I wonder why the Hardee's crispy curls are so salty?

Ys Sm, y 'PC dt', gt yr ct tgthr, tk stnd fr wht y dn't blv n.

Gndls, y wld gldly rglt th lvs f thrs fr 'glbl wrmng', 'm sr, bt y dn't rcgnz th dbl stndrd. nd y thnk y'r rght, lk crtnsts d.

@ DUUS
I apologize for making an idiotic over-generalization. I was a little mad. What I meant to say is that, as far as I can tell from the people I know, most support for 'AWG' is tied to a kind of egotistical view of human capability/responsibility, not from a disinterested analysis of facts. The distinction is important because if there were some looming catastrophe it would demand massive government investment and regulation (of our personal lives).
This doesn't at all mean that I don't believe in environmental responsibility, I just don't believe in the thesis - which is all AWG is, a thesis.
As an aside, and this isn't directed at you directly, the idea that skeptics are paid by oil companies, or are driving SUV's, which gets tossed around a lot, is juvenile and misses the point. I personally am still in University and am supporting myself on barely more than minimum wage (in Canada).
What this debate boils down to is whether the government should have a mandate to dramatically intervene in the economy, with 'AWG' believers (if I can use that term) acting (probably unknowingly) as catalysts.

The reason that human-driven climate change has become such a popular cause isn't that it's correct, it's that people want to believe the fate of the planet is dependent on their actions. It's a 21st Century re-enactment of the debate over heliocentrism, and you guys (non-denialists?)are the Inquisition.

I am not going to defend the video, it is ridiculous. The book, however, is amazing. It taught me more about geopolitics than several Poli Sci courses combined. And it is a good read.