The Fact-Checker, by Michael Dobbs

Sour grapes.

Agreed...I'm sure British Petroleum's reach into the British Govt is just as strong as Exxon's reach into the U.S. govt. I cannot believe the "Nobel-Envy" demonstrated by the GOP in the blogosphere today. Its as if the country is swarming with howling swarms of Bushie's defaming the Nobel Prize and Norway in general. Its actually entertaiing...congrats to Al Gore. I think we all know America would be a better place if the 2000 election was not stolen from Gore by Bush's father's hand-picked "supreme court". TGIF!

Why don't you post a similar evaluation of President Bush's statements on the environment? To attack Gore like this just shows how much Posties resent him. What's next, an op-ed from Broder that attacks Gore's lack of moderation?

asking the courts to rule on exaggerations seems quite frivolous. also, this case strikes me as an ad hominem attack on the messenger.

Science as a discipline is based on hypotheses/theories supported by evidence.

There are no "facts" in science. Which is why the politics of science are so challenging and issues in science don't belong on "Fact Checker."

Apply the Pinocchio test to those who insist there is no evidence for Climate Change. Seriously,do it, and do it in your next column.

Gore's documentary is actually pretty balanced, and recent events (unprecedented and alarming increases in arctic melting this year), have, if anything, shown that his take on the issue is pretty spot-on.

A quick glance at the rhetoric spewing from the incredibly shrinking minority (the climate change skeptics), is telling. So, be fair and balanced and look at the coverage presented on the issue by Fox News, by Limbaugh and other conservative commentators, and especially the staggeringly anti-intellectual Senator Inhofe of Oklahoma, and you'll find Gore is no Pinocchio.

The question is, indeed, whether global warming is a fact. Gore led the charge to fixing a pernicious problem, that's why he deserves the Prize. He did more than any other American to move the issue forward and to help bring about a dramatic shift in public opinion. Global Warming is a serious problem, and he worked to solve it. That's the issue, here.

... This didn't take long.

Petty.
Can't you find something to write about that doesn't appease the winger base? God, there are so many lies out there, and this is what you write about.
Wow, how about fact checking Inhofe and the other Petroleum Apologists?

Can you find one scientist who still denies global warming, who isn't funded directly or indirectly by oil companies? maybe you should try fact checking the skeptics,just for balance.

Pinocchio couldn't possibly grow a long enough nose to respresent Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth." It's simply fear mongering propaganda.

Hmmm... I wonder what caused those so many climate changes throughout history, waaaaaaay before the industrial age and the boogeyman CO2.

The Nobel Prize committee shames itself yet once again.

When is the Post going to fact check Bush on Iran/Iraq?

4. Gore attributed Hurricane Katrina to global warming. The judge found that there was "insufficient evidence to show that."

This is wrong and misleading. Gore said that the strength of hurricanes is exacerbated by global warming; not that hurricanes are caused by it.

I also think we should have a "Fact Check" on the claims from the Bush Administration on climate change, air pollution policies, and the environment in general. In "An Inconvenient Truth" the subject of drilling in the artic preserve is broached and the problem of the permaforst melting and reducing the number of days that trucks can drive there is mentioned - as we strive to pump out more crude and therefor add more air pollution and CO2, we'll reduce our ability to even get that crude oil from the artic preserve.

Using a court ruling to weight scientific evidence is foolish. Courts rule "one way or the other" they don't pronounce qualitative or quantitative decisions. While Gore certainly has exaggerated some points and made some claims that are not true, in the whole his messages are pointed in the right direction. The truths, as inconvenient as they may be, are clear:
Global warming is real
Human contribution to it is extremely likely.
We need to act now and more aggressively as the time scales involved are at least many decades before halting or reversal can begin.

Wouldn't it have been nice to have a fact checker before the Washington Post led the charge into the Iraq War.

This is why journalism as a profession makes me want to vomit.

The Mainstream Media has always LOVED using Al Gore as a punching bag, led by the Washington Post. Here is another shining (or sliming) example. The whole Republican candidate group owes you today--no doubt you will collect big time. "Congratulations."

Out of numerous examples given by Gore in his movie the judge picks out how many? Nine? Nine arguable points upon which to base his decision? That judge is a silly-willy (feigning Brit-speak).

And besides, who would want to watch, let alone who could understand, a movie filled with citations, ROC curves, sampling methodologies, etc? One must, as the judge did not, take into account the audience Gore was addressing and the format he was using. The movie was a vehicle to generate interest among laypersons who could, on their own initiative, look for further evidence and research if they so desired. Seems to me like an excellent learning opportunity for English schoolchildren.

This "case" was an illegitimate use of the court. The issue of global warming is something better argued among scientists, politicians, and the public rather than in court.

So the Fact Checker wants us to consider a judge's ruling, a critic of Gore, and a New York Times article so we can decide who is right. What about science? The problem with this sort of "fact-checking" is that this debate requires a really broad understanding of multiple scientific disciplines and a whole lot of reading. The only place to go for an opinion that matters is to a body of scientists who actually know what they are talking about. You'll still find controversy but this is the best you can do unless you are only looking for someone to validate your highly subjective notion of what is really happening.

Thank God for George Bush and global warming. Summertime temps stretching into October means more days on the water.

We should not that most of what you are saying is that Gore's claims may be exaggerated, not that his assertions are incorrect.

You are never going to make everyone happy.

Wow. Who is this judge to make scientific judgments? What scientific "evidence" is he/she using? Then again, is the Post "fact checker" a scientific journal? Gore has taken the time and effort to do thorough and extensive research and presented it systematically. What process has the high court used? That would be in an interesting follow-up piece.

I agree with the earlier commenters: this has a strong flavor of sour grapes, and an effort to achieve "balance" by giving equal time to people who are simply wrong. A "fact check" of the global warming deniers (such as Senator Inhofe) would be far more useful and revealing. Instead of looking to a British court for judgments about scientific matters, here is a much better source to add to the list of websites: the Royal Society of London (the foremost scientific body in Britain) has posted a thorough and accessible debunking of the misleading claims made by those who say global warming is some kind of hoax or swindle. You can find it at http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/ , along with the statement the Royal Society endorsing the awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize to Al Gore and the IPCC.

Four links to choose from:

Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth" web site, and three sites slamming him. No mention of the dozens and dozens -- even hundreds -- of sites and articles supporting his position. I think the "Fact Checker" is failing its own Pinocchio Test. The prejudice of the Post shines through.

Better that the threat of global warming be exaggerated, than the reasons for war.

Climate change happens... just ask the folks who lived through the Medieval Warm Period. There are plenty of scientists who don't agree with the Gore's alarmist tactics. All the folks who cheer for him will no doubt go home in their SUV's, turn on their pc's (one for each child) and fly their private jets to his next talk. The real inconvenient truth is, like Gore, people are much better at telling other people what THEY should be doing, but when asked why they aren't making the same sacrifices give excuses. Leonardo DiCaprio made his own enviro documentary film but flew into DC on a private jet to do filming of Bodies of Lies. Memo to Leo...plenty of airlines are already making stops here. Today, 2 very liberal friends of mine will be taking 2 separate cars to the Zoo, then going home to the same house... because, heh, Metro is too INCONVENIENT and work comes first. Like Bill O'Reilly, I think there is too much gunk in the air and it would be good to get it out. But let's cut the hypocrisy, the alarmism and the radical ideas that would destroy our economy and send us back to the Dark Ages.

absolutely unbelievable. the only links you provide are to websites attacking Gore. many of the attacks have been proven false, but you don't link to any of them (other than Gore's website).

As usual, your "he-said, she-said" argument leans against the progressive.

I think you should stop writing this column and live it to someone who actually understands what finding out the truth means.

How do I get my parrot to crap on the on-line version of the Washington Post? What a despicable hit piece by a completely unqualified "journalist."

Oh please! It's pretty obvious that much of the British government has been in the Bush administration and big oil's pocket all along. Nitpicking details from Gore's movie that aren't completely "proven" is absurd. According to whom?

The Arctic ice is melting faster than anyone predicted... we better stop fooling around here, before we're all underwater.

Congratulations to Gore!

"The IPCC predicted an ice-free Arctic by the end of the century; some scientists now predict it for 2020. Ten years ago, it was thought that the Greenland ice cap -- 3350m high in some places -- would take centuries to melt. Now, the pace of melting of the ice cap, and the unpredictable interaction of the feedback loops such melting may trigger, makes any firm prediction hazardous. In Greenland they know human civilization is already entering unknown territory.

Robert Corell, a US-based Arctic scientist and member of the IPCC, described what he found three weeks ago on a visit to the ice cap.

"I spent four months on the ice cap in 1968 and there was no melting at all," he told participants at the Symposium on Religion, Science and Environment in Greenland earlier this month.

"Now it's dramatic. There are thousands of moulin holes that go down into the ice. You can hear water roaring and gurgling. Nobody knows now how quickly it will melt, but the palaeo-data tells us that at three degrees warmer than at present, the ice cap will melt. The projections for global temperature increases are now between three and four degrees," he said."

From: Greenland is now fit for broccoli growers

By Isabel Hilton
THE GUARDIAN, QASSIARSUK, SUBARCTIC
Monday, Sep 17, 2007, Page 9

WT said it: there are no facts in science. There are theories and there is evidence for theories. And there is a lot of evidence for human-caused global warming.

But if you are going to try to "fact check" Gore, why pick one judge in Britain to hold up against him? There is a scientific consensus, even though the Post has been diligent lately in giving space to the few people in the field who are professional skeptics. Why not go look at the scientific literature? Is that just too hard? And if it is--if you cannot really check Gore's assertions--why run this piece in the first place?

ben: While you're right that there are subtle distinctions to what the Post is doing here, consider the effect of a piece like this. The effect is to distract from the problem of global warming.

I don't understand why the Post is holding Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth" up to the British High Court opinions alone. Are they the utmost authority on environmental issues, to the exclusion of all others?

Every assertion in the documentary can be backed up. To even mention the word "alarmist" is a stomach punch to those of us fighting against the naysayers who just want to put off further what MUST be addressed right now.

What does this have to do with his Nobel Peace Prize? He's being credited with raising awareness worldwide to the imminent threat of climate change. It's true that he reads the data as indicating a more extreme outcome than many scientists feel can be supported by hard evidence. However, based on what we've been learning about feedback mechanisms, his assertions are mostly plausible even though not necessarily backed by airtight science. Regardless of these few excesses, the overwhelming evidence shows climate change is occurring and that humans are exacerbating the effects of a natural process in ways that will be dangerous and costly for both our economy and our health. Why are you running a front page Gore-bashing piece? Why are you arguing against your own self-interest?

There is no controversy here, only special interests trying to protect short-term profits at the expense of everyone else. This piece is a red herring, distracting the public's attention from the real story that climate change is real and is going to require the most costly environmental intervention human society has ever had to plan, fund and endure. It's baffling to me how 7 years after 2000, goring Al is still a favorite pastime of the media, with this headline in bold on the front page, while in small type underneath are the headlines about a bomb in Baghdad and a UN report about the deepening crisis in Iraq, and no further coverage of our practice of combining naked stress positions with simulated drowning, sleep deprivation, and attack dogs, while having previously criticized enemies of human rights violations for those same practices. Hooray Washington Post! Why not spice up the headline, though? How about, "Effeminate Ex-Presidential Candidate Up to His Old Exaggeration Tactics?"

The British court's ruling, which didn't refute a single one of the hundreds of claims in "An Inconvenient Truth" outright but suggests that nine of them are arguable, is actually quite reasonable--except in its uses of the words "alarmism" and "exaggeration," the latter of which is the moronic right wing's favorite tool with which to bludgeon Al Gore. There are many aspects of global warming that have not yet made themselves clear as day--for example, the exact effect on hurricane strength--but the cumulative evidence is overwhelming.

Yet these right-wing blowhards despise Al Gore for being smarter and more statesmanlike than a single person on their side--and for being the real, legitimate winner of the 2000 election. They're also quite happy to watch the planet be destroyed in order to ensure the short-term financial success of their masters in the energy and automobile industries--or to get the hollow satisfaction of having proven Gore "wrong" about something.

These idiots will exploit any tiny crack in the undeniable evidence about global warming to claim that the entire theory is a hoax. It's sort of like acquiting a gang of bank robbers because they aren't sure whether the getaway car turned right or left coming out of the bank.

Still, one can only expect the discredited right-wing idiots to harp on about the British decision as one more reason to slag Gore and deny global warming. Well, here's a message to you: Yes, Al Gore DID take the initiative in turning the Internet from a military tool to a public phenomenon; yes, he and Tipper WERE (at least in part) the inspiration for "Love Story"; yes, he DID take the lead in publicizing the Love Canal tragedy; yes, he WAS the legitimate winner of the 2000 election; and while you crow about this ruling in Britain, please remember that British children will be watching "An Inconvenient Truth" in classrooms for years to come, while they'll be laughing at you for denying the seriousness of global warming.

And one other thing: Al Gore just won the Nobel Prize for his work over the last six years, while your efforts over the same time period will be ridiculed for the rest of human history--which, if you keep standing in the way of efforts to curb global warming, will be a shorter history than it should be. Maybe you take that as consolation.

Yeah, bury your head in the sand all of you naysayers. As usual I doubt seriously that people base their opinions on fact or science but rather on ideology. If you like/support Gore you buy this, if you don't you don't. By and large Americans aren't smart enough to see beyond ideology. Global warming is a freaking fact, it's caused by man and if something isn't done the planet will suffer and so will the human race.

How sad that this judge is so jealous that he has to resort to such a pathetic and unsubstantiated "expert opinions" to get his name in the paper. Perhaps if he visited the arctic to see first hand the impact of shrinking sea ice on the polar bears or visit Alaska or Russia where walrus are migrating to dry land because of ice melt.

All of America can be proud today because such a great man has been given the honor of a Nobel Peace Prize. Such reflects positively on the entire nation.

It is unfortunate that the Washington Post felt it necessary to give front page coverage to a British court ruling that really amounts to nothing.

I'm not surprised that the Post would immediately call to question statements made in Gore's film. After all, it was the Post, along with the New York Times, that engaged in a series of nitpicking character assasinations during Gore's 2000 Presidential Run. Meanwhile, that dry drunk Bush got treated with kid gloves and was portrayed as the gool ol' boy we all wanted to share a beer with.

Dear Washington Post - stop trying to fit the news to pre-determined "narratives" and try reporting for a change.

Fair? Much of what you refernece -- and the British judge sites -- is at best a misunderstanding of the science presented in the movie and at worst another uninformed attack on the facts of global warming.

Balance? Name one mainstream scientist that disagrees with the premise and the presentation in An Inconvenient Truth. As Gore himself said 2 days ago in Cupertino, the mainstream press are attempting to create a controversy where none exists.

The only controversy is what, if anything, to do about it. Mr. Gore makes an impassioned plea for action. This is the informed debate we should be having and the Post should be leading...

If people are truly interested in fact-checking Gore's movie--or better yet, the multitude of truly misleading movies, reports, books, and web sites out there--you could always consult those who actually know what they're talking about. See www.realclimate.org, a blog by climate scientists. They're more interested in sharing information than in political gamesmanship. No partisan mumbo-jumbo allowed.

And geez,all credit to Al Gore for actually taking on the topic. That's what leadership looks like, I guess.

It is pathetic to see what the Washington Post will do to hurt anybody related to the Democrats, or that matter to people who are seeking real truth (and I am not talking about religion) and not the Washington Post truth. I have been reading these so called fact check articles for some time now and I have never seen something so inaccurate as the misused quotes used in your articles. At best you would deserve a C- for your work. On top of it I found all these articles laden with revenge type motives. The fact checking by your news paper, most likely done by a lazy unhappy misunderstood editor and his assistants, by means of spending the most a few hours on a computer, is as false, inaccurate and potentially damaging to the science as the statements made by a British Judge, who also finds himself suddenly a scientist and came up with his list of inaccuracies mentioned in your article.
What are you trying to achieve, clearly not the truth. As a jealous scientist and there are many of these, you are splitting hairs, with absolutely no understanding of the bigger science (picture). If you believe that you discovered the wheel, I have to disappoint you, everybody knows, including the Nobel prize committee, that theory's are never complete.
By trying to add a line at the end, that is is too early to use the Pinochio rule, you show even more your incompetence and the real reason why this was written: revenge, hatred and incompetence, the three worst enemies of any scientist.

A fact checker on Al's work on the day he wins the Nobel Prize? This may be good for another day, but today, it does seem to betray a bias. Today, an American won the Nobel price for a work that the overwhelming majority of scientists agree is needful. Today, we should celebrate Al Gore.

No objective person will quote the submissions of a British Judge over the verdict of the community of scientist when the issue at stake is scientific, not legal. Neither do a few factual errors in a huge body of work (if indeed they are factual errors) render an entire work questionable.

I disagree with Mr. Dobbs, the central question today as it relates to The Inconvenient Truth is not if Mr. Gore exaggerated "some" facts, the question is whether the documentary is right about the threat of global warming, and whether this work has made a significant difference to the world community on the issue. The general consensus on this is that the central arguments are dead-on accurate, the warnings are valid; the impending crisis he speaks about is real.

Seven years ago, journalists, making similar pretenses of objectivity, mischaracterized the positions, and arguments of Al Gore to America. There are many eggs on faces today. Please don't do it again. America expects more from writers.

The climate has never been static - it is always in a state of flux. Clearly, the earth at a macro level is in a warming period. You need to look at global temperatures in geologic time to realize that we are still coming out of one of the coolest periods in earth's history. See here: http://www.scotese.com/climate.htm

It would be odd if the planet's mean temperature was not warming. Al Gore is that he seems to think that mankind is the primary driver of climate change. I'm not persuaded. What makes me crazy is when people look at a drought, or a record high, or a hurricane and scream "global warming." Please let's calm down and put things in perspective. Mankind cannot slow climate change - it's folly to think so with countries like China and India developing so rapidly. We need to learn to adapt, as we always have throughout history.

The Fact Checker, in just a few short columns, now has the same standing as Novakula and Will. No point in reading what they have to say, as that's a given. Simply skip to the comments section and have a good laugh. Get rid of this clown, WaPo.

Al Gore delivers more facts that are true than stretched truths. Even those that dispute his accounts stretch their stories. The fact is Global Warming is not just about CO2. It has more to do with conservation than just gas. There was a time people thought the world was flat and called Christopher Columbus a fraud. Today, especially many in the GOP call Gore a fraud. These are the same people who would have hang Columbus for hearsay. If you have lived in what you call the Third World, you would know what happens when floods come, or when there is no rain or the loss of trees and how far one has to go for firewood. It is a crisis in many African countries but who cares as long as we have our bottled water right? The 9 facts disputed are not fully disputed which means they are not lies like WMDs under a rock. Something is happening in the environment and whether we call it Global Warming or not, we should recognize it and make changes. Congratulations Mr. Gore. Keep up the work.

Just to follow-up, here is the article I'm referring to. It's a sad commentary on the "gotcha" politics that spun out of control during the 2000 election between rival newspapers who wanted to "one up" each other. To paraphrase - Gore = Stiff, boring, know-it-all where as Bush = fun, jocular, he-man.

http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2007/10/gore200710

For the love of.....

I got a 91 on an important exam once - I don't remember anyone pointing to that as my having made "nine errors." As I recall, it meant I got an "A."

In addition to the Nobel Prize for his environmental awareness, Gore deserves another one for putting up with this &*%$ from the media

An "exact fit"--words Gore used--were probably not chosen with the precision required by a modern politician defending against the inevitable winger polemicists. Of course, as anyone with a college education would know, an exact fit would imply a 1.00 R^2, which of course would never be seen in typical scientific observation. Regardless, Gore's right--no statistician in his right mind would dispute a powerful link between CO2 and temp. This type of rectal exam (using Gore's unscripted words against him and out of context) is exactly why Gore isn't running. He figured out in 2000 that Presidential campaigns are allergic to real ideas and civil / scientific debate. We'll have to leave the pandering to Hillary and Rudy--thank God for Gore.

So, the Washington Post has now appointed a judge in England as the arbitrator of truth on Global Warming? Now that is very strange. I would think they would give that job to scientists, not to a conservative judge in England.

The Washington Post apparently is still carrying water for the Bush Administration.

Al Gore delivers more facts that are true than stretched truths. Even those that dispute his accounts stretch their stories. The fact is Global Warming is not just about CO2. It has more to do with conservation than just gas. There was a time people thought the world was flat and called Christopher Columbus a fraud. Today, especially many in the GOP call Gore a fraud. These are the same people who would have hang Columbus for hearsay. If you have lived in what you call the Third World, you would know what happens when floods come, or when there is no rain or the loss of trees and how far one has to go for firewood. It is a crisis in many African countries but who cares as long as we have our bottled water right? The 9 facts disputed are not fully disputed which means they are not lies like WMDs under a rock. Something is happening in the environment and whether we call it Global Warming or not, we should recognize it and make changes. Congratulations Mr. Gore. Keep up the work.

How disgusting -the man gets a Nobel prize and the Washington Post has to have an article in the very same issue that purports to question that. Of course they can't get any reputable scientists to put on the front page so they use a ruling by a judge to give it a patina of legitimacy. This judge doesn't have any scientific basis for his questions and the legal ones aren't relevant. How many other scientific theories are required to meet legal levels of evidence? Most importantly the judge didn't even have the most recent evidence that the Arctic ice is actually melting faster than the models predicted. And he may not have seen it but I have that at least one island nation is facing evacuation in the next several years. How nonsensical the whole article is and how does the Post justify stooping so low?

The Bible predicts global warming, which proves that only Jesus Christ can save you from it. Please read http://healtheland.bravehost.com/Docs/GlobalWarmingProphecy.htm

Let me clarify: my brief may not be with the author of this piece; I mean, the editors could use this sort of puff, inconsequential drivel as filler for Parade magazine in your Sunday edition. But how dare the editors use this junk so prominently in their coverage of Mr. Gore's Nobel prize? There's literally NOTHING in this piece, it's just another opportunity for this rag to smear a decent man and an emerging scientific consensus. For shame.

Kids,
This is the media trying to stir stuff up.
"Gore Wins Nobel" is too pat for them. They have to "provide opposing viewpoints" in order to pretend they're unbiased, while all they're really doing is creating a tempest in a teapot in the hopes you'll read.

Fortunately, the battle is already won. The mainstream view is - there's warming, and it's caused by humans. Take a diametrically opposite viewpoint and you look like a crank. (Because you are one.) So, for that, we thank you Vice President Gore.

Enjoy the rest of the day on your laurels, then get off them and RUN FOR PRESIDENT.

Great hit piece.

Based all on one English judge ruling on the basis of English law and no reference to the greater scientific debate on the subject? How is that fact checking? This a terrible hit piece.

The links at the bottom just confirm that this is what it was all about. Posting it directly under the Gore story just underlines the overall intent of the Post's online editors.

I only hope the GOP paid you folks enough for the hit piece.

It seems that the word "check" in the title of this blog is meant to be read as in hockey: "hamper or neutralize (an opponent) with one's body or stick." Hence, "Fact Checker."

"There are plenty of scientists who don't agree with the Gore's alarmist tactics."

Fine one that isn't on the payroll of the fossil fuel industry or a right-wing think tank.

Wow, this fat slob windbag won a Nobel Prize? I didnt realize they handed those out for fiction work. Moreover, love his contributions to Co2 emmissions in his private jets. Total Hypocrisy. Hey Mr. Veep, wanna another donut?

Regarding the time frame for sea level rise due to the melting of Greenland's glaciers, I find a real expert opinion, that of Dr. James Hansen, much more persuasive than some British Judge who is merely repeating outdated information. In several recent essays and papers Dr. Hansen explains how current scientific evidence indicates that there is a high probability that Greenland's glaciers are going to melt fast, much much faster than was previously predicted. Well written for a general audience, I suggest reading Hansen's abbreviated, popularized version, titled "Climate catastrophe" and published in the 28 July 2007 issue of New Scientist, found at http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abstracts/2007/Hansen_2.html. The abbreviation aims to make a broader audience aware of the threat to ice sheets. The fuller version is "Scientific reticence and sea level rise" http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abstracts/2007/Hansen.html

Dr. Hansen, Director NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, is a true expert on the subject, with hundreds of scientific articles published, and his opinions and predictions have proven to be accurate and correct over the past several decades. He is unusual in two regards: he is willing to step forward and express opinions ahead of the scientific herd and he has a track record of being right.

So Gore has good reason for thinking sea level rise will be faster than previously predicted and the Judge is just out-of-date, on this and several other of his opinions quoted here.

Gore may be an alarmist, but not for the reasons given by the British Court. Nitpicking over coral reefs and Kilimanjaro has no bearing on whether global warming is a scientifically proven hypothesis. Nor does such anecdotal evidence have anything to do with "alarmism."

According to the "Fourth Special Assessment Report" published in February by the IPCC (co-winner with Gore of the Nobel Prize), global warming is confirmed by a combination of global observations which have no other reasonable explanation: increase in average nighttime temperatures + parallel warming trends over land and water + upper atmospheric cooling. The total pattern makes sense if the earth's lower atmosphere is trapping more heat due to greenhouse gas emissions. Solar variability or increased urbanization, frequently invoked as alternative explanations for rising temperatures by global warming critics, cannot explain rising temperatures over sea or the fact that the stratosphere is actually cooling.

No one knows what the consequences of this warming will be with respect to storms, droughts, floods, etc. and their mortality and subsistence effects. Those who call out "alarmists" can just as easily be called out as "pollyannas." It's just noise.

Gore has done a big service in getting more people to talk, write and think about this.
He would do an even bigger service if he addressed THE UNDERLYING BIG ISSUE, which is overpopulation. That is the main reason why global warming is occurring so rapidly AND why the demographic and economic consequences are likely to be severe.

Just a quick comment from someone who's not a fan of the former VP, about why people like me find his assertions re: global warming (or the new vogue term, the more encompassing "climate change") troubling. I'll let others carp about or praise the Nobel committee and that British judge, and I'll leave the re-fighting of the 2000 election recount to those who prefer not to move on (to coin a phrase).

Mr. Gore and his allies have been charged with using exaggerations (and worse) to make their case. Many who agree that Mr. Gore plays loose with the facts are willing to forgive him for that, because they feel he does it in furtherance of a good cause in which he earnestly believes, and hey, a little propaganda and exaggerated alarmism is OK if it "raises awareness" about this important issue (especially if it isn't conscious or deliberate).

I'm almost willing to buy that excuse, up to a point, except for one thing. Mr. Gore and his allies are not just trying to raise awareness. They are trying to build the foundation for some rather radical policy proposals, and they are seeking to do this by convincing people that failure to act -- to act now, and dramatically -- will have catastrophic and almost immediate results. They declare that the debate about global warming is over, that there isn't time to listen to nay-sayers -- and they don't really want to have a debate about what we are supposed to do about it, because a global catastrophe is imminent. They're the forces of goodness and light, their policy prescriptions are reasonable and necessary, and anyone who disagrees with them is ignorant at best, or an evil tool of the dark side at worst. At least that's how I see it.

If you want to use hyperbole and half-facts to convince me that something is a problem, that's one thing. But don't expect me to change how I live my life -- or to support using the power of the state to force people to change -- based on slippery political advocacy dressed up as science. That's hardly democratic, and if the case can't be made without resorting to such tactics, I for one will have to keep asking questions.

Who should I believe?
Should I believe the Judge - or should I believe those lying melting icecaps?

Here is an excerpt from a speech given by former Vice President Al Gore at the National Sierra Club Convention in San Francisco on September 9, 2005 addressing the challenges and moral imperatives posed by Hurricane Katrina and global warming.

"Here's what I think we here understand about Hurricane Katrina and global warming. Yes, it is true that no single hurricane can be blamed on global warming. Hurricanes have come for a long time, and will continue to come in the future. Yes, it is true that the science does not definitively tell us that global warming increases the frequency of hurricanes - because yes, it is true there is a multi-decadal cycle, twenty to forty years that profoundly affects the number of hurricanes that come in any single hurricane season. But it is also true that the science is extremely clear now, that warmer oceans make the average hurricane stronger, not only makes the winds stronger, but dramatically increases the moisture from the oceans evaporating into the storm - thus magnifying its destructive power - makes the duration, as well as the intensity of the hurricane, stronger." - Al Gore

This doesn't sound to me like a person who "...believes that Hurricane Katrina was caused by global warming" as your caption above reads. It sounds to me like Al Gore is saying that if we don't do something about global warming, we will see a lot more hurricanes like Katrina.

Therefore, Michael, you may want to look in the mirror and ask yourself, who exactly is doing the misleading???

BobM

The problem with Al Gore is not that he distorts the facts or is untruthful, but that he is careless with his phraseology to the point of exaggeration. As a politician, he was prone to taking more credit than was needed. No, he didn't claim that he invented the Internet, but he did tell CNN, "During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet." In fact, he was a early supporter of expanding the ARPARNET, a computer service that pre-dated his entry into Congress by eight years. Similarly, instead of stating that he supported McCain-Feingold as vice-president, he claimed to have been a co-sponsor in the Senate. As an environmental spokesman, Gore suffers from the same credibility issue. Global warming is scary enough without implying that the ocean levels will rise 20 feet in our lifetimes or that category 5 hurricanes are the immediate result of global warming. I will grant you that there is some very unfair bashing of Gore on the right, but there is also a case to be made as to the motives of the Nobel Committee. Similar to Jimmy Carter's sudden Nobel recognition in 2002, you could ask, "exactly why the Peace Prize and why now?"

I am ashamed of what the Nobel Peace Prize has come to mean. Gore's inconsistent, politically-motivated drivel has caused anything BUT peace in this world. Contrast him with last year's peace prize winner, Muhammud Yunus who has dramatically improved poverty in Bangladesh through his radical idea of microcredit. That man is saving lives and causing peace. Gore and Co. are simply spinning a cause with the aid of deep pockets and a widely developed web of power created by those who long-ago stopped listening to reason, choosing hype instead. How silly they will all look when their dire warnings pass like the 1950s predictions about the world in 2010.

Apparently the only folks who read and post here are "true believers". I feel sorry for those whose naive ideas and opinions are shaped by the AGW charlatans. I seriously doubt that they, and the many others who sip the AGW cool-aid of the fraudmeisters like the IPCC, Al Gore and Jim Hansen, have thoroughly researched the more logical side of this egregious scam.

If we think us mere mortals can change the course of speeding asteroids or alter the course of our climate, which has changed constantly and dramatically over untold millennia, we ALL need to get a serious reality check. Global warming is real, it's just not in our power to cause it or stop it.

The saddest part of this political opportunism is the serious damage it will do to worldwide economic growth, which promises to bring those who don't currently share our wonderful standard of living out of their miseries in the less developed parts of our globe.

Hang on to your wallets, folks, Gore is on the way. Carbon credits, indeed!

"An Inconvenient Truth" for Michael Dobbs. You are not a fact checker, you are an entertainer.
Kevin

I know I have seen news reports documenting the fact that some South Pacific countries are already starting to be swallowed by the ocean. Either Vanuatu or Tuvalu is already sending people to New Zealand and they are trying to come up with a plan for how to resettle even more people as the islands keep disappearing while holding on to their own identity and nationhood in a new place. I am surprised that the judge thinks Gore made that up! Seems like it would have been very easy to verify.

This is it. I am cancelling my Washington Post subscription.

I'm not arguing with your fact-checking, but I do wonder how often you are so prominently displayed on-line. It seems to me that the Post is going out of its way to push the agenda of the oil companies and other global warming naysayers. Did you fact check the administration's WMD and Al Qaeda claims about Iraq as vigorously? And did the Post put those at the top of the web-page? Will you be fact checking all the Nobel prize winner's works, or just the ones your right wing masters tell you to. I'd really like to know. The headline alone is terribly misleading. And Zap, you're a fool.

I agree that it's both very difficult and far too early to accurately understand and measure man's involvement in global climate change. The larger point, though, that the dirty consumption and depletion of fossil fuels, air and water pollution, overpopulation, a looming freshwater crisis, etc., seems to be an easy one to understand.

Whether or not man is contributing to uber-long term climate change is a massive question, nearly too big to understand. That man's polluting, consuming ways are bad for the Earth at this very minute is as simple as looking out the window.

Wasting time and energy debating the "political" implications and/or influences of environmentally-concerned efforts is like counting the flies buzzing around the head of a starving child.

What I find most curious about the Nobel prize award is that AL Gore says the sea-level will rise 20 feet this century, while his co-winner, the UN panel, predicts about a ONE-foot rise.

That's some gigantic differential.

And all of this is supposedly based on the same data and computer models.

Hmmmmmmmm.
.

Reality? Yeah, the Earth is getting warmer. But then again, there was the Ice Age, then the little Ice Age...and didnt just last year scientists pull up vegitation on the north pole from thousands of years ago? The reality is this, its all part of a normal cycle. People just can't handle change, and always have to lay blame somewhere. Now its Co2 emmissions (of which fatso Gore) is a capital offender. Gimmie a break. Mother nature does what she wants, and all we can do is hold on.

I work with several meteorologists at a state agency. Their consensus is that:

a) It is getting warmer globally

b) Anthropogenic factors are having some effect

c) There has yet to be a verifiable method of quantifying the amount of change resulting from anthropogenic effects.

My personal opinion as a scientist (wetland ecologist) by training, is that a lot of the folks (including VP Gore) who are pushing man-induced global warming so stridently, are deliberately ignoring the inevitable caveats that are inevitably included in science. They believe that the only way that they can get global action on reducing pollution (which is a laudable goal), is by exaggerating the causes and impacts of global warming.

In other words, they believe that the ends (reducing pollution), justifies the means (vastly overstating global warming.)

To be perfectly honest, I find that as abhorrent as the corporate shills on the other side of the issue who are minimizing any risk at the behest of corporations.

The problem, is that politicians should let the scientists do the science.

Is it too soon for a Pinocchio test? Not at all. All the of the judges alleged concerns are addressed here. And they don't make the judge look too good.

Another frustratingly stupid, lazy and ultimately dishonest hitpiece disguised as "balanced."

First, where's the "fact check" on Gore's opponents? They spew truly remarkable lies all the time.

Second, Gore never made half the claims attributed to him before their "rebuttal". The one involving Katrina is a good example. Gore never said that. Morons said that, and attributed it to Gore because it was simplistic and attackable.

I could go on, but I'm really tired of lazy, stupid media getting manipulated to accomodate the howling "loyal bushies" who oppose science and uncomfortable facts.

that Gore line about Polar bears drowning because they couldn't swim far enough to find ice.. that had me on the floor laughing. Obvious propaganda aimed at children, but it is really over the top. So in the hour or so that the bears were merrily swimming around hunting for fish, the ice they had just come from melted for 60 miles!!!!!!! What a bunch of losers this whole group of global warming alarmists are. They can't hold real jobs so they invent them.

As Deborah Tannen describes in her book "The Argument Culture", the problem with the media is, even when the score is 91 to 9, they feel compelled to offer BOTH sides of an argument as equally legitimate in an EFFORT to promote "Fair and Balanced"... nevermind that it is incredibly unbalanced.
I am so happy for Gore. He made a complicated issue understandable to us all...if his conclusions "exaggerate" that is better than downplaying risks that, by the time the naysayers come around to the truth it is too late to save the planet. And if the coral reef's bleaching is due to pollution or warming, BOTH problems need addressing. Gore's film has made that so obvious, WHO can argue with that?!

Hmmm.... One judge versus the entirety of science? How does that even begin to get at "fact?"

to leni:Again,the bottom line is economy over the earths' furture,right?
It's that mentality that got us into this mess in the first place. Remember "acid rain"? That was bunked at first too,but due to stronger emission laws,it has been lowered to somewhat acceptable levels.
Recycling:remember when that was the big kick back in the 70'? Well people started doing it and it helped to reduce the land fills which were starting to overrun us. I'm sure the debunkers writing to make it sound like everythings fine,it'll take millions of years for this to happen,are the same ones who miss the public garbage can or throw it out there car window with no regard to my environment.
I can't help but remember when these same people debunking Gore,are the same one who said,"Oh the levees are fine"in New Orleans. Look where we are now with that. So if it's a choice between Al Gore and his global warnings or the know it alls that are more concerned with the $$$$,
I'll take Als' side any day.
And as for this article,it's despicable!
Why don't they just change the papers' name to the Fox Post.

If only the Washington Post had spent an equal amount of time exposing the distortions, untruths, and malfeasance of the Bush regime over the past seven years, perhaps this country and this planet would have been spared an uncalculable amount of tragedy.

There's that open-mindedness you liberals are so famous for.

Hey Michael N., you embody the classic story of a victim of misdirection. Gore says you think, but you now attribute "stridency" to him that is actually a manifestation of the strident and irrational rants of the folks who do not accept the three now obvious points you do agree with.

We can't even prove beyond a doubt that smoking causes cancer. There is a high correlation, but not absolute proof. That the judge required absolute proof in many of these cases, shows that no one could ever meet these standards and that perhaps a court of law is not the place to decide them. A jury might have had a different opinion. There is much that cannot be proved beyond a reasonable doubt but we accept it as fact. Do they even understand what gravity is? I don't think so, not in a complete absolute way, but I hope someone doesn't take the scientitsts to court for talking about it. We know there is gravity even if we don't understand everything about it. Science is about exploring our world to find out as much as we can. It can be a long process. With global warming, we just don't have the centuries needed to be absolutely sure of what is going to happen. The event itself will overtake our scientific inquiry, and I for one am not willing to gamble that the scientists are wrong. And when it is just a matter of changing technologies, standing up to the coal and oil industries, we just can let one British judge stand in our way.

Although the greenies are thrilled to have Gore as the face of its cause, his entry has also politicized the debate, further complicating any attempts to resolve these problems. I have always said government is way too important to be left to politicians, and I think I would add environmentalism should be left alone by the politicians. I am comfortable letting those that really know what is going on fight it out, rather than grandstanding buffoons with axes to grind, whether that be a left-handed ax or a right-handed model.

You think man can destroy the planet? What intoxicating vanity. Let me tell you about our planet. Earth is four-and-a-half-billion-years-old. There's been life on it for nearly that long, 3.8 billion years. Bacteria first; later the first multicellular life, then the first complex creatures in the sea, on the land. Then finally the great sweeping ages of animals, the amphibians, the dinosaurs, at last the mammals, each one enduring millions on millions of years, great dynasties of creatures rising, flourishing, dying away -- all this against a background of continuous and violent upheaval. Mountain ranges thrust up, eroded away, cometary impacts, volcano eruptions, oceans rising and falling, whole continents moving, an endless, constant, violent change, colliding, buckling to make mountains over millions of years. Earth has survived everything in its time.
It will certainly survive us. If all the nuclear weapons in the world went off at once and all the plants, all the animals died and the earth was sizzling hot for a hundred thousand years, life would survive, somewhere: under the soil, frozen in arctic ice. Sooner or later, when the planet was no longer inhospitable, life would spread again. The evolutionary process would begin again. Might take a few billion years for life to regain its present variety. Of course, it would be very different from what it is now, but the earth would survive our folly, only we would not. If the ozone layer gets thinner, ultraviolet radiation sears earth, so what? Ultraviolet radiation is good for life. It's powerful energy. It promotes mutation, change. Many forms of life will thrive with more UV radiation. Many others will die out. You think this is the first time that's happened? Think about oxygen. Necessary for life now, but oxygen is actually a metabolic poison, a corrosive glass, like fluorine.

When oxygen was first produced as a waste product by certain plant cells some three billion years ago, it created a crisis for all other life on earth. Those plants were polluting the environment, exhaling a lethal gas. Earth eventually had an atmosphere incompatible with life. Nevertheless, life on earth took care of itself. In the thinking of the human being a hundred years is a long time. Hundred years ago we didn't have cars, airplanes, computers or vaccines. It was a whole different world, but to the earth, a hundred years is nothing. A million years is nothing. This planet lives and breathes on a much vaster scale. We can't imagine its slow and powerful rhythms, and we haven't got the humility to try. We've been residents here for the blink of an eye. If we're gone tomorrow, the earth will not miss us. --Michael Crichton

I really have to agree with most of the other comments. This piece is a disgrace. It is insulting to have it on your front page the day Vice President Gore is nominated for this prize.

More importantly, The Post (and Journalists in general) needs to realize that good reporting does not always entail a "fair and balanced" approach between two sides of an argument. When one side is a small, right-leaning minority (Senator Inhofe et. al) advancing almost no evidence to support their hypotheses and the other is the vast, vast bulk of the scientific community, is there really a debate any more?

This headline appears on your site today. How convenient. Poodle. Of course the so-called Terrorist Surveillance Program wants to discredit Gore. They work for the no-bid Bushies, not the American people.

Bush called Gore Ozone Man. Bush is an evil man and his toadies will smear one of the greatest American presidents ever elected: Al Gore.

DI don't see where the 'fact checker' has actually checked any facts, just re-printed an unsubstantiated news article. Or are news articles now considered 'peer reviewed' and newsprint 'scientific journals'?
Looks to me like the Fact Checker' is just presenting more 'convenient ignorance'.

Unbelievable. Instead of celebrating a great achievement by one of your fellow countrymen (and I am not one). And a political one at that (how many other countries can make similar claims?) the Post immediately launches an attack.
(If only the Post itself would be held to such unbelievably high standards.) Especially when it comes to something as complex and important as Global Warming.I am so disgusted it's subscription canceling time for me.

I do not know why our atmosphere is going away or why our polar icecaps are disappearing or why Greenland turning Green, but WE need to find out quickly. And God help us if GORE is wrong.

Because of others and Gore, at least, we are asking the question.

I think it's irresponsible to lump all of the most recent Nobel Laureates in with criticisms of Al Gore's film, as portrayed in the heading on the front page. The IPCC's reports were a careful analysis. Gore's movie was an educational documentary. To publish something without making that clear distinction provides fodder for skeptics and critics and lends credence to the misguided notion that there is another side to this argument.

First, I just wanted to point out that the "High Court" is not particularly high in England. I don't know why I would refer to it as an authority, particularly a scientific authority.
Why is this article important? Maybe it belongs on a sidebar, somewhere, but it is certainly not a headline. The Nobel prize, of course, is.

JC
Your post is interesting, largely true, and irrelevant. No scientist has ever claimed that humans could "destroy" the earth. Go back and read the latest IPCC report.

Al Gore believes that Hurricane Katrina was caused by global warming. George Bush doesn't believe Katrina occurred.

On the day when George W. Bush announced "mission accomplished," I don't recall the Washington Post leading its front page with a "Fact Checker" article. In fact, I am still waiting for the Post's editorial board to take some responsibility for having helped to whip up the Iraq war fever.

Al Gore is a liar who will say anything to make him popular. He doesn't deserve anything but to be ignored. He has spread all sorts of lies and half truths which "prove" his points. Millions of years have proven global warming and global cooling. As recent as 20 years ago "scientists" told us we were near a little ice age. Now "Algore" has "proof" that we are nearing global warming because we are all breathing. He would help us all if he gave up his private airplanes, 30,000 square foot house and the air he breaths. He is a total loser who is a forerunner to Hillary, the biggest loser of all.

Thanks. I was wondering what would be the so-called "errors in fact". Only a very impractical and unusual interpretation of "fact" could lead to conclusions of "errors" in this case.

Does the Post employ journalists interested in finding out who provided funds and experts for the critical testimony against Gore to the British Court, how its convenient timing was scheduled?

I was a coral reef scientist at NOAA for many years and have read scores of peer-reviewed scientific reports that show direct correlations between coral bleaching and rising water temperatures - in fact, it's the underlying basis behind NOAA's Coral Reef Watch which alerts coral bleaching events globally. This is just one piece of evidence that discounts the judge's ruling...of which I have several issues with. There are two sides to many stories and each side picks what they like best to prove their point.

In the 1970's, scientists foretold of the catastrophic effects of "Global Cooling." I feel like Winston in 1984. They're trying to re-educate us by erasing our memory.

As recent data has shown, the one thing we know for sure is that we don't know anything for sure. In fact, it seems that certain effects attributed to global warming are increasing at a rate exceeding even the doomsayers' projections. Clearly, something is going on, and we will appear as foolish as Dr. Seuss' two stubborn Zax (and just as extinct) if we don't stop quibbling and start working together.

I am concerned about global warming but I agree with Micheal N, let the scientists do the work and prove the issues. It has already been PROVEN that global warming is a cyclical pattern of weather events and changes just as the Ice Age, etc, etc. The extent that humans contribute to the pattern of warming has yet to be proven by ANYONE, scientists included. If I understand my research correctly, the emissions of methane gas from the ocean floor has been proven to be one of the greatest contributors to global warming. These are not man-made gases so we are not the greatest contributor, nor even close.

One of my greatest concerns about the judges ruling is that he has agreed to allow this film to be shown in classrooms in Britain .....but this is a PG rated film. Correct me if I am wrong but doesn't that mean parental guidance is suggested, not teacher guidance? If the critics feel that parental guidance is suggested, who is this judge to determine otherwise? How can he approve this and step on the rights of the parents to control what their children see and do not see?

It is disappointing that Gore exaggerated some effects of global warming, and apparently fabricated some of the facts (Drowing Polar Bears, evacuated Pacific Island nations, etc.). It distracts from the central issue. Since he exaggerated/lied on some of the facts, opponents will use this as leverage to discredit the entire issue.

Like Michael Moore, Gore has inserted himself into the debate, trying to "own" the issue, much as Moore has tried to hijack the health care issue in this country. People resent Moore for this, and for his twisting of the facts. Since Moore is wrong on many things, it creates ammunition for opponents to argue he is wrong on everything.

The issue becomes the personality. This is wrong. Global warming is more than Al Gore.

Enough of these "documentarys" that are little more than politcal soapboxes and vehicles for their MAKERS to advance themselves. The documentatiran should remain in the background and let the story tell itself.

What a joke! You rely on a British court's "fact" checking to ascertain whether Al Gore's movie is accurate. My favorite comment: Gore cited a scientific study showing that polar bears had drowned by "swimming long distances--up to 60 miles--to find the ice." Evidence backing up this claim was not produced to the British court.

How about checking with the scientists? I think this sort of nitpicking is just so weak. There is no "analysis" by the Fact Checker. What do scientists think about the nine disputed facts? You don't do any original research -- and that is a big problem. Gore did -- and relied on scientists' assertions -- to make his movie. You just reiterate what some judge in England concluded. . . .

"The coldest winter I ever spent was a summer in San Francisco." -- Mark Twain

Never speak in absolutes when it comes to weather.

Rather than argue about the premise, the lawsuit seemed to be arguing the specific facts. Nothing in the original complaint got at the scientific premise, which remains almost totally uncontested. However, this is the way that modern scientific theories are "Swift-Boated", by attacking supporting facts as not being 100% accurate rather than attacking the premise.

Your fact checker needs serious fact checking. The only source you used was a court case in Britain? That's your only source? And WaPo calls that "fact checking"? Shame on you!!

Why didn't you go back to scientific sources, rather than a non-specialist judge? Why did you stop with the judge who ruled only on the basis of information submitted to him, rather than on the universe of scientific information that was available?

And why didn't you point out that there weren't "nine" mistakes or inaccuracies. Even if you use only the British court case, you should have admitted that several of those nine items were not wrong, but inconclusive. But your question mark in the fact checker article suggested that Gore's film was deeply flawed and inaccurate, suggestions that are false.

Your so-called "fact checking" is terrible, and a distinct embarrassment to the Washington Post. This is another example of not fact checking, but right-wing smear through innuendo and insinuation using cherry-picked sources.

Shame on Washington Post!

Good to see the Post is right on top of this story. Unlike the millions spent by Exxon Mobil, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, and other fossil fuel profiteers, over a period of a decade, all of whom get their promotional materials, generated by PR firms rather than peer-reviewed, into schools, exert pressure on organizations like the National Science Teachers Association to keep Gore's movie out of schools, and demand 'balance' in news coverage, the kind of balance the Post so dutifully provides when it puts a so-called 'fact checker' article right below the announcement (based on a court case?? What's next? Scalia being used as a content expert on civil rights law?).

Just what I've come to expect. My guess is people don't read the Post for news coverage of this sort anyway--but rather just to see how a commercial news outlet that hasn't completely compromised its integrity--yet--is covering it.

This whole "Global Warming" scare is a complete crock of s**t. Yes, the planet is getting warmer. No, it's not because of anything man has done or is doing. Consider the following facts:

* It was warmer in the year 1000 than it is today. How do you think that "Greenland" got its name? When the Vikings first landed there, it was actually GREEN! That could only have happened if temperatures were significantly higher than they are today. As far as I know, the Vikings weren't driving SUV's back then.

* As for this supposed "exact fit" between atmospheric carbon dioxide levels and global temperature, there is no doubt a strong correllation. But if one looks a bit closer, one sees that carbon dioxide levels are a LAGGING indicator, not a LEADING one!!! This means that global temperatures aren't rising because there's more CO2 in the atmosphere. On the contrary: There's more CO2 in the atmosphere because global temperatures are rising! And the reason the planet is getting warmer is because of fluctuations in the energy output of the sun. Period. Earth has undergone countless periods of warming and cooling over the past 4 billion years, and none of them, including this one, were caused by the burning of fossil fuels.

* How many out there actually know the percentage of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere? It's 0.3%. A miniscule amount. And by far the most plentiful source of new CO2 pumped into the atmosphere each year is evaporation. For every pound of CO2 that man puts into the air each year, the oceans of the world pump over 200 pounds into the atmosphere. So, if man were to cut his CO2 emissions by 50% ... or if man-made CO2 emissions were to double ... it would make absolutely no difference in the overall scheme of things.

This whole "global warming" thing has taken on the context of a religious movement, and you're nothing but a deviant heretic if you DARE to question it. But just as all of the learned scientists who, in the 1970s, predicted that a new "Ice Age" was about to begin were shown to be idiots, so too will all of today's global warming zealots be similarly exposed in due time.

Gore has a long history of stretching the truth dating well back to before he started his crusade against global warming. He has no credibility in my book.

The quote from Judge Burton's opinion, saying that sea level change will happen only after millenia, indicates that he is either ideologically opposed to Gore or ignorant of both the current situation and the historical pattern of *precipitous* change in nature.

A specific mountain or lake is subject to numerous conditions, so it may be impossible to attribute change there to the single condition of global warming. Still, global warming could be a factor even if it is not the only factor.

By all means, give teachers and students more information on the subject. But let's stay focused on the important questions: Do hydrocarbon emissions cause global warming? (Yes.) Is global warming harmful? (Yes.) What can we do to slow or reverse global warming. (Start by admitting answers to first two questions.)

This column is a lousy hit piece. You should be ashamed. I really can't stand the Washington Post.

How accurate Gore predictions precisely are is not easy to tell. However, it is very obvious that they are accurate enough to propell him into 2008 presidency, if he enters the race now. And, I think, he should and would.The entire construction of 'Art of Betrayal' created by Mrs. Clinton or both Clintons is destined to be demolished similarly to the way WTC towers were demolished on 9/11. Go to http://www.lulu.com/browse/preview.php?fCID=956874 to read more.

There's evidence of human influence on CO2 (although not completely human caused). There are models showing warming from CO2, but warming has been occuring without increases in CO2 as well. It's foolish to make all or nothing statements about warming. The proposed programs to slow the growth of CO2 are politically inspired and will be ineffective (trillions spent for negligible gain).

Ask the modelers about the best way to cool the earth if it needs cooling. If they don't say "particulates" or high altitude sulfur, and instead say decrease CO2, then they have given a political, not scientific answer.

Thanks, everyone, for pounding the Post. Seriously, this is just a disgusting piece of garbage that we don't normally expect from The Post. Sure, it's pro-war and it's participated in the global-warming process by publishing articles that make global-warming appear somewhat in doubt. BUT, to attack Al Gore, after he won a Nobel Peace Prize, on the basis that some judge in England objected to some facts (or, worse, that Gore may have "exaggerated"), is just repulsive.

One Judge, one court, vs thousands of scientists.

Who do you believe?

I only need to look out my window each snowless December (and now January). If anything, Global Warming has been way underestimated.

But, what me worry? -gotta jump in my suv and get to the mall to do some shoppin'

I've done a lot of study on environmental issues. While Gore did at times push things a bit and claim climate change as a cause for things that may be otherwise caused, the fact is that he has not pushed the facts near as much as big oil, energy producers who pollute, and so on. The real issue for me is that I was taught to keep my house clean. If we know that we can do something to keep our planet clean and that making it dirty causes possible harm to it, then why not opt for keeping it clean. One thing Gore did say that is true. In the long run it is profitable to be ethical.

Sweet Lord, get this idiot off the newspapers! The ignorance is unbelieveable. Look, it is happening all round us, we have been preparing the gournd for global warming for years and years and years, it is so obvious. Your intro of trying to rebut Gore's (and Science's - yes that is a capital S) assertion with an assertion by a British High Court judge is pathetic. I mean pathetic in the sense that I am sorry you had to stoop to that level. Now if you could have got a reliable source like a major (not minor, not fringe) group of scientists (remember, these are the people that study global warming every day, not lawyers or judges who study it when they need to make an opinion) instead of a member of the legal community, tehn you would have made a better impression on me.

In any case, you have your head somewhere in the sand and, for whatever reason, instead of taking note of the 800lb gorilla in the room, you have decided to see nothing, hear nothing and look at nothing unless it is what you want to see.

take him off, reasoned opinion is one thing but hearsay and isolated anecdotes instead of evidence is another.

I agree. Melting snow and ice have nothing to do with warmer temperatures. Fact.

There is something going on with the planet's climate.......so poking a stick at Gore...or Bush...or anybody.... will not reverse what's happening. While we debate the personalities or the science involved it's not getting any cooler either.

Wow ... so the Washington Post "fact checks" SCIENCE by ... listing a court opinion by someone not a scientist, and then linking to three sites that disagree without actually providing scientific evidence (the anit-film and NYT article have been widely debunked, time and again, by real scientists)?

Wow ... just ... um ... who the holy heck came up with this? Seriously. Why is there not any actual, you know, SCIENTISTS linked to in an article fact checking science?

Truly sad.

I concur with all the commentaters who question the veracity of the "Fact Checker" and their wasted time and energy reporting on a non-scientific body as the British Courts. I, also, concur on their suggestion, which I STRONGLY suggest that you do a "fact check" on the bogus invasion of Iraq. Hmmm. I think it was based on WMD that were never found by the Un Forces who went in to do an investigation before Bush and his war-mongering cronies decided that this would be a good excuse to get over there to protect their monetary oil interests. CHECK THAT OUT IN YOUR FACT CHECKER!!!!

A pretty lukewarm rebuttal (no pun intended). I guess "Maybe Not" is always a safe counter to Gore's "Maybe". In the end, the educational value of Gore's work was recognized, and the recommendations seem pretty sensible. Hopefully they will both strengthen the learning environment for British children - and hopefully those children will be spared the shrill ranting from either side that claims absolute knowledge or understanding of global climate issues.

Congradulations to a great American and citizen of the w