I've posted some stuff direct from scientists in the past, and didn't want to repeat it. I've wanted to make a global warming thread for some time instead of occasionally posting in the random thread, and I used this brand new video as the time to do so. Also, referencing journalism is not inherently inferior to referencing the raw science UNLESS the journalism is being challenged on accuracy based on science.

Here's the most recent interview with Jim Hansen, one of the world's leading climatologists

http://fora.tv/2009/05/26/Scientist_...Climate_Change

Here's a recent article by the same guy

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-jam..._b_108766.html

Here's a free online book by David MacKay, a scientist detailing what it would take to battle global warming

http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/w...1/page_2.shtml

Here's the synopsis of the book

http://www.withouthotair.com/synopsis10.pdf

Here's one of the more recent publications by scientists at MIT about 'up to date' models on global warming between now and 2100. These models have not factored in a TON of factors for the reasons I mentioned in the OP.

http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2009/roulette-0519.html

Here's by far the best youtube channel I've found about climate change. The director of the channel is an artist, but as you watch the videos you'll see that he references scientific data and scientists like crazy to back up his assertions

http://www.youtube.com/user/greenman3610

A lot of what I say about global warming is from memory due to not remembering the source, but I am diligent at making sure that my sources are backed up by real science. There are few things I loathe more than people making shit up or not using logic

It's a good sign that you're questioning your source. That's representative of having a head on your shoulders

Edit: some of the OP is me making predictions based on my understanding of the factors. I'm an analyst at heart