[Woolygimp]

[ QUOTE ]
Super Cereal Answer:

"Science" as you know it, meaning the unbiased search for answers to questions through a logical, controlled, and rational means to create theories to be tested/examined, does not completely exist in America with respect to political issues.

I can find "scientists" who claim that abortion increases breast cancer risk (data?..what... theres nothing to support this... huh). "Scientists" who suggest that condom use does not impact the spread of STDs. "Scientists" who argue for teaching "intelligent design" in a format that rivals classical creationism in god content and lack of scientific basis. "Scientists" who will argue against stem cell research based on the lack of evidence that stem cells are useful (of course they arent... we've just begun to look at them).

The point is that in any topic where science has become political you must be extremely extremely cautious with respect to who is telling you these "scientific" facts. No serious scientists debate the germ theory of disease or Newton's theory of gravity (also... take note when someone claims "its only/just a theory"... thats not a strike against it thats merely a claim that shows ignorance about basic vocabulary in science). Serious scientists can and do present various statements with respect to climate shift. These statements range in exact degrees over time... etc. Very few if any INDEPENDENT and UNBIASED science organizations deny that human activity is a factor and that the climate is being altered.

When a "scientist" or group seems so far off the general consensus... ask yourself why. Scientists evaluate information without personal bias. "Scientists" are not the same thing. There are numerous think tanks, organizations, foundations, and just plain individuals with personal agendas. Many of these people have been used by both sides of the aisle in debates I mentioned above. Global warming is no different. Several scientists who worked on Bush administration policy have previously held jobs in think tanks funded by oil companies (source: "The Republican war on science"- good book, btw the author doesnt just attack republicans for using faulty science). The UN report is perhaps the closest thing to an unbiased fair and rational look at the situation and very closely resembles the general independent scientific consensus on this topic.

After personally and thoroughly evaluating all of the unbiased facts I think you'll be able to find out which is more likely.

You can then wait 50 years and see what happens. At that point it is my judgement that many world leaders and "scientists" will owe us an apology. (Though as any serious climatologist will tell you... global warming folks hope theyre wrong and that it does not happen)

Does that help any?

[/ QUOTE ]

Watch the video. The OP wants you to refute the facts presented in the video, not give us your thesis on the correlation between science and politics. In fact that video is the video that says that the global warming crowd is tainted by politics, and by money.

So please, watch the video. Al Gore's facts, and that video's facts cannot both be true. That's what the OP wants answered. I swear you people are retarded at times.