Since you've gone and opened the door with, "Everyone that down voted me never backed it up with a reason."

I didn't downvote you, but only because it was already at -2 and that seemed reasonable to me. Frankly, I didn't see much in your comment that merited a response. I read it, and thought of all of the other things I ought to be doing, and couldn't justify taking the time to try to clear things up for someone who can't be arsed to clear them up for themselves. I might as well be spending my time arguing with someone proclaiming that the moon landing was a hoax.

> So instead of it happening in 10 years, it's going to happen in 90 million years???????

Your original criticism betrayed a serious bias on your part. Even now, your response to the correction is that "the numbers are still off" -- well, no. The range has been narrowed. Technically speaking, the original range is still correct. And, again, this doesn't in any way address the point of the report, which is that many millions of people -- especially the poor -- will be affected by this. Yet, in typical style, rather than addressing this point, people who have a problem with the conclusions of the report are quibbling over the details in it as though that casts some kind of shadow of a doubt over the conclusions of the report.

It does not.

You then compounded that mistake,

> Even Al Gore...

I actually smirked at this. It would have been totally hilarious, if it were part of a parody. Unfortunately you seem to be completely serious. (Or trolling successfully.)

Concern about global warming predates Mr. Gore by quite a bit. However, he's chosen to serve as a spokesperson and representative-of-sorts for the various efforts to mitigate the risks posed by anthropogenic global warming. He is a figurehead, and as such, those with an axe to grind are tilting at him instead of, say, y'know, the facts. His name was nowhere in the article, nowhere else in the comments. You introduced it.

Article: "There was an error in a report."

Comments: "This proves the report is not trustworthy." "No, it doesn't."

You: "Al Gore Al Gore Alllll Gooooooore!"

As far as "profiting" from this? This really, really isn't hard to understand. If I wanted to be a spokesperson for space exploration, then it would stand to reason that I am personally interested in space exploration, and it would further stand to reason that I would want to invest in space exploration. Conflict of interest? No, not at all. A conflict of interest only occurs when such a person is in a position to legislate or rule over other people who might disagree. i.e., Gore probably shouldn't serve on a jury against BP; or, if all of those companies were based in a particular state, and he was a representative of that state, then he might legitimately be accused of pork barrel spending if he pushed for a bill increasing funding for those companies.

But no such thing is happening. Instead you're reaching into as many ugly paint buckets as possible, and throwing wet brushes: "He's profiting from this!" "It's all his fault!" Etc.

> My biggest problem is that entire countries are basing laws on these findings, which cost citizens billions of dollars in tax revenue.

Even if I were to agree that this is true -- and I don't -- you are completely ignoring the cost of doing nothing. If it were possible to say that Hurricane Katrina occurred as a direct result of anthropogenic global warming -- which I don't believe, either, by the way -- then wouldn't that imply that the costs of global warming were at least equal to the price tag of Katrina, plus all other costs? This cannot be ignored.

And then there's the benefits from continuing to advance "green" technologies. I want to see more efficient wind farms; I want to see better solar panel technologies. These are things which move our society forward. We will not advance, technologically, into the next century, by underfunding new technologies and spending the money instead on older technologies.

> There is now too much money going around for anyone to really come out with the truth.

No, the truth is available, but some people aren't listening.

> ...which was global warming, but got changed for some reason........

This was the only part of your comment that I briefly considered responding to, and only because I see this idiotic statement way too often.

It would be totally trivial to find the answer to this. Easy. Piece-of-cake. But doing so would require you to venture outside your comfort zone, the comfort zone where you believe you already have all the information you need to make an "informed" decision.

The central issue is warming. When oceans get warmer, when surface and air temperatures get warmer, the climate changes. Thus, "global warming" -> "global climate change".

The maddeningly stupid thing about this particular red herring is that the term change was the result of uninformed people running around shrieking, "But it's colder this Winter in my town than it was last year! That means global warming is lies, all lies!"