My opinion is that this is like the debates over food and pharmaceuticals. There may be folks on both sides of the issue more interested in stirring the pot and muddying the waters than in figuring out what needs to be done.
I work at Oak Ridge National Laboratory where computer simulations are used to study possible climate projections for the future. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) mentioned in the third video used computers at ORNL to generate a lot of the data for which they won the Nobel prize jointly with Al Gore in 2007. As I understand it, the Nobel prize is only awarded to scientists who have done work the scientific community as a whole recognizes as valuable.
Who are the 30,000 scientists John Coleman claims are on his side? I didn't hear anywhere in the video a website where I could go see a list of them (but I also didn't listen to the whole thing). As long as I don't have to provide evidence, I could claim that 60,000 doctors agree with me about the best way to eat.
is a thread on a forum for weather students and experts. It seems that most of that group believes that global warming is "mostly a naturally occuring anomaly with some enhancements by humans."
I appreciate the point of one of the posters on stormtrack.org who pointed out that the issue really doesn't have to be whether humans are contributing to global warming or not, but what policy and personal decisions and lifestyle adjustments need to be made to give ourselves and our children the best hope of survival for the future. Whether global warming claims are true or not, air pollution and environmental destruction hurts us. What can we do about it?
Everyone will have to decide what to think for themselves.
The part of the video I watched does not seem credible to me. So that's my opinion.