Obviously, 'An Inconvenient Truth' is the only Bible for this topic, as it is constantly referred to by those trying to put forth the misleading idea of global warming. Al Gore is not an expert on the matter, yet his book is taken as science and fact rather than the fiction that it is.

In the 1960's and 70's, we were pounded with reports of 'global cooling'; another ice age was just around the corner. Wrong! I beleive that Accuweather, TWC, and the media in general are misinforming their public by reporting this type of unconfirmed garbage. You might as well report on the resurgence of the T-Rex.

About 6 months ago at a meteorological conference (I think it was in Denver), one of the headline speakers stated firmly that it was still very difficult to predict the weather past 3-5 days with accuracy (see 2006 Hurricane Season Forecast), and that global warming could not be predicted with ANY credibility. Yet, many still promote the idea of global warming with theoretical evidence at best, and it is reported as FACT. These people point to the last 30 years as solid evidence; this is a 'convenient untruth', as 30 years is not enough time to be examined --- 2 or 3 HUNDRED years might give us a better picture.

My opinion is: Why don't you just report and predict the weather instead of promoting junk science and political agendas? Global warming is a myth; weather is cyclical...learn it, live it, love it!

I don't see any one-sidedness here Warren. Laura has posted all my comments and I'm not kind to the enviro-whackos. You should try posting contrary comments on the weather channels site - they won't post them at all. I know because I tried it. You'll also find that they have hardly any comments at all even though their site is so full of baloney its an internet sandwich.

Warren wrote: "Yet, many still promote the idea of global warming with theoretical evidence at best, and it is reported as FACT." Yes, this is why I call them media-morons, and screamers.

Anyway, keep pushing back at the screamers, Warren. I need all the help I can get.

Your on your own for Cutbank, Laura. But I will think warm thoughts about you because you post my comments.

Perhaps researching and reviewing popular media is one approach to better understanding the formation of opinions by the populous. As with any information gleaned from politically motivated sources, there will undoubtedly be blind followers. In viewing the information with a critical eye, trained professionals can better dispel the myths presented, or, possibly, support theories that are founded in science.

Is global warming a myth? Quite possibly.

I actually agree that only theoretical evidence can be used to study global warming. I also agree that 2 or 3 hundred years would be a more realistic set of data to analyze.

But the facts are that first we don't have such data to analyze and most science is done through "theoretical data". Theory of relativity is only theory, and it's science. And may be wrong. We just can't wait for two hundred years hoping that global warming is nothing more than hype and then conclude "oh boy, it was really a threat. Too late."

According to this report in the BBC, the British Antarctic Survey (BAS) disclosed ice-core data reporting C02 and temperature levels for 800,000 years.

From the article:
Project scientists say its contents indicate humans could be bringing about dangerous climate changes.

"My point would be that there's nothing in the ice core that gives us any cause for comfort," said Dr Eric Wolff from the British Antarctic Survey (BAS).

"There's nothing that suggests that the Earth will take care of the increase in carbon dioxide. The ice core suggests that the increase in carbon dioxide will definitely give us a climate change that will be dangerous," he told BBC News.

Later in the same piece is this:
The picture is the same: carbon dioxide and temperature rise and fall in step.

Like tiny time capsules, bubbles trap ancient samples of atmosphere. "Ice cores reveal the Earth's natural climate rhythm over the last 800,000 years. When carbon dioxide changed there was always an accompanying climate change. Over the last 200 years human activity has increased carbon dioxide to well outside the natural range," explained Dr Wolff.

The "scary thing", he added, was the rate of change now occurring in CO2 concentrations. In the core, the fastest increase seen was of the order of 30 parts per million (ppm) by volume over a period of roughly 1,000 years.

"The last 30 ppm of increase has occurred in just 17 years. We really are in the situation where we don't have an analogue in our records," he said.

This data is no more "theoretical" than measurements of the fossil record or measurements of astronomical quantities such as radiation, red-shift, and spectra.

With all due respect to woodNfish and others, "pushing back at the screamers" is hardly conducive to understanding a critical item. The data is real, the research is real. If the data is being mis-interpreted, then every scientist wants to know about it -- no screaming is needed.

Unlike the political arena, science thrives on new data that challenges existing theory. However, as Carl Sagan was fond of saying, "Exceptional claims demand exceptional proof."

The data in support of the existence of global warming and the human causality of global warming is compelling and growing daily. If that data is inaccurate, then the inaccuracies need to be demonstrated. If the data is accurate and the interpretation is troublesome, then a different interpretation must be offered.

A "theory" is testable, falsifiable, and offers predictive capabilities. The current theoretical understanding of global warming, like the current theoretical understanding of evolution, satisfies all those attributes. The alternatives do not.