Few people doubt climate change, the debate is over whether or not humans are the cause.

1. There was never scientific consensus on global cooling. It was not a serious idea then. Global cooling due to manmade aerosols does exist, by the way, it's just thatit is much less of an effect than anthropogenic warming.

2. The level of water vapour is basically constant and life on Earth has adapted to this stable temperature. The problem with climate change is not the magnitude of the temperature but the pace of change: too fast and life can't adapt. So the problem is not high levels of greenhouse gases but rapidly increasing quantities, and CO2 is doing precisely that. Humans are responsible for most of the CO2 increase (not the stuff that was already there). So therefore humans are responsible for most of the problem.

3. Yes. But as I said above the problem is the pace of change, and it is happening far faster than any time in Earth's history. The consequences of climate change are not that Earth itself will be damaged but that many species will not successfuly adapt and will become extinct or populations reduced.

--

Climate change is not a threat to Earth. It is a threat to our current way of life. Humans will certainly survive, but probably not 6 billion of us and probably not with the Western lifestyle. The best thing that could possibly happen is that the oil runs out, soon. That would force research into alternatives like fusion, geothermal and more efficient solar.

 Do you really believe in those miths?

He also could stand to make a fortune off of Carbon Trading itself. He is a major stake holder in a company that trades Carbon Credits, and also determines how many you would need to buy. (nice combo racket to be in).

If the federal government made every company who exported gas (that's just about every company), pay his company (or one of a dozen like his), to tell them how many carbon credits they needed to buy, and then made them buy the credits from Gore's company, he could be the next Bill Gates.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2008/06/04/gore-invests-carbon-credit-company-will-media-care

Do you really want to ignore those "myths"? cos you're fucked if you're wrong

You have a lot more then just his mind to change. Of these 31,000 scientist, I would start with the 9,000 with PhD's

http://www.petitionproject.org/

I recently watched it and it's pretty interesting. Can't say I agree with all of it though.

Once you've seen Al Gore's "An Inconvenietn Truth" propaganda
go watch some counter-propaganda called "The Great Global Warming Swindle"
and tell me which appeals to you most.

It's good to protect our environment and to go for renewable energy but do you really think that we can stop our green-house gas emmissions on time to save our planet (if humans are the cause which I doubt)? Once we go 100% renewable all our coals, oil, gas and trees will have already been burned. So go to sleep without worrying.

To your first point, neither. Al Gore may have scientific consensus behind him but he is sensationalist and makes easy target practice for those furthering the climate change "sceptics"' cause. The other film is just wrong.

For your second, Yes. Nuclear fusion. Clean, cheap, renewable, and large-scale. Only problem is no one's prepared to fund it.

Oh yeah ITER will be ready in 2018 (well you can add an extra 2 years). So nuclear fusion (if it'll ever work) will have replaced fossil fuels in what year? 2050 at best? And will it be available for all developing countries?