so the most difficult question this genius has is "did you flew here?". Airplane travel play a role in all this massive pollution issue, but airplanes are not the only factor involved.

This guy seems to be making a extremely easy argument for those that like shallow explanations to understand everything. DUMB.

What about talking of overpopulation, destruction of ecosystems by farm land, water pollution, senseles consumerism to keep land fills happy, overfishing, lack of innovation when it comes to everyday solutions, mass production of disposable products -from paper cups to appliances- and a big ETC!

...no AIRPLANES, that's the root of evils, way too simple.

If women were not allowed to drive or fly(alone) the carbon imprint could be greatly reduced.

I can't wait to see Ides of March's diatribe on this...

inconvenient truth: global temps have decreased since 1998.

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/74019.html

wait - the article you link to basically concludes that most scientists agree that the plateau is an anomaly and that global warming is real and will continue/resume - right?

the article that i linked is an example of scientists who are disagreeing about climate data. this gothamist article (with the aid of politburo) is showing how dissent from the green-squad creates angry little people.

1998 was an extremely hot year so any comparison to 1998 is misleading. While temps are down from 1998, they are still above historic levels. As has been repeated many, many times, climate change is about long-term trends, not year-to-year variation.

The article says all this, of course, had you bothered to read it.

a decade of plateauing temps is misleading? the green-squad loves stats until they don't conform to their dogma. another inconvenient truth: there is no reliable weather information before around 1850 so don't talk to me about long-term trends. tree rings, ice cores, and other proxy data just doesn't cut it poopsie.

I didn't say a thing about tree rings or ice cores, poopsie. But in any case, let's throw them out and look at 1850 onward. What do we see?

http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/FAQ/wg1_faq-3.1.html

by bringing up long-term trends you did. how do you think they establish "long-term"?

getting to the point my eco-evangelist friend: climate is extremely nuanced, cyclical, and still being understood. i do not doubt human influence over our environment, but resist buying into the hysteria that the current green-movement automatons have swallowed. the core of this movement is fundamentally anti-human; vilifying every advancement and common practice dating to prehistory (omnivore diet, construction of domestic/public quarters, advancement of civilization).

why stifle dissent like in this article? is the debate actually closed?

A comment on a blog does not 'stifle' anything. You posted a misleading headline, and I rebutted it.

I haven't said anything resembling what you write (anti-human, blah blah). So kindly fuck off now.

This movie is WRONG, eating meat is the number on cause of global warming. (This is not an opinion but what the United Nations 400 page report says.

http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=8168082514

And eating meat while you fly? Hague Court material.

He's a bit one-note, eh? He asked his question, just didn't like the answer.

This is a guy who won't accept *any* answer since he's only there to keep banging his personal gong.

Security! Srsly, what are they supposed to do? Let this fellow take over the event? I'm sure he was delighted with the footage he got.

What contemptible bullshit! The reaction of the premier organizers and their security was utterly repugnant. McAleer wasn't shouting or being disruptive, just asking some low-blow questions to score a few cheap hypocrisy points. And he did have a point, obnoxious though it was. Press credentials shouldn't be revoked because the questions asked can't be answered without losing a little face. Ugh.

On the other hand, Gillian Anderson! Adolescent crush renewed!

You can revoke press credentials whenever you want. And you don't have to be subjected to uncomfortable questions. And you can throw whoever you like out of your event for whatever reason you please. But you suffer the wrath of public opinion for doing so if consensus is that your actions are unjustified.

IMO, you get to do whatever you want at your film premiere.