told, for our own good......If monkeys will run with Attenborough's passionate whims, or a panel of experts with agendas, passions, and personal preferences, what do you think they would do if they knew the truth?

What a great job of tricking people into mistaking model output for raw data. Climate models are wonderful for having an enormous number of independent variables. Depending how you set them you can get out whatever you want. Your results are only as good as your assumptions going in, and the presenter clearly states the yellow line was an attempt to match the observed values by playing with the human dependent variables. That playing with variables like solar output and water feedback could provide the exact same result is completely ignored. Bad science and bad presentation, particularly because it's so effective at suckering people into remembering the time they saw how basic raw data clearly show devastating human impact.

Ya, I agree, this graph reminds me of looking on the back of a tube of toothpaste. You see this graph with no real values mapped out with their brand beating out the leading brand by some non-nominal amount. Not only that, but this graph seems REALLY short in terms of global geological events. And you are exactly right as well BC, they can't even predict the weather for next month correctly and I am supposed to have 100% faith in their even longer reaching predictions? Not to say that clean isn't smart and nice, who likes smog really? But I have take major issue with this "assume a spherical cow" model of prediction for anything other than tomorrows weather.