It's extremely irrational. Usually the same people that deny global warming also deny evolution.

I watched the first ten minutes, and stopped because it kept making claims without supporting them.

 "Global Warmig has become like a religion"

"Many people will be without jobs"

 "It's not the scientific way"

 Global Warming is more than a theory, as the movie depicts it. 

 Mars may have other reasons for heating up that we are unaware of. However, even IF the Sun is causing Mars to heat up a little bit (And I'd like a source that's not over an hour long, please. I don't have that much free time), how can we as humans not be having any effect on our planet, especially since we consume so much?

Yeah, this is the same type of dismissal of science and evidence, replaced by paranoid conspiracy theories, that you see from creationists. People who have absolutely no expertise in the area hear something and repeat it as if they are educated on all the relevant data and the actual scientists must not have considered things as carefully as they have. I love how they say, "The earth goes through normal periods/cycles of getting warmer and cooler" as if they have some intimate knowledge of the climate that climatologists and meteorologists are completely unaware of and haven't bothered to consider in their findings. The arrogance of these people, thinking they are better informed than the educated experts, is truly mindboggling.

Ask your Catholic friend if he has bothered to inform the scientific community of his astounding observation. Maybe he his holding onto just the precise piece of data they have been overlooking in their years of research.

 I'm going to be as nice as I can. If you say the claims are supported, can you please provide me with evidence so I don't have to try and connect your dots? Global Warming is an observed fact, and if you want to disprove it, can you please at least give me the exact time-frame in the movie where global warming is disproved? 

Also, I'd like a detailed paragraph or more on who made that video and why, please. What experience do those scientists have? What degree do they have and how much study have they given to global warming?

Um, dude, we can observe the Earth up-close and personal. We have broken up pieces of the Arctic and Antarctic ice to get information on what the composition of the atmosphere was (measured by the amount of particles in the ice, though I'm not an expert in the EXACT science of it.). However, I know that it has shown us the changes in CO2 and other gases.

 Of course, there are many more methods that scientists use to prove global warming. This is just one example. However, we do not have easy access to Mars. We may know that it is getting hotter, but that doesn't mean anything. Why isn't Venus getting hotter? If it was more than just Mars, why only make a big deal about Mars? Mars is FARTHER AWAY from the sun than Earth is. Venus is closer, as is Mercury. Wouldn't we notice an even more dramatic change in their temperature? Theoretically (*gasp, I said something with "theory" in it), we would. 

What do you think of the many criticisms/responses to it? 

C'mon, that documentary is as scientific as a creationist book on evolution.  It's so much easier to prove one's case when only part of the data is presented.

The most blatent piece of propaganda was the sun chart.  For some reason the chart just ended in 1980 as if that was the last year data was collected.  To nobody's surprise when the rest of the chart is viewed it reveals a much different result, that the sun's effect on the Earth remains constant while the temperature greatly increases.

When climate change deniers have to rely on lies and pseudoscience it just proves they have no facts to base their case on. 

Honestly, I'm still not totally convinced that global warming is happening.  I mean, the earth is getting hotter, but it's been scientifically observed that the earth goes through cycles of the earth heating up and cooling down.  The hottest year on record is 1934 - not 1998, as some folks say.  They certainly weren't driving SUVs back then. 

30 years ago, there was a similar media scare - global cooling.  If you didn't believe in global cooling in the 1970's, you were labelled a brainwashed conservative who probably thought the earth was also flat.  Now we know that it was all bullshit.  Sound familiar?  

From the link qbg posted:

"It has been well-established in the scientific literature that the period of cooling that was most evident over North America and Europe between about 1940 and 1976 was largely due to increased concentrations of aerosols (particularly sulphates) released into the atmosphere by industrial processes, such as the combustion of coal. These aerosols lowered the amount of solar radiation reaching the Earth’s surface, for instance by scattering sunlight. The concentrations of these aerosols have been shown to be highest in the Northern Hemisphere, close to their industrial sources. A paper by David Stern, published in the journal ‘Chemosphere’ in 2005, showed that sulphurous emissions around the world increased sharply between 1945 and about 1989, since when they have declined markedly. Sulphuruous emissions peaked in North America and Europe during the 1970s."

When the stories of climate change were hitting the papers in Alaska the scientists at my old university (UAF) pondered why the Antarctic was heating up faster than the Arctic. It was pointed out that the pollution in the North was blocking the sunlight from hitting the ice.

In Michael Moore's Bowling For Columbine he made reference to how smoggy LA used to be and how it's been cleaned up. The simple fact the scientists are talking about global cooling anymore is because the pollution that was causing the cooling has been cleaned up.

Global warming deniers use the same methods as the creationists. They pick and choose which information they'll promote and disregard any evidence after the fact. 

To my understanding, the deal with other planets heating up is fully known. The issue is that those planets naturally have great amounts of greenhouse gasses, and so this is normal. Heating and cooling periods do indeed happen on Earth, but normally it's able to self-regulate to keep things from getting out of hand. There has been no denial that the Earth goes through warming periods, what makes this different is that we are outside of normal range and it looks like it may go out of control.

 The deniers like to point out things like the medieval warming while leaving out the fact that it was restricted to a particular region (Europe) while the rest of the planet stayed relatively normal.

It should really raise some red flags when there are really no scientists coming out against climate change. The others tend to play on the idea that scientists can't be trusted, that they are somehow consipiring for money. The fact is, however, that most of this data came in while scientists were studying other things and found the data almost accidentally. It just makes no sense to suggest that they have missed something obvious, are conspiring, or even that they're just nodding their heads with their peers to save face. For starters, the financial risk was with coming out with this data - scientists lost jobs because of it, and scientists do NOT make carreers by simply agreeing with everything.

If a scientist came out with solid evidence against climate change, it would make that person much much more rich and famous than simply agreeing and moving on. 

Pineapple, you posted a link from wikipedia, which clearly says:

Quote:

This is an incomplete list, which may never be able to satisfy certain standards for completeness.

Revisions and sourced additions are welcome.