Dutch Canuck I agree it would be fair to doubt the meanginfulness of the report if it had been filtered by such parties you describe. But I was using the report as an example, and there are many more. I got the impression that many GW doubters are basing their arguments on science from decades ago which has since been shown to be incorrect. The fact is, reports from current climatologists (not just any old scientist!) confirm the conclusions in the mentioned report. These are in peer-reviewed journals which are the most objective medium scientists have...
Seriously, any person with half a brain who also happens to support the theory that GW exists would not be so stupid as to use Gore's film as their source. His film is biased rubbish. Leave his film out of this debate - it is useless to both sides and it is too easy to attack...
I would like to note that this film you mentioned has been criticised for being just as controversial, if not more than Gore's film. It seems Dutch Canuck was also using this film for his argument. Much of the information in this film is incorrect or misrepresented. For example ...
I cannot have any respect for a documentary which uses cheap tricks like this to further its argument. This debate should not be a matter of pitting documentaries against each other. Documentaries must be taken with a grain of salt - sometimes a very large grain! I would like to see arguments using climatologists as the source. Otherwise we just have popular uninformed opinion versus another popular uninformed opinion.
I've seen the GW Swindle movie, but I'll have everyone know that my skepticism for the initial IPCC report occurred the first day I heard in the news the manner in which the scientists' work was going to be "clarified" by policy hacks for public release -
weeks before I ever heard of the GW Swindle film (I viewed it for the first time online only 3 weeks ago). I guess then we agree that both films are just info-tainment films. One is alarmist, and the second is it's counter. In both cases, if one is not that well informed, not inclined to think like scientists do, or just plain intellectually lazy, then one risks getting sucked in by the hyperbole.
The truth lurks in the middle. That is where I am.
My position is not based on either film - I am skeptical of non-scientific positions. The one thing I think is a complete and total fraud and a contemptible act of hypocracy is the concept of carbon trading! What a fabulous way to rip-off masses of people by pandering to their fears over an uncertain future. Who regulates this? And how is it different than the medieval hypocracy of indulgences paid to the church? Carbon trading basically allows people to make up for their conduct by throwing money at it - yes, one can now pay extra to your airline if one feels guilty about flying...
But wait, let's make it law so tax payers' money gets shunted to it! Kyoto protocol: money to China, CO2 for free! Yikes, what madness!
The science supports that we should be paying closer attention to how we conduct ourselves - but really, aren't smog, acid rain, toxic lakes and rivers, depleted ocean fish stocks, and floods due to deforestation, and don't forget the ol' war, famine, and disease, enough to deal with? Do we have to invent new problems when current ones are not even fixed yet? Oh yeah, the old problems aren't politically sexy enough anymore! And gawd forbid that the average person is allowed to think for themselves!
I'm all in favour of environmental responsibility, there is certainly a great deal we could do to clean up our behaviours around the world, but let us not become blind, foolish and brain-washed by agendas that in reality seek $$$ and justification for existance. Is the last strategy of environmentalists to create hysteria? If so, in the long term it will back-fire and drive a wedge between good causes and public opinion... Alternatively, there may be powerful corporate concerns in conspiracy to create a fiction to drive public opinion as an exercise in reverse psychology - but I am not one to buy into complex conspiracies since they break down as more people get involved. (Too many cooks stirring the pot is the typical problem that undermines conspiracies.) While there have been "agent provocateurs" in history - never forget that! - I think what we are suffering from now is a contest between causes and it has almost become a war to get governments to fork over tax payers' dollars!
It's time to recognize hysteria when we see it - mass media is infamous for supporting that problem and often undermines it's own credibility in the process, hysteria is good for ratings and advertizing revenue - so listen to the scientists who know (and aren't motivated by the sources of their research funding) and take the news with a
very large heap of salt.
Aside: both peace movements and environmental movements are not what they were years ago - I'd check out who their alliances are and where there leadership comes from and what they've been saying lately... But that is a discussion for another time!
When in doubt, follow the money trail...
Back to Civ IV and GW. Well, the idea has been in the game for a while now, but the nuke=GW concept is new. Makes no sense to me. Nukes should cause a nuclear winter (even if it's scientifically questionable) and radiation calamities. It should be heavy industrialization (perhaps based upon number of factories and coal power stations) that causes GW; and maybe have new worker functions, buildings (like hydro & nuclear plants) and techs (environmentalism) that help alleviate the effects of Nuclear Winter and/or Global Warming. Civ is a game afterall, and we should have the means in-game to deal with these as modern/near-future challenges - even if designed conjecturally it wouldn't really spoil the game if NW and GW handled well
You're welcome. 
