Well done Andrew. You've hit the nail on the hammer with this editorial.

Very insightful article, Andrew. Thanks!

Al Gore will find a tough time ahead due to the current global downturn in temperature as well as the lack of any net global warming in the past ten years:

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.C.lrg.gif

Even if it is temporary, it was not predicted by the various global climate (not weather!) models.

Gore is a loose cannon who thrives on sensationalism. But if he is brought down, another well known figure stands ready to assume the rein's of power.

The founder of CNN made some rather asinine comments last week during a PBS interview. During a Charlie Rose/Ted Turner dialogue, Mr. Turner said, "We'll be 8 degrees hotter in 30 or 40 years and basically none of the crops will grow. Most of the people will have died and the rest of us will be cannibals. Civilization will have broken down. The few people left will be living in a failed state, like Somalia or Sudan and living conditions will be intolerable."

Even Al Gore couldn't top that!!

Fantastic job Andrew...it's about time someone hit Coleman and Bastardi not to mention the quite unprofessional way in which the latter has gone about attacking the former Vice President irrespective of the merits of his position. Thanks!

Mr Freedman,

Your comment, 'The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, for example, requires multiple stages of review by experts in numerous fields, and political representatives of the world's governments must approve one key section of the report line-by-line. In fact, it's possible that there has not been a scientific issue that has ever been studied as closely, by as many scientists and from as many diverse disciplines, as climate change has', shows you may need to more fully research current information concerning the the IPCC review process. The following links provides evidence which is contrary to the above statement you made.
http://www.climateaudit.org/?cat=23

The IPCC does NOT go through multiple levels of review. It has literally been taken over by enviro-activists, and publications are not pre-approved by the so-called 2,000. And I believe that, like in Britain, it will only be in a court of law where the truth of Gore's lies shall prevail. Scientists wanting grant money to discredit the 'consensus' can't get it, and the MSM is only too happy to print the most salacious headlines. AFter all, they need readers too. How long do we have to wait before it's shown that, like the tectonic plate movements, bad science seems to always prevail until it's proven beyond doubt they were wrong.

Anonymous,
Nice work on the selective reporting of global temperatures. Like not showing that a president is in a wheel chair.

Here is a better one.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.lrg.gif
It shows that the 5-year average is still on an upward trend.

8 out of the last 10 years have been warmer than the 10...wait..100 years before them!

Yeah, nothing to see here.

Gordon: I looked at the link you provided, and found some useful info there. However, I don't think it provides enough evidence to support the assertion that the IPCC review process is not as thorough as I made it out to be. My writing was based on many conversations over the past few years with IPCC contributors, and with scholars who study the process of scientific assessments. Of course, the IPCC process is not perfect, and Steve McIntyre and others clearly believe it is sorely lacking because of a failure to incorporate more skeptical views.

How would you improve the process to make it more inclusive of different scientific views on climate change?

Andrew,

Quite frankly I find your piece to be insulting. You criticize Bastardi for selective fact picking yet that is exactly what you doing. As if what you written is accurate reflection of his position. I always find it amusing when model readers criticize people like Joe B..

I am not a climatologist, but I do know someting about the development of mathematical models for complex, non-linear systems. The abilities of such models to make accurate predictions (including short, medium, and long term forecasts) have to be demonstrated before too much faith is placed in them. The Earth's climate is so hideoously complex - impacted in so many unpredictable ways by so many factors (many of which cannot be wasily measured). Frankly it seems almost ridiculous on the face of it to say that one of the few climate factors we can actually measure reasonably accurately over a decent period ot time (temperature) is being driven by the one external force (man-made CO2 emissions) we can estimate and influence to some extent(at least in theory). It's a little bit like ancient cultures believing in the need for sacrifices or rituals to guarantee rain for their crops.

daenku32,

You're right. Here's a comparative data from the UKMet's Hadley Centre. You can really see how temperatures have soared over the last 5-10 years globally:

http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/diagnostics/global/nh+sh/monthly.png

Nope. No downward trend here. Al Gore will have no problems with this dataset.

Is there and member of the 'Gang that can provide an article stating the "other side" of the argument that goes against global warming? Mr. Freedman's articles are always great reads, and I think he is very knowledgeable about topics he writes about, but there is another side to this. I think it would be very helpful to all of us readers who aren't "up-to-date" with both sides of the story. Maybe some one here has already written a past article addressing that side? I just don't remember reading one since I became a regular to this blog. Thanks!

andrew,
you got the title right...however, if you really want to understand the price of al gore's scam, perhaps you could research and publish who is spending $300 million on AGW ads, what do they stand to benefit from it and what are their connections to the supposed peer reviewed IPCC and AGW climate scientists...i bet its not to save the world from global meltdown...in perhaps you could also research where climatologists get their funding and how......until you research and publish your own peer review of the players involved, your arguments as to the validity of climate science are hypocritical...to go around wildly speculating that climate scientists somehow have a clue about predicting earths temperature to within one degree fifty years from now, after time and time failing to get the next year right in contrast to Joe Bastardi's more accurate forecasts, underscores your misunderstanding of earths complex physical environment...your faith that the title "climatologist" allows someone to look into a subjectively inputted computer generated crystal ball and have all the right answers doesnt get very far when all the facts are peer reviewed...facts climate scientists want to keep hidden from peer review...do the research, andrew, AGW is an infomercial to pilfer money and al gore is the bus driver...

To Will in Fairfax: Here is a link to a huge collection of information expressing views of 'the other side'. Take your time and give it some thought. It is entirely different than what the MSM presents.

Will:
You will have to go elsewhere to get a balanced story.This site promotes the certainty of global warming being human-caused both unabashedly and unashamedly.

I recommend this site:

http://icecap.us/index.php

Not your standard media fare there.

Well written Andrew, but I have to say that the so stressed "peer review" process
isn't doing the job as advertised.
It took two Canadians Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick to out review those fantastic reviewers over at the IPCC.
None of these brillant minds realized that the so called Hockey Stick Graph was fabricated to look the way it did in Gore's movie. Remember the scissor lift scene?
That graph is bogus and the IPCC quietly
brushed it out of their next report.
In a file marked: "confidential" the truth was found. The makers of that graph
(Team Michael Mann) had deliberately left the Medieval Warming period and the little ice age out of the data set.
So much for the confidence we should have for the all mighty IPCC and that world famous "peer reviewed" science.
It's a disgrace.
And Al Gore?
Yesterday he claimed during one of his teaching sessions in Montreal that Global Warming was to blame for The Aral Sea to have dried up.
It could not have been farther from the truth.
The truth is that the Aral Sea was pumped dry by dumb Communist planners in the former Sopviet Union who had a vision of planting and growing Cotton in a place where there had never been any.
Cotton is notoriously thirsty, they sucked the Aral Sea dry. This was a human caused ecological disaster. Nothing whatsoever to do with Global Warming.
"Tipper and I visited the site and could not believe our eyes"
What a BS.

Sammy K: See a previous column I wrote for an explanation of the differences between weather prediction and climate. You might find it gives some perspective to the issue: http://blog.washingtonpost.com/capitalweathergang/2008/02/the_meaning_of_an_asterisk_1.html.
Also, I think you've confused the process of peer review that is used for publishing scientific papers with the peer review of people (experts and non-experts) reading and commenting on each other's work online, such as what we've been doing here.

Andrew,

Thanks for taking the time to have a look at the provided link. In answer to the your question: It's not so much that the IPCC incorporate 'sceptical'views. The issue is that the peer review process of the IPCC doesn't use impartial reviewers, many are associates of the lead authors. Hardly seems impartial to my way of thinking. The link info says to me that the 2000 to 2500 scientist consensus is a fallacy based on the problems with their peer review process and that bureaucrats have the final say in what is presented the public.

Andrew, the link you just posted doesn't work. Kind of like those long-lead climate models. Just kidding.

We, the current day humans, are so full of ourselves. We control the climate? We can fix the climate?

Sounds like a microwave burrito to me.

A microwave burrito that undoes the principles of natural selection.

When the catastrophe hits what will man EVER do????? ADAPT. Like he has always done. Through Ice Ages and Global Warming cycles.

Gordon, thanks for clarifying your views on the IPCC. You have a good point in that if reviewers are handpicked by the lead authors, they wouldn't exactly be impartial. I'll inquire with an IPCC lead author and see what the response is.

Sorry for the broken link. Try this .

Thank you for your thoughtful column, Andrew. It is a shame that you had to write it. Critics of Vice President Gore's efforts to educate the world about climate change are living in a world free from the burden of reality.

Climate change is real and it is having a negative impact on the planet Earth. Luckily the critics of climate change science, critics of Vice President Gore, and critics of climate change columnists like you, won't have to deal with the longterm effects of human-created global warming during their lifetime. Their grandchildren and great grandchildren, however, will suffer their from their ancestor's denial.

Even the EPA under the stewardship of the Bush Administration has noted that global warming will lead to negative health effects for humans - especially children and the elderly. Of course, at the same time the EPA reminds us that global warming will reduce deaths due to exposure to cold. So at least we have that going for us.

While Vice President Gore isn't perfect, his efforts to educate the world about the issue of climate change are to be applauded. And I hope that the next President makes addressing climate change, and American reliance on fossil fuels, the centerpiece of their administration's efforts.

Thanks to all with the responses to my post.

Gordon Andelin- I can't find the link to click on in your post. Any chance you could repost?

Also, is there any member of the 'Gang who disagrees with Mr. Freedman? Or is it all of the same mindset? Thanks!

Great he speaks the truth

I think Andrew made some great points, particularly one that I hope those who advocate tackling climate change now will heed: Al Gore is doing their cause more harm than good. It is quite obvious he is seeking to promote himself as much as his cause.

My only other comment is that I think Andrew might have missed the one issue I think a lot of people are missing. The science is certainly compelling that the earth is warming. The science is also compelling that human-produced CO2 emissions are contributing. What is not compelling the science is the EXTENT to which that human-produced CO2 is contributing. And that is key - we all agree that combating climate change is goign to be wildly expensive, and the increased costs (particularly in energy prices) will impact the poor the most. So before we as a nation (and as a world community go down that road), we need to know if the expense will actually produce results. We can't know that until we answer the extent to which humans are actually contributing.

Again, we know we are contributing - we just don't know how much. Unfortunately, these kinds of shades of grey don't play well in our cable news society. You are either "for" or "against." No middle ground.

Southside FFX: Actually there is not agreement that combating climate change is going to be, as you say, "wildly expensive," when compared with the costs of inaction. Many studies show that combating the problem will actually cost less than pursuing a business as usual approach.

Will in Fairfax: My column represents my views only, and not any editorial view of the Capital Weather Gang. One of my editors will respond to your questions in a subsequent comment.

"Gore's political advocacy presents a danger that climate change science will continue taking hits along with the former politician."

Andrew, I don't see any evidence that Gore's activities have hurt climate science. For that matter, I don't see Gore himself being hurt. Sure, both he and the science get attacked, but you need to provide some evidence that those attacks are becoming more effective because of Gore's presence. You haven't. If you were going to, the example of obvious loons like Bastardi and Coleman makes for poor material to build such a case.

To Will in Fairfax: Here is a link to a huge collection of information expressing views of 'the other side'. Take your time and give it some thought. It is entirely different than what the MSM presents. Will...sorry I failed to add the link. Here it is.

http://z4.invisionfree.com/Popular_Technology/index.php?showtopic=2050

I used to think Al Gore made a perfectly competent Vice President. I now believe he'd make a perfectly competent shoe salesman. Consider: The glaciers came down, the glaciers went away, and neither the advance nor the retreat had anything to do with the number of campfires ancient man was lighting on the Wisconsin. It's a chapter in the planet's physical story unfolding, folks, that's all.

Will in Fairfax: We have a couple contributors who cover the climate change issue and both hold a position that is consistent with published scientific assessments (e.g., IPCC, National Academies) and numerous scientific institutions (AMS, AGU, AAAS, etc.)

Generally speaking, Capital Weather Gang as an entity has no official position on the climate change issue (as opposed to its individual contributors, who are welcome to express their personal views). Also, note, that while posts related to climate change often generate the most heated discussion and are an important element of our content, it is the day-to-day D.C. area weather -- and how it impacts the lives of Washingtonians -- that is our primary focus.

Gore's own self interest (the company that he has set up to trade carbon credits) underscores his support of the global warming hoax. The "creator of the internet" sure knows how to manipulate the feeble-minded. He gives PT Barnum a run for the money.

Andrew you are deluded beyond belief. The numbers Gore used in his propaganda piece where based upon the wildy errant stats.

______

TEST

The hypothesis of the day is that human-caused CO2 emissions will result in dangerous global warming.

TEST 1:
Asks whether dangerous warming is actually occurring. Temperature measurements using ground-based thermometers, balloon-mounted radiosondes and satellite-mounted microwave sensing units all agree that no warming has occurred since 1998; indeed, once account is taken of the urban heat island effect on ground thermometers, little warming can be demonstrated since 1980 despite a 55 ppm (17%) increase in atmospheric CO2.since then.

TEST 2:
Asks whether temperature changes that have occurred since the mid-20th century lie outside the range of previous natural variation in either magnitude or rate. The answer is uniformly "no" as tested against datasets that span time scales of hundreds, thousands, tens and hundreds of thousands, and millions of years.

TEST 3:
Asks whether changes in the presumed cause (CO2 increase) occur before changes in the presumed effect (temperature increase). Data from Antarctic ice cores show unequivocally that the answer to this question also is "no", i.e. the presumed effect predates the presumed cause.

TEST 4:
Asks whether a close correlation exists between the monotonic increase seen in atmospheric carbon dioxide during the 20th century and the global temperature curve. The answer is that the two curves are uncorrelated, with the steepest increase in CO2 occurring between 1940 and 1980 at precisely the same time that global temperature cooled for several decades.

TEST 5:
Notes that theoretical calculations and modeling predict that greenhouse-forced warming should increase near the poles and also with height gained in the tropical troposphere, and asks whether this "fingerprint" pattern is replicated by modern temperature observations. The answer is that observations demonstrate precisely the opposite, with cooling in Antarctica and more warming at the tropical surface than occurs above in the troposphere.

_______

But by all means, don't try thinking about this, just jump on the Al Gore bandwagon.

The truth is now a sucker punch? Quite incisive illumination into how the Left "thinks".

Of course Gore doesn't debate anyone. Just as the homeless street preacher doesn't debate anything either. He just continues to shout and shout.

If scientists actually had the data, they would be able to drown out their self-appointed loudmouth. Unfortunately, they don't have the data so they let him yammer on because they share his beliefs and prejudices.

..."There is a strong statistical correlation between increased atmospheric carbon levels and increased surface temperature...." This is not a scientific factual statement. If anyone possesses such facts, he should post them here. Attaching and insulting non-global warming alarmists doesn't contribute anything worthwhile to this discussion.
...All of this global warming hysteria results in much taxpayer money spent on endless research and computer program projects. To what avail? What is being accomplished by scaring the public? What do these global warming alarmists expect the public to do about all of their endless hypothetical global warming disasters?
.....Why is every article on Carbon Dioxide (CO2) caused Global Warming based on FEAR and/or DIRE predictions of very bad future events? The reason is that there is no scientific history, facts and/or evidence linking Carbon Dioxide as the cause of Global Warming. The FEAR factor must be and is used as a substitute.
.....The earth currently may be in a warming period as a logical consequence the demise of the relatively recent 500 year Little Ice Age. That 500 year cold period was very bad; where many millions died from starvation, disease and plagues. One should be very thankful that it did not last at least another 100 years; but that, at least, would have negated the current hysteria about global warming!

Andrew,
Good post. Re brainwashing of kids re global warming: have you ever heard of the Vaclac Klaus Climate Joke Awards blog? Google it to find it or go here:
http://climatejokeawards.blogspot.com

Also, Andrew, ever heard of my idea of polar cities for future survivors of global warming? Google polar cities to see or more. NY Times reported on it last Saturday, Andrew Revkin blog. Wonder if you can report on Polar Cities Project in the Post or on this blog one day and let readers disgust, pro or con. meant Discuss.

Danny Bloom
Tufts 1971
http://pcillu10.blogspot.com

Correction link
POLAR CITIES

http://pcillu101.blogspot.com

I read/heard (not sure where) that al gore's movie was banned in the UK for being deliberately misleading
any truth to this?

Any man who could invent the internet and follow it up by inventing global warming certainly is an individual to be reconed with! To top it off, he won a nobel peace prize for his efforts, as did Arafat.

Brian Columbia - Gore's movie was to be shown in schools - then someone went to court - then the court decided that there were problems with the movie BUT DID NOT BAN IT, rather the court just required that some sort of disclaimer accompany the showings, if I remember right. Which, in my mind, is not sufficient. Gore's movie is clearly incorrect on sevreal points. Gore himself has publicly excused himself for admitted falsifications by stating that he believes it is appropriate to present false information if your goal is urgent enough - he believes that it is right to "scare you" into doing what is right, in effect.

"Well-established science?" Like completely forgetting to mention that the "correlation of CO2 to global warming" works in reverse, and by almost 400 years? And not to mention that closer correlation, by far, is seen with solar activity than with CO2 levels?

Consensus is completely irrelevant to science. Look at the DATA.

Climate change? It appears that they are beginning to short "global warming". In the 70's when I was in college the outcry was global cooling. However, the most noble of causes was to save the helium supply whose source was limited to a few wells in West Texas. Helium was so important to the scientific endeavor that a ban on helium filled balloons was urged before we lost our sole supply. It is now 35 years later and you can still buy party packs at Wal Mart to make your own helium-filled balloons. At last it appears our noble cause rose inertly into the stratosphere of academic indulgence. It was also hard to find funding for saving the helium since the refrain "Remember the Hindenburg" didn't resonate as well as "rising sea levels" - but the Goodyear boys were interested.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is a political farce and a scientific disgrace. To not acknowledge that fact is to implicitly support its statements as factual and accurate, neither of which is true.

PS officially pencil me in a global warming (or is that global climate change ?!?) denier.

IF you accept that man made CO2 has increased enough to change the surface temperature due to the green house affect. And, if ordinary air is made up of a percentage of nitrogen, oxyegen, carbon dioxide and other trace noble gases, where is the corresponding data that shows the percentage of each gas has changed from your text book days? Are we now 75% nitrogen, 23% CO2 etc?

Andrew,

You say "Gore is a just a messenger of climate science. He doesn't need to debate anyone."

Al Gore won the Nobel prize. He is not a messenger. He is the LEADER of a movement. Did he win the Nobel Prize by simply "narrating" a science fiction movie? No.

Gore in a statement said "We face a true planetary emergency. The climate 'crisis' is a moral and spiritual challenge to all of humanity."

A "crisis?"

People, especially leaders, debate in order to better present their side of an arguement. As a politician, he is a master-debater. What's the problem Andrew? I agree, the science IS changing, yet his "message" remains the same. According to you, debating his point-of-view is out of line. Bring it on Al. Let's hear a debate. You are a politician with an agenda.

Andrew

Climate models are wrong. Water Vapors outweighs the effects of Co2 in Green house effect by 10 to 1 and nobody knows how to model clouds in any of the climate models...this alone should tell an engineer(myself),or anyone else, that the climate model programs are full of -----.

If the climate model programs were accurate, they could go back in time and verify the actual empirical results over past time. There is not a one that can do this. This means that they have not even verified the accuracy of their climate model programs before unleashing this climate terror hype on the world. Every Engineer knows that when you write a program, you must test it on samples of data to make sure that you are getting the correct crunching of the numbers and formulae.
THEY HAVE NOT DONE EVEN THIS BASIC FACT CHECKING!!. THEY DO NOT INCLUDE AND CANNOT MODEL CLOUDS!!
When you weigh these facts you must come to the conclusion that Global Warming is a concept based on faith, hype and fear. These are generally called religions.

Anything we can do would only put off the expected increase (which isn't much) by 4 years.
This would cost many billions of dollars a year and produce no significant results. And save no lives.
More people die from the cold than the heat, there is a net positive to the human species from warming
as has been seen in warmings of the past. This warming is not nearly as warm as the world has been in the past, yet the media hypes it as the warmest ever. Lies not based on fact.

Much better to invest the money in pursuits that save lives, and lots of them, like fighting Malaria and Hunger, AIDs etc.

Oh yeah...that 20 to 35 foot ocean rise, that Mr Gore has been scaring people with.....the new, more correct, numbers say on the order of 13 inches in 100 years.


If you have not read;

Unstoppable Global Warming, every 1500 years --S. Fred Singer and Dennis T. Avery

Meltdown: The Predictable Distortion of Global Warming by Scientists, Politicians and the Media -- Patrick J. Michaels

Cool It -- Bjorn Lomborg

Shattered Consensus..The True State of Global Warming -- Patrick J. Michaels

Then you are not getting the facts...just the hype.

But a good try anyway.
Maybe you can try again after some research on both sides.............

Andrew:

You are obviously a person who concerns yourself with words and their meaning. As a wordsmith, I'm sure you carefully choose your words for everything you write. And since you've dropped the word "consensus" into your article as if it is a forgone conclusion regarding the position of most scientists, can you please refer me to the study or emperical data that proves there is a consensus? As far as I have ever seen, the only consensus is among the scientists that Al Gore talks to. In any case, you have to know how many scientists there are to determine whether more than half agree, and I've never seen even a modest attempt to establish this as a fact by any reputable scientist. McCarthyism indeed.

Most scientists I know think that the evidence is still inconclusive on the causal relationship between global warming and human activity. This would also explain why most people I know are tired of scientists who say "the sky is falling" because they need research grants, while others feel the need to put their hands on the their wallets when the politicians engage in this kind of hyperbole.

It won't be long before new genetic research will lead to the elimination of methane from the effluence of cows that will reduce the effect of "greenhouse gasses" many times more than anything else we can control like vehicle emissions. In fact, the effect of methane is so much worse than CO2 that many scientists question whether man can actually influence the global temperature without the help of cows. As funny as this may sound, I understand that it is truth, no matter how inconvenient. It should make you wonder why Al Gore doesn't tell everyone to stop eating beef. It's not like he's going to run for President again, so he doesn't need to farm lobby to like him anymore.

In the same vein, I think it's extremely entertaining to know that the sun's radiation output has been increasing by 0.5% per decade since the late 1970s, and everyone feels the need to blame global warming on human activities despite evidence to the contrary.

Given the history of the planet, I have little patience for people who suck up the tripe that Al Gore and his ilk are pushing. It's not enough to say that he's an idiot--although he did invent the Internet (o.k., I even know better on that one, too). But it is disturbing to me that we are getting ready to consider spending billions of dollars of public money to save the world from this unproven menace. Interestingly, the United States with its apparently antiquated EPA has done a better job reducing the rate of increase of CO2 emissions since the Kyoto Accord than those countries that signed on to it (except Germany, of course, and they started with old Soviet factories that were decommissioned during that time).

It just goes to show that you don't have to ask companies twice to reduce their energy consumption and run more efficiently to save money. Businesses with the requisite resources will do that without passing any new laws, without being asked, and they will do it because it helps the bottom line.

And can someone please tell me who invented the "green" movement? They were idiots too, because green things require CO2 to grow, and most plants thrive on higher concentrations of CO2.

In the end, there's no substitute for good stewardship, and leaving the planet better than you found it. But I don't have to subscribe to Al Gore's fear mongering and hyperbole, and I don't have to accept the unproven scientific "consensus" to believe and act on the idea that we should responsiblly control our emissions. It's why I go to the bathroom when I have to fart at dinner, and it's why we should all work to reduce our energy consumption, even if there is no causal relationship between global warming and human activity.

Gore is a pagan knucklehead - as are his followers on this global warming nonsense.

But I do have to hand it to Mr Gore.....he is doing a good job of sequestering Carbon these days...........

What surprises me about this column is that the author says this, in the middle of a section about his (unsupported) claims that the global warming research is reviewed probably better than any scientific issue ever has...

" political representatives of the world's governments must approve one key section of the report line-by-line"

is Mr. Freeman blind? He just wrote, that science is now credible, in part, BECAUSE bureaucrats are approving science line by line!

If anything, this shows just how corrupt the entire work of the IPCC is. The lengthy approval process is handled buy political representatives. Science does NOT get included in the reports unless "the state"(s) approves of the content.

That should send chills up the spine of anyone that loves the legacy, now in danger, of true science.

I think before another step is taken, before another dollar is spent, the entire IPCC process must be opened up, especially full transcripts of the entire review process, if not a full video record.

If this is an important issue to the world, then the doors should not be closed to the world.

That should send

all the discussion should be about how much warming is attributed to each factor. We can monitor the symptoms, but nobody can quantify the causes. Here is one of them:

http://solar.physics.montana.edu/YPOP/Spotlight/Magnetic/Images/butterfly.jpg

Global climate models (GCMs) are at their heart computational fluid dynamics (CFD) models. That is, they use computer arithmetic to solve equations that approximate the equations that describe the physical phenomena of fluid flows (primarily the atmosphere and ocean). In the case of GCMs this involves (in a simplified sense, and with a smidge of redundancy) fluid (mass) flows, energy flows, phase changes, and chemical reactions. Accurate solutions depend upon :

1.) Understanding all the physical inputs that effect the output, which in this case in something called global temperature.
2.) Creating valid (testable) mathematical models of the relationship of these inputs to the output (temperature).
3.) Creating approximations of these mathematical models that can be solved arithmetically on the computer.
4.) Using computers with sufficient arithmetic accuracy to solve these equations.
5.) Existence of an accurate dataset against which the computer solutions can be checked for validity, and to "bound" the solution. (In other words, to establish the temperature - or more accurately, the global temperature field - at given date and time. The computer model starts from this point and calculates its way forward into time. Lots of other boundary conditions have to be known at the outset as well.)

I have worked as an engineer for over 25 years, much of that involved in the use of CFD models to predict flows far simpler than the global climate. This experience tells me that there is no way that predictions can be made with the accuracy claimed for global climate models. Modeling all these physics and chemistry is extraordinarily difficult, and solving the resulting model computationally remains daunting. Please note that my experience doesn't tell me that there isn't manmade global climate change, but that the tools and data used to support the claim that there is are incapable of doing so. The dataset is a particular concern, because accurate and complete temperature readings have been available for well less the 100 years. To base our understanding of global climate change on this dataset would be like saying "I understand the valley in which I live, therefore I understand the mountain range in which I live"

In order to gain a better understanding of GCM, I referenced the the IPCC report, Section 8, "Climate Models and Their Evaluation." This section is of interest to me because it is an area in which I have some - although not exhaustive - expertise, and thus am qualified to have an opinion.

Now it turns out that there is not one GCM, but well over a dozen. They counter-predict in many situations. (in other words, when one says "up" the other says "down".) They don't all model the same physics. Page 591 is an interesting read, and should give the cognizant reader considerable doubt about predictions made with the current set of GCMs. The final statement on page 593 is perhaps the most illuminating, quoted here:

"The analysis of processes contributing to climate feedbacks in models and recent studies based on large ensembles of models suggest that in the future it may be possible to use observations to narrow the current spread in model projections of climate change."

"...the current spread of model projections of climate change?"

These are the words of the IPCC report itself, not some hysterical oil company stooges. This closing statement of the "executive summary" discussion of GCMs, the predictive tool upon which IPCC climate change predictions depend, should dramatically dampen any belief that current science is in any way capable of predicting global warming or cooling with the accuracy claimed.

I covered Gore's 60 Minutes interview on my global warming skeptics news site, Skeptics Global Warming and I was at a complete loss as to why Gore would put his foot by belittling the very people he's spending $300 million to convince of impending doom. Spokesman for the cause or not, Gore should shoe some respect and dignity to his fellow man.

Thank you J. C. - you took many words right from my fingers before I typed them. Yes, that word 'Green' that they use - what a crock of BS that is. Plants do love a lot more CO2 and they generally like a warmer and wetter climate which we would get with global warming even if that were actually happening which it has not in the last 10 years.

I'm a mechanical engineer, (excuse any spelling errors!), and I recall the first thing that I did years ago when I first heard of this doomsday prophecy was to ask myself, "Are these lunatics actually trying to convince me that the minescule amount, ~.1%, that we add to an already low concentration of CO2, under 400 PPM, is going to do WHAT?"

So, over the years, I found out things like that termites alone emit more greenhouse gas than us, learned that top atmospheric physicists like Richard Lindzen don't believe this crap, discovered that CO2 was 5 to 10 times higher millions of years ago when plants abounded in a paradise that was at times as cool as it is now despite that CO2, read a part in the recent IPCC report that states directly that they are really not very certain at all about the exact physical relationship effects between water vapor and heat transport as well as that their whole schtick is based way more on math correlation not physics, learned of the medieval warm period when it was as warm or warmer than now but with far less CO2 than now, learned that ice core samples prove that global warming preceeds CO2 concentration by hundreds of years which makes sense given a warmer planet will have more respiring life and warmer ocean must give up stored CO2, learned that MANY temperature reporting stations used by NOAA are corrupted by urban heat island effect but their data is used anyway with FUDGE FACTORS that they ~think~ are justified instead of just throwing that data out as any normal scientist would at least consider doing, and, lastly, found out that global warming STOPPED for the last ten years while CO2 has just continued to rise thus proving outright that the Gore's prediction failed and is really just a crock of BS.

... So, going back to my initial question, I realized NOOOO! What an idiot I am! They aren't trying to convince ME or anyone like me at all! They only need to convince a STUPID UNSCIENTIFIC MAJORITY FOR THEIR POLITICAL AIM.

Once I realized that I googled AL GORE + MAURICE STRONG and it all makes complete sense to me now...

This well-written and profound article belongs in a high school newspaper. There go 5 minutes of my life, wasted.

Gore is a crackpot. His mind is closed on this issue. To conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that global warming (if it is indeed real), exists due significantly because of human activity, tells me all I need to know about Albert Gore.

With the La Nina shift in our winter weather many more people are starting to question AGW. The models didn't predict it(La Nina). until it was well underway. They didn't predict it would last, but it did.

Winter is not over in the Northern Hemisphere, even though it is into April, and there is still snow in the forcast. How long will this hold back the growing season on the great plains? World Grain supplies are very low and it will take a bumper crop season to push the world supply upwards again. If poor weather gives us a low yeild then the climate realists will point to other causes than CO2, because, as they will point out, CO2 helps plants grow and we just keep adding more and more.
The warmist will of course blame it on global warming/climate change even when the evidence points to much more powerful climate drivers than our pathetic contribution.

The sky is falling because of global warming! LOL

"But it seems Bastardi would rather subscribe to wild speculation by meteorologists who are unschooled in global climate dynamics, people like San Diego weatherman and Weather Channel founder John Coleman"

So Al Gore IS schooled in global climate Dynamics ??
Pardon me, but your slip is showing...

Also, can someone tell me how a cop can monitor the speed of Automobiles and never look at the cars ?
His radar gun cannot tell him how many cars are going by, but in his infinite wisdom he can "accurately" (sic) forcast traffic VOLUME with a speed indicator..
Such is the case for GW theorists...they say they can monitor the co2 and predict temps, but never look at the "source"
( Solar Energy ?)
"Come now Watson...lets not look at facts"

Lastly, One of the greatist minds of the past hundred years was Albert Einstein, and yet to this day, it is his "Theory of Relativity" that we have because it is still debated....what happened to Al Gores" Theory of Global Warming?
I guess it is so obvious to THE cop, that we do not need to go to court ?

Why do you buy Gore and the IPCC report? Their predictions from 10 years ago have been totally debunked, but that's not covered by the MSM. The IPCC cherry-picked facts & stats to mesh in way to support their latest fab storyline. Many of those same scientists have disavowed the IPCC, as they know their work was taken out of context and politicized.
And, you're wrong about a dwindling number of scientists who are skeptical of man-made global warming and especially the doomsday alarmism. As the so-called "facts" continue to be exposed for the politicized & baseless predictions that they are, the house of cards will continue to fall apart. Unfortunately, common sense won't come soon enough before loony carbon-trading schemes make a bunch of third-party middlemen rich, such as Gore. And not before needless taxes and regulations get implemented that further hurt our economy.

Experts? Who, precisely, are these "experts?" Experts on what? Knowledgable, yes. Practicioners of what we so loosely refer to as the "scientific method," yes. But..."experts?"

Sorry, gang; I don't believe in "experts." Rome was filled with experts; likewise, the Third Reich. Our own State Department. Jesus, Marx, Freud --- hell, even tony, Beverly Hills sous chefs are considered by some to be "experts." On SOMETHING.

Expert Lawyers hire Trial Experts to create Custom Juries and bring in Expert Witnesses to further buttress their own Expertise in producing desired outcomes. Expert scientists produce laboriously wrought hoaxes in the name of ... Scientific Research. Yeah, right. Try coffee. No, maybe you shouldn't.

Gimme a break ...

As Shakespeare duly noted, "... First, kill all the Experts..."

Meanwhile, Al will continue getting the media adulation he so wantonly craves and take his place in the Great American Pantheon of Celebrity.

...ho hum...

Incidentally, are the snow plows still operating in Ohio?

Rich: Let me be more clear on Gore's responsibility to debate his views. A lot of his critics tend to want to bait him by poking holes in certain studies (IPCC etc.). However, he didn't write those studies, he's only trying to publicize their results. It would be best to leave it to the authors of those reports to defend them. However, Gore is responsible for his stances on what to do about climate change, and it's reasonable to expect him to debate the merits of those proposals. Perhaps this is too nuanced of a view, but I think the distinction between debating the science and debating the policy prescriptions based on the science needs to be made especially clear in his case.

This is a BIG conflict of interest for the Goracle --Just found it...
Google AL GORE + MAURICE STRONG

Maurice Strong, Al Gore
Creators of carbon credit scheme cashing in on it
By Judi McLeod

Tuesday, March 13, 2007

There's an elephant in global warming's living room that few in the mainstream media want to talk about: the creators of the carbon credit scheme are the ones cashing in on it.

The two cherub like choirboys singing loudest in the Holier Than Thou Global Warming Cathedral are Maurice Strong and Al Gore.

This duo has done more than anyone else to advance the alarmism of man-made global warming.

With little media monitoring, both Strong and Gore are cashing in on the lucrative cottage industry known as man-made global warming.

Strong is on the board of directors of the Chicago Climate Exchange, Wikipedia-described as "the world's first and North America's only legally binding greenhouse gas emission registry reduction system for emission sources and offset projects in North America and Brazil."

Gore buys his carbon off-sets from himself--the Generation Investment Management LLP, "an independent, private, owner-managed partnership established in 2004 with offices in London and Washington, D.C." of which he is both chairman and founding partner.

To hear the saving-the-earth singsong of this dynamic duo, even the feather light petals of cherry blossoms in Washington leave a bigger carbon footprint.

It's a strange global warming partnership that Strong and Gore have, but it's one that's working.

Strong is the silent partner, a man whose name often draws a blank in the Washington cocktail circuit. Even though a former Secretary General of the 1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (the much hyped Rio Earth Summit) and Under-Secretary General of the United Nations in the days of a beleaguered Kofi Annan, the Canadian born Strong is little known in the Unites States. That's because he spends most of his time in China where he works to make the communist country the world's next superpower. The nondescript Strong, nonetheless is big cheese in the world of climate change, and is one of the main architects of the coming-your-way-soon Kyoto Protocol.

Gore is the glitzy, media approved front man in the partnership, the flashing neon lights on the global stage warning the masses of the end of Earth, as we know it, and Hollywood's poster boy for greening the silver screen.

The skeptics of man-made global warming believe that Gore and Strong have made climate change "the new religion". Climate change is not the first religion both parties have tried to make stick. Along with former Soviet Union leader Mikhail Gorbachev, Strong, currently president of the Earth Council, has been boasting of replacing the Ten Commandments with the Earth Charter, a golden rule guide for how the masses should treat the environment.

Gore, who has given sermons at the United Nations sponsored Cathedral of St. John the Divine Church in New York City, is a promoter of the religion known as Gaia.

The two environmental gurus also share a belief in radical Malthusian population reduction. According to them, too many people, particularly in the U.S. are polluting the planet, emitting excessive Freon through their refrigerators and jacking up the air conditioning.

But the conduct of Al Gore and Maurice Strong in the capitalist world is one for the books. It's a side of them that may have remained unknown had it not been for the investigative talent of the Executive Intelligence Review (EIR).

The tawdry tale of the top two global warming gurus in the business world goes all the way back to Earth Day, April 17, 1995 when the future author of An Inconvenient Truth traveled to Fall River, Massachusetts, to deliver a green sermon at the headquarters of Molten Metal Technology Inc. (MMTI). MMTI was a firm that proclaimed to have invented a process for recycling metals from waste.Gore praised the Molten Metal firm as a pioneer in the kind of innovative technology that can save the environment, and make money for investors at the same time.

"Gore left a few facts out of his speech that day. First, the firm was run by Strong and a group of Gore intimates, including Peter Knight, the firm's registered lobbyist, and Gore's former top Senate aide," wrote EIR.

"Second, the company had received more than $25 million in U.S. Department of energy (DOE) research and development grants, but had failed to prove that the technology worked on a commercial scale. The company would go on to receive another $8 million in federal taxpayers' cash, at that point, its only source of revenue.

"With Al Gore's Earth Day as a Wall Street calling card, Molten Metal's stock value soared to $35 a share, a range it maintained through October 1996. But along the way, DOE scientists had balked at further funding. When, in March 1996, corporate officers concluded that the federal cash cow was about to run dry, they took action: Between that date and October 1996, seven corporate officers--including Maurice Strong--sold off $15.3 million in personal shares in the company, at top market value. On Oct. 20, 1996--a Sunday--the company issued a press release, announcing for the first time, that DOE funding would be vastly scaled back, and reported the bad news on a conference call with stockbrokers.

"On Monday, the stock plunged by 49%, soon landing at $5 a share.By early 1997, furious stockholders had filed a class action suit against the company and its directors. Ironically, one of the class action lawyers had tangled with Maurice Strong in another insider trading case, involving a Swiss company called AZL Resources, chaired by Strong, who was also a lead shareholder. The AZL case closely mirrored Molten Metal, and in the end, Strong and the other AZL partners agreed to pay $5 million to dodge a jury verdict, when eyewitness evidence surfaced of Strong's role in scamming the value of the company stock up into the stratosphere, before selling it off.

In 1997, Strong went on to accept from Tongsun Park, the Korean man found guilty of illegally acting as an Iraqi agent, $1 million from Saddam Hussein, which was invested in Cordex Petroleum Inc., a company he owned with his son, Fred.

In that year, Gore, still U.S. vice president, was making news for "taking the initiative in creating the Internet."

The leaders of the man-made global warming movement, you might say, get around.

Meanwhile Jumbo's still in global warming's living room, but the duo with the tiniest carbon footprints on earth continue to just tiptoe past him.

Global Warming, Global Shwarming. Eh.

1) The surface temperature data used for supporting the Global Warming hypothesis is suspect. The surface temperature measuring station's sites used had been compromised by man made heat sources - asphalt parking lots, exhaust from heat exchangers, etc. The skew upward in day time maximum high temperatures measured at these stations because of the heat sources encourchments corrolates directly with their, the heat sources, installation.

2) The earth has gone through countless Global Warming and Cooling periods long before and after "Man's" presence.

3) There is ample historical data on regional cooling and warming periods.

An acquantance from England provided me with a nearly 1,000 plus year historical data on extream cooling and warming periods in the Bristish Ilses region. Winters when the Thames River and the sea between Dover and Calais, Franch froze over. Dry years when the Thames became only a trickle.

Greenland was "Green" from about 750 to 950. The Vikings grew wheat, barley, and grapes. By 950 the region had cooled down so much that none of those crops could be grown. It is still that way today.

The long and the short of it is "Man's" existance is insignificant and short of total thermal nuclear war, there really isn't much "Man" can really do to alter the Global Climate. Even after a global catastropic nuclear war, 100,000 plus years latter, after the radiation had dispated, life would re-emerge on Earth from some where. "Man" would be long gone, for ever, perhaps. But, the Earth and some form(s) of life would go on just the same.

The author confuses computer models with scientific proof.

Models are useful, but they are not proof of anything. You can build a model, and I can replicate it, but that doesn't mean there is a one-to-one correspondence to the physical world.

Further, climate change is a fact: The world, and humans, have experienced countless glacial advances and retreats. The current hysteria posits that warming = catastrophe. Warming is perhaps an economic issue and perhaps a military issue, but economics is not a science in the sense of, say, chemistry.

Put another way, would a warmer world be better or worse than the current world? No one can say one way or the other with any certainty. My hunch is that a warmer world would be a much more productive world. Neither science nor Al Gore has the answer to that question.

I do know that Americans retire to Arizona and Florida, not Alaska or the Yukon. That should be a hint. Another hint: When ice recedes, plants can grow. Look no further than once heavily glaciated Ohio for proof.

It is now "do you believe" in Global Warming, and if you are not a "believer" you are a heretic. Who expected the Spanish inquisition?

Mr. Freedman, From the tone of your essay, I take it you give credence to Mr. Gore's incredible pile of unfounded, steaming -------. I cannot help but be amazed that a rational, thinking person would take any grain of Gore's nonsense and swallow it. You realize that some of the top scientific minds in this field-- who actually have credentials in this field --consider manmade global warming to be so much unfounded, steaming -----? Who would you lend the greater credence to, Dr. Richard Linden, the Sloan professor of atmospheric science at MIT, or Al Gore, a politician whose real accomplishments-- real or imagined --would fit on one side of a bubble gum wrapper?

I am really weary of reading article after article that attributes some kind of scientific intellect to this has been politician. This is truly one of the most incredible cons of recent times, and I continue to be flabbergasted that people like the author of this article seem unable to see more than 2 inches beyond their noses and recognize nonsense when it's staring them in the face.

If you put soda in a saucepan and heat it, it releases CO2. The ability of water of hold CO2 decreases rapidly with temperature. When extra heat from the sun heats all 8 planets, and the Earth get warmer, the oceans get warmer and release a large quantity of CO2. But now that the Earth is cooling, the oceans can reabsorb some of that CO2. See
http://home.att.net/~NCSDCA/opinion/GlobalWarming.htm

Andrew,

There seems to be some suppressed man-love for Algore here. The man is the Supreme Leader of the Global Warming Hoax. $300 million more to get the word out?!? Or is it to outshout the opposition? A Nobel Peace prize and an Oscar did not get it enough press? The sky is not falling...

Whipsanrd

The 26 page IPCC "Report for Policymakers" is something we Physicists would call SWAG science. (Scientific Wild A++ Guessing) That, unfortunately is what has to describe a lot of climatology because of the chaotic and unpredicable nature of the atmosphere. Something the layman, including Al Gore, doesn't seem to understand so when you start making climatological predictions you're really on very shaky ground. Making costly and punitive policies based on them is just dumb. There's no doubt that the earth's average temperature (whatever that is) has risen and it's logical that there is a human component to that but anyone who believes that it is primarily human caused should remember that P. T. Barnum said people like that were born every minute.
Because you've got to remember that 15000 years ago the US was all ice down to the Mason-Dixon line and it took more global warming (total BTUs) to melt all that than we have today and there were no SUV's then.

DoubleSpeak

Global WARMING has now become Global climate CHANGE.
This way it doesen't matter if temps go up or down, as they always have.
Big Brother AL is always right.

RUBBISH

Most important fact to know about the academicians and bureaucrats creating the "science" that drives the hysteria : most of them would not have jobs and funding without manmade global warming. Funny that the media cries "foul" whenever someone other than a government tries to get some data published, but they refuse to consider the enormity of this simple fact.

Since the global temperature peaked in 1998 according to recent observations, could the model projections be wrong? The following questions have been raised with a number of GW alarmist, including Al Gore and the Royal Society without a response. Perhaps someone has answers?
Question1
-has any projection used by the IPCC or other GW advocates forecasted, predicted or otherwise foreseen a cooling period or a little ice age in the future?
Question 2
-could any of the current computer models with their climate theories, complex assumptions, complex climate models and positive feedback loops forecast, predict, or foresee a cooling period or litttle ice age in the future?
Question 3
-since a rather steady state CO2 content had little or no effect on the earth's cyclical climate for 10,000 years and the recent warming trend has moderated since 1998 while the atmospheric CO2 increased are the repeated iterations of the computer models falsifying the role of CO2 in the earth's climate? Repeated iterations of the Mandelbrot set equation drives the results to infinity or zero. it is possible that the GW computer simulations drive the result to ever higher temperatures just by how the assumptions on the CO2 effect are designed, weighted and looped, isn't it ?
# Patrick49

Remember acid rain scare. Notice no reported no analysis of all the rain we have been having nor the record snow fall should be loaded with carbon one would think.

Oprah also declared man-made global warming a settled issue beyond debate.

Isnt that enough?

"The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, for example, requires multiple stages of review by experts in numerous fields, AND POLITICAL REPRESENTATIVES OF THE WORLD'S GOVERNMENTS MUST APPROVE ONE KEY SECTION OF THE REPORT LINE-BY-LINE".

What about that statement lends credibility to the premise that politics is not the driving force behind this evangelical-style movement???!

Consider the following:

"The IPCC is not, as some believe, a group of scientists, but a panel set up by the United Nations comprising representatives from about 140 governments to consider what we currently know about climate change. The panel decides whether an assessment is needed, and then engages scientists to conduct it."

Professor Martin Parry
Co-chair, IPCC Working Group II

This article is a perfect example of how this whole debate has gotten so distorted - yet another liberal arts major slavishly writing down what he's told by an agenda-driven lawyer/politician/activist, without a hint of due diligence or understanding of the actual issue.

What a load of crap. This piece of proGore fluff should be flushed.

Of course, why would anyone listen to Joe Bastardi on the Weather Channle when Al Gore is holding forth on a sensationalist news program??!!

Mr.Freedman, if you truly believe"It's a sad day when a professional in a scientific field has more trust in a court of law to determine scientific merit than a jury of their peers in the scientific community. Judges and juries simply don't have the knowledge necessary to determine the accuracy of complicated scientific matters."then why are environmentalists, liberal governors and other GW advocates always in court to prevent the drilling for our natural resource crude oil, building of oil refineries or coal fired generating plants or demanding that the EPA control CO2 emissions? Perhaps the British court's ruling that Al Gore's movie contained eleven inaccuracies, was a propaganda film and could not be shown in the schools without pointing out the inaccurate parts was upsetting to the Al Gore's groupies.

@Jon: "It is now "do you believe" in Global Warming, and if you are not a "believer" you are a heretic. Who expected the Spanish inquisition?"

Jon: NO ONE expects the Spanish Inquisition!!

(with due deference to the Pythons)

Lets see, climate has been changing for 4.5 BILLION years, most of which time man has not been here. It will CONTINUE to change right up until the Sun goes nova and takes the Earth with it.

When Gore can explain how man is ALSO causing the warming of Mars and even Pluto (which BTW has already started on its long swing AWAY from the Sun) then maybe he'd be listened to.

In the 70s, we were told of the coming crisis of global cooling, how by 2000 we'd be in a new ice age. Then in the late 80s it was the hole in the ozone layer that would do us in, worse than the Soviets ever could. Now we're going to live like Somalians because we won't be able to grow food, therefore we should start fueling cars with corn instead of eating it.

I am hoping that the LAWSUIT is successful.
Brainwashing is exactly what is happening in my children's schools.
As a parent I have to constantly work at undoing what my kids schools try to mash into their heads.
It would be different if they would allow the other side to be told in the classrooms. I think the liberal teachers are just afraid it will actually make more sense to the kids.

The flourescent light bulbs are a perfect example of the absolute NONSENSE that these enviromental people will push on the public.
Wake up people!! Get your information from somewhere other that the mainstream media.

Forget actual climate change. Global warming is a massive marketing/advertising campaign. They've managed to convince the world that the sky is falling. What is the purpose of advertising? Usually to make money... so we have carbon credits, films, awards, Nobel Prizes, charities... There have been numerous rewards for the Global Warming pushers. They're laughing all the way to the bank.

It doesn't matter if you think the world is warming or not, or even if you like or dislike Al Gore. Can you deny that he's made boatloads of political capital and financial capital?

Andrew,

Excellent piece about the spin, but it's beyond spin. Don't take my word for it. Here's what Al Gore told and interviewer from Grist Magazine May 9, 2006 in the UK.

"Q: There's a lot of debate right now over the best way to communicate about global warming and get people motivated. Do you scare people or give them hope? What's the right mix? "

"A: I think the answer to that depends on where your audience's head is. In the United States of America, unfortunately we still live in a bubble of unreality. And the Category 5 denial is an enormous obstacle to any discussion of solutions. Nobody is interested in solutions if they don't think there's a problem. Given that starting point, I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are, and how hopeful it is that we are going to solve this crisis.

"Over time that mix will change. As the country comes to more accept the reality of the crisis, there's going to be much more receptivity to a full-blown discussion of the solutions."

The phrase "over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous it is" means Gore intended knowingly to alter the facts.

Lie now; talk later.

In response to the above: I recall reading a history article about the early colonists. When they arrived at Jamestown in early 1600's, the natives were planting two harvests each year. They planted in March and as they gathered in June, they replanted for an August harvest. It had to have been a much warmer and/or longer growing season 400 years ago for this to be possible. Our growing season is much shorter now than I remember from 40 years ago. I'd like to see some history as well as science on the subject.

Global Warming is a hoaz,a religion to the
leftist who promote it.They are anti-America
and anti-capitalists.These are the same people who warned us of a coming ice age in the 70's.

Andrew

You denigrate individuals who have extensive training in the field to only criticize Al Gore's presentation. Al Gore was a fraud, is a fraud and will always be a fraud. I attended (he eventually dropped out) the same school he did, he has NO meaningful scientific training (as neither do you). For you to ignore his blatant profiteering is unforgivable. As for your broad assertion that the debate is shrinking, that's false as well. I would, however, suggest, you need to get out among the living because you'd find that your theory isn't quite as accepted as you think it is. The number of dissenters is growing by the day. Even former proponents of CO2 warming are admitting the information and systems are seriously flawed or are being manipulated. The jig is up. You, sir, are one of the reasons why I will never subscribe to the Washington Post.

PS: If I were you, I would google Bakken Shale Fields. Once this hits the MSM. No one will ever take Gore seriously again.

The author uses a fawning movie review to prove the "well-established science" of the global warming scare? Follow the link for yourself -- it's an analysis of the movie, not the science. In fact, here is a line from the "well-established science" article:

For the most part, I think Gore gets the science right

WOW! I'm convinced. Very lame.

The comments of Phil, above highlight my attitude on anthropomorphic global warming. The science is so hugely complicated, with so many variables, that I, personally, have no hope of ever comprehending the science of climate change. I personally cannot evaluate the truth of claims made in the IPCC reports or in the papers published by the skeptics of manmade global warming.

I can, however, evaluate to some extent the veracity of the advocates of the competing points of view. While the Al-Gore-sky-is-falling crowd blindly rely on polically-motivated UN produced reports, combined with predictions of catastrophe if we disbelieve them and their "cures", they simply ignore more recent science that contradicts their "facts".

The skeptics justifiably question the motives of the true believers, the science underpinning their beliefs, and the so-called cures for the problem.

A lot of sober, careful, and sincere scientists who ARE experts in their respectives fields question every aspect of MMGW. I believe them more than VP Gore and his friends.

Is there and member of the 'Gang that can provide an article stating the "other side" of the argument that goes against global warming? Mr. Freedman's articles are always great reads, and I think he is very knowledgeable about topics he writes about, but there is another side to this. I think it would be very helpful to all of us readers who aren't "up-to-date" with both sides of the story. Maybe some one here has already written a past article addressing that side? I just don't remember reading one since I became a regular to this blog. Thanks!

==============================================

http://climatedebatedaily.com/ links to scientific articles, news stories, economic studies, polemics, historical articles, PR releases, editorials, feature commentaries, and blog entries both for and against climate change. The main column on the left includes arguments and evidence generally in support of the IPCC position on the reality of signficant anthropogenic global warming. The right-hand column includes material skeptical of the IPCC position and the notion that anthropogenic global warming represents a genuine threat to humanity.

Now that "global warming" has morphed into "climate change" in the light of the global "cooling" we now learn is actually underway the assorted hucksters and left wingnuts who have attached themselves to this political project are holding on for dear life.Having lost the argument that capitalism is economically ( and historically) regressive they now try to argue that it is environmentally dangerous and, of course, the debate is "closed".Lets all commit to the Kyoto accords because CO2 emissions are environmentally toxic unless produced by China, India or, indeed any nation in the Third World, who, as we know, produce only nice CO2 emissions.
Al Gore is a mediocre politician who, were it not for the environmental gig he polished up in his 40 room home, would have actually had to find a real job.Everything he says has to be seen in that context.
Just a few "inconvenient truths" about the whole climate change cult.

Yes, Gore is the target because the media has made him so. I blame the media for it's very one-sided advocacy position, when much of the science runs counter to the claims being made via the Goracle. By the time Inconvenient Truth hit the movies, much of the claims had already been discreditied. But the media chooses to assume the public can't think and doesn't need any counter information. Using the same data used by Gore, the ice cores show that CO2 does not lead to temperature rises, but follows. Statistical analysis of correlation shows a strong relationship between solar activity and decadal ocean current, but show no real one for CO2. The reference to the IPCC forgot to mention that the politicians write the summary and then demand the scientists make their paper coincide with the summary. Now that's convenient truth! The public is not stupid, just ignorant of the facts and debate, thanks in large part to the media.

I believe that the way Al Gore has discouraged debate in the area of Global Warming is a dangerous trend in science. If someone has a scientific point of view that differs with you the easiest way to stop them from making their point is to say "we have more scientists that agree" unfortunatley, Al Gore more or less has politics on his side, not science. Polls have shown consistantly that there is not a concensus and debate is needed. But science without debate is not science.

Polititions love global warming because it gives them and excuse to tax more. Corporations that claim to be fighting climate change are robbing people left and right.

I don`t know how anyone can make a documentary that is so full of scientific errors and innacuracies and get a free pass like that. It is disgusting and makes me concerned that our educational system is falling apart. There is no such thing as a documentary anymore, only political commercials and propoganda.

A weatherman in the media has the greatest job on the planet.

He can be wrong and still keep his job.

Nobody ever holds them accountable, ever. Has one ever been sued for liability? No.

Gore is just taking advantage of an inconvenient truth.

I am amazed to see people rush to judge and even hate. Maybe Al Gore is wrong, and maybe he's right. At worst he's wrong, and we fall for it. Either way, I don't want the world to be business as usual. I don't want to see gas prices go up anymore because we're so quick to crush any conservation or eco friendly "tree hugging" conversation. Sure let's let the oil companies set the pace of our energy needs. No way! I don't know about you, but when I have to fill up my tank with gas, I get pissed. Not at Al Gore, not at the "Tree Huggers" and not even the Dems. I get mad at myself, I get mad at people like yourselves who probably drive HUGE SUV's. People who are so content with going about their lives like business as usual. There are other people in this world doing far worse things then trying to save it. Get off Al's back. . . . sheesh . .
Gotta run . . . I'm late for work and I still need to go fill up my suburban with gas. :)

Mr. Sullivan ignores the two most salient facts. 1) The MSM has overwhelmingly reported Gore's side of the issue as fact, while casting the other side exactly as Gore has. The media needs "peer review!" 2) Mr. Sullivan does not analyze the role of money on both sides of the issue. Whether government grants for towing the line or corporate money to influence a finding, both sides have been corrupted, and Gore not only continues have a huge footprint, but he derives income from these ventures. He has no credibility, and most research (models)are corrupted by money. This makes it harder to find the truth and have it believed by a majority.

Observations of many planets in our solar system show slightly rising temps. The polar ice cap on Mars is receding. What do the have in common with earth? The sun. But now old sole may be entering one of its solar minimums. There are currently no observed sun spots on its surface. This eveidence of decreased activity. We may be entering a period of solar minimum. The last time this occurred, earth had a little ice age that lasted 500 years. Check Mr. Ken Tapping of our National Research Council. He oversees a giant radio telescope focused on the sun.
Man's contribution to global warming may be minimal,and not worth the giant financial dislocations which would be incurred to fight it. Gore is a dangerously uninformed politician.

I like this comment "But should the reputation of climate science be the victim?"

If climate science is worried about its reputation perhaps its practitioners should spend more time presenting unbiased research, and less time trying to create mass hysteria and personally attacking anyone who disagrees with them.

We need to educate our youth to truth, not the nonsense of the global warming crowd. To the liberal leftists, this is their new religion, climate change. There is lots of good scientific data proving otherwise, if the media would do their jobs. Meanwhile we are parents and citizens have to help ourselves and our children learn the truth and combat the lies. Those that do not love America, hope the global warming "tax" will limit our global influence. Free trade, free speech and freedom of religion have made this nation great. We should not be exporting lies.

Global Warming may be true, but it won't end the world.

Man will adapt.

For the years man has been walking this earth the planet has warmed and cooled greatly many times over.

Are we not arrogant now to decide we know the precise perfect temperature of our surroundings?

More people die from cold weather than hot weather and warmer weather allows more crops to be grown closer to the polls where Russia and Canada have large masses of land.

For thousands of years shorelines have grown and receded, how can we be so arrogant now to act like we know the precise location each shoreline should take forever forward.
And so arrogant to buy a house on a forever shifting piece of real estate and expect it to stop changing now that all of your life savings are spent to build it.

How many will starve and die as we try to limit growth and economic development?

Much less than a warmer planet will take imho

Al Gore believes - and I believe he sincerely feels he is doing the right thing. I also believe he is completely wrong - but is doing a great job at convincing the huge number of people in this country who are marginally educated that he is right. People who have no concept of the age of the earth, of prior ige ages, of chemistry, physics, etc... are faced with an onslaught of media people telling them that we are causing global warming. The Washington Post and other newspapers have a choice to simply buy in to the hype or to show some responsibility and report the truth!! Yes the IPCC and many people think we have man-made global warming, does that make it true?? Find out!! You're a major newspaper!!! Try a little research!!!

The author of this article is particularly hard on John Coleman, who as he writes it, is just a weatherman and has no scientific background to justify his claims that "man-made" global warming is a fraud. I don't know Mr. Coleman's credentials in this area, but why are you not as critical of Al Gore's lack of scientific credentials?

I don't normally take the time to post a comment to news articles, but you come across as a reasonable person, Mr. Freedman. I hope my impression of you, admittedly based solely upon this individual article, is accurate. Otherwise I am probably wasting my time.

Before I start, I would like to compliment J. C. Utter on his/her comment. Well said.

For starters, it is criticly important that you understand the relationship between CO2 and temperature. According to the ice core data, the increase in CO2 has LAGGED the increase in temperature by 800 years! This is an important fact, and I want to restate it just to ensure that everyone understands it.

According to the ice core data, first the temperature increased, then 800 years later, the concentration of CO2 increased. But you would not know that from watching Mr. Gore's film. Quite the contrary. If you watch "An Incovenient Truth" you leave the film believing that CO2 has always caused an increase in temperature. That is simply not true. There is no historical evidence of ANY type to support that.

But don't take my word for it, take the word of the scientists at real climate (a source you yourself used in this piece).
--- begin quote ---
"At least three careful ice core studies have shown that CO2 starts to rise about 800 years (600-1000 years) after Antarctic temperature during glacial terminations. These terminations are pronounced warming periods that mark the ends of the ice ages that happen every 100,000 years or so.

Does this prove that CO2 doesn't cause global warming? The answer is no.

The reason has to do with the fact that the warmings take about 5000 years to be complete. The lag is only 800 years. All that the lag shows is that CO2 did not cause the first 800 years of warming, out of the 5000 year trend. The other 4200 years of warming could in fact have been caused by CO2, as far as we can tell from this ice core data.

The 4200 years of warming make up about 5/6 of the total warming. So CO2 could have caused the last 5/6 of the warming, but could not have caused the first 1/6 of the warming."
--- end quote ---

Did you catch that last sentence, "... CO2 could have caused the last 5/6 of the warming, but could NOT HAVE CAUSED the first 1/6 of the warming"?

Was that obvious to you when you finished watching "An Inconvenient Truth"? I suspect not. And isn't that the opposite of what Mr. Gore and the AGW community want you to believe? They want you to believe that CO2 will definitely lead to higher temperatures. No if, ands, or buts. But that sentence clearly states that CO2 could NOT have caused the warming (during those first 800 years).

The source for the above quote is -
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/co2-in-ice-cores/
Paragraphs 1-4, inclusive.

Mr. Freedman, you wrote, "He seizes on Gore's admittedly fast and loose use of sensational imagery in "An Inconvenient Truth", neglecting the well-established science underpinning the film." The words "well-established science" are a hyperlink to an article at real climate. I hesitate to ask, and trust me when I ask this question that I mean no disrespect, but did you read the article that you linked to? The article that you linked to specifically pointed out the scientific errors in Mr. Gore's film. Allow me to list them for you. According to the article you linked to -
1. "... it is just as indefensible to blame Katrina on a long-term natural cycle in the climate." (follow the link within the article that you linked to)
2. "At one