It's nice to see a documentary with a different opinion. It is however highly criticized, see wikipedia for references.

Different opinions are great, different facts not so much. I don't have the scientific background to know who is right myself but I do research fairly well and I don't like the dishonesty I see from the skeptic side. Since we're using Wiki here there's another interesting page from them as well. A short collection of statements from some of the major scientific organizations.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

Makes for interesting reading, and to me also puts a real question to the idea that scientific consensus is something other than what the major organizations are actually saying for themselves. They seem to say it clear enough for themselves there, the debate isn't what it seems.

Another page I liked which was full of interesting links and info though poorly organized was this one, and the "How to Talk to a Skeptic" part linked in the right hand side in particular was interesting.

http://illconsidered.blogspot.com/

good stuff, and I love how they had footage from the 70's about a "global ice age" in the future, lol, global warming is a joke

This is the 4th time going through the sift. I posted it about a year ago but it died with 8 votes.

I'm voting this up not because I think it has any merit, but because the abuse of tricky editing ought to be discussed. Right from the start you can see how the context of the interviewees' comments has been altered or removed.

To show the power of video to sway our opinions I think I'll post my favourite documentary Dark Side of the Moon.

"Polar bears need ice and snow, but as climate change takes a steady hold, their habitat is being rapidly lost. This year, for the first time, the polar bear has been classed as endangered on the IUCN Red List."

"The Montana park has 26 named glaciers today, down from 150 in 1850. Those that remain are typically mere remnants of their former frozen selves, a new gallery of before and after images reveals."

"Study Previews Ice Sheet Melting, Rapid Climate Change."

When will conservatives stop treating facts as if they were opinions?

The global warming swindlers are good at creating a false sense of urgency, just like used car salesman do. HURRY UP AND GIVE US YOUR FREEDOM! THE SAVE-THE-WORLD WINDOW IS CLOSING!

Don't be so hasty to surrender your remaining freedom to Chicken Littles with scary-looking graphs.

Truthiness run rampant.. I'd like to say I can't believe people are dumb enough to buy into this whole fake science of the absence of global warming, but people are just that gullible. It's all BS. I mean, look at this: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/feb/02/frontpagenews.climatechange

Maybe I'm "mistaken" but I thought scientific studies were supposed to be objective, not whoever can buy the result. This kind of thing has been happening since the global warming issues were being discussed..and people are gullible, and possibly stupid enough, to fall for it. Wake. The. Fuck. Up.

Jesus.

Edit: Some more. http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/jul/05/climatechange.climatechange Direct refutation of this movies "theory".
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,2053234,00.html More evidence of the bias effecting science.

I wish I could so cloud headed to believe this...

Also IF this was true, it can't hurt to stop looting the planet anyways.

I'm not a climatologist, but I am a scientist and I'm still on the fence. There's evidence either way. The problem is not the science. The problem is that people, even prominent scientists, are not allowed to argue against it without risk to their reputation and career. Like the video says, if you disagree with what global warming activists say, they ostracize you and accuse you of being an industry stooge. MANY climatologists still support the cyclical warming/cooling theory. One thing is certain though, the vast majority of people who study this don't agree with Al Gore and his 20foot rise in oceans. Even the UN thing only proposes a mild increase. And the thought that there is not debate in science anymore about it is not correct. There is most certainly debate.

That said, I still support the idea that we should improve our technology to lessen our effect on the planet in general. The fact is that we ARE working on these technologies already. We don't need to create a green religion to make it happen. Panicking about this sort of thing can be problematic. Take ethanol for example. Whoops. How much money has gone into promoting that goof?
On the up side, wind/river/tidal generators are on the rise and new brilliant ideas are coming out quickly.

The biggest thing people don't think about is which is true:
High CO2 --> High Temp.
High Temp. --> High CO2

This video displays that consideration very well. The ocean contains a profound amount of CO2. Heating water decreases the amount of gas you can dissolve in it. Warm an ocean and you get a CRAP TON of CO2 pumping out (orders of magnitude higher than human CO2 release).

good post.

*dead

Invocations (dead) cannot be called by frogger3d because frogger3d is not privileged - sorry.

*promote

Promoting this video back to the front page; last published Wednesday, August 15th, 2007 5:04am PDT - promote requested by blankfist.

This video isn't long (9:47).

*truth

One of the problems with the existing proofs for global warming is that the data they are relying on is not always correct.
A good website is http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/ - it's a blog that covers the weather news from a skeptic scientist's view. A good example post is this one -
http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/02/17/how-not-to-measure-temperature-part-52-another-ufa-sighted-in-arizona/

If you follow his blog, or go directly to the photo gallery in http://surfacestations.org/odd_sites.htm - it's not surprising that (some) measurements show warming trends when the thermometers are placed next to heating vents. Or in the middle of parking lots.

according to the clock it's about an hour and a half..

In reply to this comment by Razor:
This video isn't long (9:47).

"The problem is that people, even prominent scientists, are not allowed to argue against it without risk to their reputation and career."

Also applies to contemporary physics, in particular string theory.

Well, that's because I fixed the embed code just after his comment

>> ^Constitutional_Patriot:
according to the clock it's about an hour and a half..
In reply to this comment by Razor:
This video isn't long (9:47).

In my personal opinion is that you guys are full of shit, this movie is full of shit and the politicians are full of it too. Why? because what all you are giving are opinions and not facts. We have scientific organizations that do this stuff for leaving. In fact you should not only look at the USA organization in case of bias but world wide. They had already give their opinion last year about it and they clearly said that humans are affecting it. We are way past the discussion at this point of whether it is real or not.

Sure they are critics about the common knowledge about any subject, there will always be. But the fact remains that 90% of scientist, and their organization already decided. Sure you can criticize them that is a good thing. But if you have to make right now a decision go along with the most inform people in this planet which are our key scientific organizations.

*dead

This published video has been declared non-functional; embed code must be fixed within 2 days or it will be sent to the dead pool - declared dead by gwiz665.

Awarding rasch187 with one Power Point for fixing this video's dead embed code.

35 more comments have been lost in the ether at this killed duplicate.

The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by Norsuelefantti.