Ten Minutes on Global Warming

I agree with most of this video, although whoever did the text that overlays some of the points badly needs a spelling lesson. Some of the key points:
1) CO2 is an important, essential nutrient and not a pollutant SEE HERE
2) Global warming is not caused by CO2. This is convincingly shown by the ice core data. Comprehensive slide show on ice core data. SEE HERE
See this on erroneous preindustrial CO2 estimates. CLICK HERE
3) Even if CO2 were causing warming, the fact is that the amount contributed to the environment by human beings (all activities) is quite small compared to natural sources so if we eliminated all of our contribution you wouldn't be able to tell from the weather. SEE HERE and you'll see the worst case is about 3.2% not counting water vapor with is the most influential greenhouse gas so is generally left out of the picture. (Gee does that make sense? Only if you're trying to fabricate a case that otherwise wouldn't even be a starter.)
4) These are not surprising facts they are evident to anyone who really does their homework.
An old piece by Timothy Ball. SEE HERE
5) That means that those trying to panic us into doing something are doing it for motives different from those they claim. It looks like a big power and money grab by those who seek to rule us. SEE HERE for a piece from RedState on the global warming profiteers.

HERE's JOHN STOSSEL ON THE TOPIC

CHECK OUT THIS for a fun read. A quick read looked pretty accurate to me. So you can start here. Reading blogs in general for global warming information is quite entertaining. I've seen more blogs saying "authoritative" things which are totally without basis in any kind of science just the opinion of a blogger who obviously (from their arguments) know nothing or very little about science. So you have to be very careful. It's a big problem when "so-called" scientists become politicized, because then you can't easily tell which way is up. A very key parameter is: 1) do they show the data?, 2) do they explain the data or just expect you to swallow it whole?, 3) does the explanation hold water? (i.e. can it be shown that the explanation leads to the data both forward in time and backward in time?), 4) how much "fudging" do they have to do? and do that admit to the "fudge"?

My favorite physicist, Richard Feynman, would say that if the science is really understood well, then it can be explained in terms that anyone can understand. I think that's true if you're Feynman, but it's a lot more difficult if you're not. But it is important to try.