Well said. We need to start making lifestyle changes. It was a similar recognition (before the movie came out) that caused me to change my main mode of transportation to biking and public transit. we still have a car, but I bike to work 90% of the time.

Victory will be achieved when uncertainties in climate science become part of the conventional wisdom” for “average citizens” and “the media.”

For the full memo, documentation, and a list of think tanks that ExxonMobil funds, read Global Warming Skeptics: A Primer.

I do not have access to the data, nor do I have the requisite technical knowledge to assess either the hyperbolic claims of pro or anti climate change activists. What I reported in my article was taken from the movie. I suspect that both sides are more motivated by politics and other a priori commitments than by science.

As for Big Oil propaganda, I certainly have no proof of that, nor did I claim to. But it would not surprise me, as they have a vested interest in not having the reputation of their product tarnished.

But, moving beyond all of these points, I would still come to the conclusion that we need to fundamentally change our living arrangements, for reasons of morality and justice. Our part of the world is, by and large, exploiting the rest of the world in order to maintain its opulent standard of living. I believe in a God who in Jesus has called us to lives of radical love for others, which it seems does not include a life marked by conspicuous over-consumption at my neighbor’s expense.

It just so happens that this is the kind of life-style that will bring about a change in global warming, if it is occurring. I am convinced that it is. But more importantly, I am convinced that, as always, following the way of Jesus is the best way within this world.

lets make a deal here. you watch “an inconvenient truth” and i will study http://www.friendsofscience.org.

I remain skeptical (irrespective of its actual truth) of global warming for several reasons.

Firstly, 500 years ago the Vikings were farming on Greenland. Greenland. If it gets warm enough that we can start farming on Greenland, and continues to get warmer, _then_ we might have a problem.

Secondly, you may remember that in the late 80s/early 90s these same people were making a different loud noise about climate change, but instead of Global Warming, these same people were preaching about the impending doom of th next Ice Age. So which is it? Are we cooling off or heating up? This flip-flop-ing seriously degrades the credibly of the climate change activists.

This is not to say that climate change is not ocuring, just that pro-change side is as guilty of skewed numbers and propaganda as the anti-change forces.

As for this:

“However, in the popular press, some 53% of articles dealing with climate change presented the supposed dilemma of the split in the scientific community. Lobbying money well spent by Big Oil!”

Shame on you, Matt. I thought you had more integrity as a blogger than that. I know you are not a fan of large corporations, but to immediately pin an apparent media spin on big oil simply does not follow.

I would also like to point out that the ‘scientific community’ consists not only climatologists and meteorologists but also of Physicists, Psychologists, Zoologists, etc whose opinion on climate change is no more valid than yours or mine. And despite Mr Gore’s assurances of the solidarity of the scientific experts, (and apparently a folow-up study proved the exact opposite fact), there are at least some climatologists, etc who do dissent about the climate change issue.

Since you’ve shown your willingness to view Mr Gore’s propaganda, why not see some of the other sides? http://www.friendsofscience.org