Did anyone else see this on Thursday? I had much of this data saved over years in a file but now scientists from all top places have put it all together in one programme, many who used to support it. I never believed it and now I wonder if anyone else has been convinced or (as the programme pointed out) can wait 50 years to see if the predictions were correct before deciding.

I've been convinced for years that this was simply a think tank funding, 'evil capitalism' sort of rhetoric. A very lucrative rhetoric, I might add.
I also seem to remember that back during the 1970's, all the experts were calling for the next ice age...where did that speculation get off to, I wonder? Most people who study and report the weather for a living can't even tell me if it will rain next Tuesday...and I'm supposed to get all worked up over these ambiguous predictions? After record breaking cold temperatures acrosss the midwestern US and eastern seaboard? Please.

Seriously, though - unless enough members of the global science community decide to speak up instead of defending their politics/ grant monies /tenures / so forth - before we know it there will be mysterious 'personal energy use' taxes springing up like mushrooms.

Almost forgot to add - no, I didn't see the documentary in question. But I am familiar with material in like docs which have come before it - both real and imagined.

I was half convinced before this program, now I'm not convinced at all.

Not that I'm against most (not including wind farm on Scottish hills) of the green measures being put in place, but they should find a better reason for us to do it

I agree. Obviously, we should work day and night to find new energy sources, be personally responsible in what we discard and how we dispose of it, and so forth.

But by the same token, I am tired of hearing their unsubstantiated, politically driven threats about how 'we're toast' in the next century if we don't stop using petroleum products, eating meat and whatever else the ambiguous 'they' can think of to bully the masses with. These claims [ I believe] are not only unproven , but a thinly veiled attempt to sell a particular lifestyle.

A lifestyle, I might add, that some of their loudest warriors refuse to adhere to on a personal level.

edited for typo

Replacing fossil fuel with others is not a political issue but a practical one, and nothing to do with avoiding global warming. The fact they now use it as an excuse to limit its use is like telling us not to breathe as I pointed out in current events. The two things are nothing to do with each other and air pollution from smoke is far worse than CO2 as anyone who remembers the London fog will testify.

The EU are now banning lightbulbs (I kid you not) for the same bogus reasons, and literally (and quite deliberately) the lunatics have so far taken over the asylum, as every law passed in the name of CO2 is based on societal control not climate control, and how they can do it a day after seeing evidence from ex-Greenpeace and IPCC (the UN body who promote this garbage worldwide) should be shot for perjury (or locked up anyway). The science does not exist, and for anyone who did not see it (sorry, it was only in the UK) the UN actually censored their report saying there was no evidence global warming was man made, then someone saved it and showed the full text in the programme. The whole thing is proved to be based on fraud yet the momentum carries on after the heart has really stopped beating, like a car with the engine cut off but still rolling downhill.

Sooner or later the good evidence has to win but how long will it take? I didn't read the papers yesterday to see if the programme was reviewed but today they are back reporting new laws to stop us using our technology altogether, a step beyond charging extra for it. CO2 is not a major greenhouse gas, makes up .054% of the atmosphere (if I quote the speaker correctly) and volcanoes produce more than any other source. We produce as much from breathing as any other activity and Bristol University already pointed this out, and actually suggested a tax on exercising to reduce our CO2 output. As I say, the lunatics are taking over. But can it really last?

Here's a UK link to the program Satguru mentioned. This says it all nicely -

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/03/11/ngreen211.xml

I didn't see this, whatever it is. But back in January this year, it was about 73 degrees during one of our days. I live in New Hampshire, U.S.A. It's not supposed to be that warm during the month of January in New Hampshire, ever.

Global warning IS a problem. No argument about that.

I haven't seen this program and I'm not sure what to think about global warming. But I did hear that a global warming meeting was canceled because of a snow storm...not saying that means anything but its just kind of ironic!

The oil companies are employing the same tactics as the tobacco companies did to obfuscate and deny what is happening. They employ tame scientists to put out bogus reports etc. and give the impression there is still debate going on in the scientific community. This is the big lie. The overwhelming opinion of all scientific bodies including UN ones is that it is 90% certain global warming is a result of man made polution.

There is a second programme on UK TV a week on Monday, Channel 4 8pm, pulling apart the latest trick, carbon trading. Someone has gone to a lot of trouble as an independent researcher to write about a 100 page scientific and political rebuttal of the whole affair essay on global warming I defy anyone even reading the first few pages to carry on taking the figures churned out to confuse and conflict by the political machine. The references at the end show it is from reputable sources and sadly any scientist who decides to test global warming theories independently usually loses their grants.

Secondly oil companies love global warming. It ramps up the price of fuel and they only win. Our electricity companies alone have made a fortune last year from carbon trading as whatever the theory it makes money for them first and the exchequer second. Who pays? The customers. Don't believe a word they tell you when it's a way to make you pay them more, if they just raised taxes by that much if they said they needed it you'd vote them out, wherever in the world you lived. But save the planet and people see their raised taxes as a charity donation. Well I'll save my money for a registered charity if possible, no politician is going to trick me they are using a penny of it for anything more then wars and helping the businesses who keep them in power. I'm all for capitalism but not corruption.

I have to concur. Since 1979, the mean temperature in the US has decreased by one-tenth of one degree.

http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm
is a link to a well-done study and data review, which displays the fact above, along with other significant data regarding C02 and the greenhouse effect.

The IPCC (which, you're right, is ridiculous) aside, I have yet to hear any proponents of the "climate crisis" or global warming theories use data in their arguments. Conversely, those who refute global warming always seem to have ample data on hand. This leads me to believe that there is a large financial reason for many people to believe in global warming, but very little factual reason. However, if a scientist can't get funded, he can't publish any results, and therefore the argument seems to be rather one-sided.