I hear that if you lived on Venus and you stuck a pizza out your window it would cook in 9 seconds.

I'm in Europe so haven't been able to contribute.

But I read through all the posts, and I have to point out again that most of the pro-global warming people are resorting to the same accusation pointed out in the film (I won't call it documentary since you frown on that word):

You take the elitist condescending approach and call us skeptics less intelligent than you.

So at least the film was right about that claim...

Another claim from the film. Co2 is not causing global temperature rise, global temperature rise is causing co2 levels to rise. That's supported by IPCC which is the group of scientist everyone is quoting. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Gre...arming_Swindle)

As far as I can tell pro-warming advocates are saying that the human caused extra co2 emissions MIGHT push the natural co2 balance into a snowball effect Earth can't recover from. Meaning that the higher co2 levels will cause the greenhouse effect and more water vapour will get into the atmosphere => more co2 leading to a unstoppable Venus scenario.

Again, the film and IPCC are both saying historically Co2 hasn't caused global temperature rise, it's the other way around probably because of increased water vapour. The film then says that human "contribution" is so small compared to natural effects that it's not nearly as dramatic as Al Gore etc is claiming, so a Venus-like effect is very very unlikely.

A lot of if's and maybe's for us skeptics I guess.

I still think the film was very interesting, and it seems a lot "facts" about global warming presented by the media today aren't that factual at all.

The media is presenting it as a fact that Co2 is causing global warming.

When I read that historically that has not been the case (which I didn't know at all), and even IPCC's own people are saying that's not necessarily true, well, that made me upset.

It makes you question everything that has previously been presented as facts.

It stinks of a fear campaign.

What should we call you, then?

Imagine the following scenario: you and I go to a convention on nanobiology together. Neither of us understands the details of what is being said in the lectures, but most of the biologists seem to agree on a few points. Now, suddenly, I stand up, and say that I don't believe them, that I side with the small group of biologists who disagree on those points.

Would you think I was crazy? I know I would.

I'm not going to debate the details of global warming with you, since it would be pointless - neither of us is an expert in the matter.

You could try, though, to actually (carefully) read the reactions of the scientific community to that film. Clearly, the people who actually spend their days studying the matter weren't convinced by the documentary. In fact, many of them dismissed it as pure propaganda, filled with lies, misleading information and quotes taken out of context.