Go to youtube and search for The Great Global Warming Swindle and watch 1 through 8. They're in 10 minute segments.

I've never been convinced that this is a valid comparison. The "Global Cooling" concept lasted a few years. Global Warming has been around nearly 2 decades now, and the evidence seems to be mounting (at least for the most basic concept - that Earth is getting warmer). Also the science of Ecology was a much newer field, with far fewer scientists doing the research, and the complex mathematics needed to describe and model a complex system were relatively crude.

Science does change over time (Al Gore -perhaps not seeing the irony- said as much at the start of An Inconvenient Truth), but so far it has always been scientists who have been able to fix the mistakes (as in the case of Global Cooling) and there is ample reason to believe that at some point they do get it right (or right enough for government work - the atomic model is a classic example).  

But here's the facts:

2500 scientists each agreed that one part of the IPCC report was correct. They did not all agree on the entire report, they were just 2500 contributors. Kinda misleading.

Evidence has been mounting that the earth is getting warmer. However, evidence has NOT been mounting that this is A) Abnormal compared to medieval warm period, B) Dangerous to humans, C) Warming causes horrible weather. Actually, warming should increase crop yeilds and theoretically give everyone more rain.

Again, the climate was warmer in Europe around 1000 AD, but the natural forcings alone do NOT explain the observed global change in climate. Here's a pic to show what I mean:

I really don't like graphs like that. I mean honestly, it just shows how much we don't know. We weren't even recording atmospheric CO2 until the 1970s, much less any of those other variables.

Or, if you prefer, I can just imagine that the chart is 100% accurate. In that case, the only thing it tells me is we can be polluters for another 100 years and only go up another 1-2 degrees.

Have you ever considered putting that Degrees Celcius on a 0-100 scale, and having it go back 1000 years? It would only flucuate ~1 degree over the past century, compared to the medieval warm period and the little ice age in the 1600s, which were much larger.

Im might be doing some global warming stats with graphs/charts for my geospatial statistics class this summer, I'll post the charts here if I end up doing it.

There's something very obvious I would like to point out about this graph. Greenhouse gasses and temperature don't match up like they should for human-caused global warming to be true. The overall temperature increase on this graph has occurred begins around 1910. The MAJORITY of the warmup (about 2/3 of the total change since 1910) happened between 1910 and 1940, during which time greenhouse gasses were almost completely flat. From the period of 1940 to 1980 we see the largest rise of greenhouse gasses and no rise in temperature at all. From 1980 to the present, we see greenhouse gasses continue to rise while temperature rises.

 If greenhouse gasses were truly the primary cause for the current warmup we should see them track very closely with the temperature. Temperature and CO2 from 1910 to 1940 should BOTH Rise, only temperature does. From 1940 to 1980 Temperature and greenhouse gasses should both be flat, but temperature stays flat while greenhouse gasses rise. The data does not provide a strong enough correlation between greenhouse gasses and temperature to support the theory that man-made greenhouse gasses (which actually make up a very small percentage of total greenhouse gasses released by volcanos, decaying leaves, animals, etc.) are CAUSING global warming.

Even if the correlation between CO2 and temperature were stronger, science does not allow correlation of data to prove causation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation Correlation can only SUGGEST, or make it more likely that one factor causes another. This means that the 'scientists' that say human caused global warming is a fact are abandoning the first rule of the science they are using to prove it. Human caused global warming is a THEORY in every sense of the word.

The movie the great global warming swindel does a great explination of these kinds of charts the same one Gore shows that makes co2 emissions look like they match perfectly after they get into all the various elements you realise despite the first glimpse of the chart making a point, it really doesn't prove anything.

No disagreement from me, which is why I teach GW (as mandated by the state) in the manner I mentioned earlier (GW occurs - agreed; human influenced (not caused) - mostly agreed, with debate over degree; long term "damage - little agreement; what to do - no real consensus).

I have a problem with the basic philosophy that has led us to this point - that of the "Fragile Earth". Earth ain't fragile. It's been here 4.55 billion years. It survived having a moon ripped from it's body, so I think it can survive what we do to it. As for the life on Earth, it survived oxygen, global cooling, meteor strikes, super volcanoes - okay, most life DIDN'T survive those things, but some did, and we are here thanks to them getting killed off and replaced by the survivors. The life that's here now will, eventually, suffer the same fate as all who came before it, and will eventually be replaced. As for humanity, we're a heck of a lot more adaptable than most species. We'll make it, in one way or another, for a long time.

No, I think the real issue is that we like the Earth the way we know it, and want to keep it as is for future generations to see what we see. But that doesn't quite fit on a bumper sticker, and doesn't sound so loud an alarm bell. Heck, it sounds a little egocentric. But it is, in the end, where most people really are.

Yeah seriously. I'm not afraid of a little change, it might make things interesting. I live 600 feet elevation (austin tx), and even if all the ice melts, the ocean only rises ~250 feet or whatever, so I'm sittin pretty. I guess my question is how did we come out of the ice age, without cars?? It's a mystery.

I found this site very interesting. I haven't read all of it yet, though.  They referenced all the information that they used. This petition has been signed by around 17,100 scientists. Sorry if its already been posted.

One of the things I found interesting is that humans adding CO2 to the atmosphere is actually HELPING plant and animal life. Moving Carbon from under the earth's surface (where its oil, natural gas, etc.) to the atmosphere allows it to be converted into living matter like plants. Very cool!