I count on Accu Weather for up-to-date weather, not unproven science. Globel warming has not been proven at this time. At the same time, many areas of the country are having recorded breaking cold temps. and record snow falls. How can that happen if the Earth is getting warmer?

It was only 25 years ago or so, that the cover of Newsweek called out that the next ice age was coming. What happen to all of that so called science?

I expect Accu Weather to provide weather information, not political talking points. Not Al Gore has said or any others have said about goble warning, can be proven. Report the weather, not political science.

It figures. Especially coming from Norway. One of many European countries that is falling apart at the seams.

Eric...In AccuWeather's defense, political talking points are the root cause on this issue. There really is no way to talk about Global Warming without bringing politics into the fray. Like I mentioned in another thread, you can thank the Nobel Prize nominee mentioned here, along with his radical ilk for that!......

Dear Eric,

Science has already proven that average global temperatures have been rising for some time. Science has also proven that sea ice & glaciers are melting & that sea levels are rising. Local extremes in temperatures(both hot & cold) are consistent with global warming computer models.

If you wish to debate the causes or future trends,Accuweather is simply providing you a forum to do so!

I saw the film. It made some very ggod points regarding Global Warming. I'm still not completely sold onall the points made. By the way ANYONE can be nominate for a Noble Peace Prize. You should see some of the nominations as they can be very politically motivated.

Eric,

I understand your skepticism. Right now it�s 24 degrees and snowing. We are just beginning to recover from the ice storm of the century here in Missouri. One of the markers of Global Warming is extremes. As the earth warms up, it affects the delicate balance of our planet. How much salt is in the ocean and how much ice is over the poles is directly relevant to the extremes in temperatures. Even the skeptics of Global Warming understand the effects of an El Nino. Water warming up in the Pacific ocean causes major storms in the continental US. Rather than getting rain showers for two days in the spring, we get massive devastating storms that last a few hours. The intensity goes up. That is what we�re seeing in the midwest. No more weeks of snow, we have an Ice storm and a week later it�s in the 50s. Crazy stuff. As the earth gets warmer and warmer, the intensity of storms will just increase.

It�s just like hurricanes in the Gulf of Mexico. Most storms die down a little over Cuba or Florida, but when the hurricane gets into the Gulf, warm waters from the Gulf intensify the storms. Same thing happens here. More heat means more evaporation which means more moisture in the atmosphere which means more intense storms. If you follow my logic.

Josh

Eric, stop whining about the fact you don't want to read about politics and unproven science. If you don't want to hear or read about it then no one's forcing you to. Global Warming is a heated debate in all aspects of life even if you take the politics out of it. The truth is no one really knows or fully understands. There is evidence to prove the the ice caps are melting, other natural disasters are getting more frequent and more deadly. Yes, there has been some sort of a winter, but I can tell you here in the south this is the first real week that we've actually had a winter this year. And I can verify from experience that it's been taking quite a bit longer to get cold each year. Usually by around the first of January it's down right cold. This time it's coming at the end of February. The earth's cycles are slowly changing. And that is scaring people. Al Gore may have his faults, but he is trying to protect and take care of the place we call home. I give him credit for standing up for what he believes in. But in the end, until people can prove one way or the other (if that's possible) all we can do is debate it. And what does it hurt to be a little more earth conscience. You don't have to be a tree hugger to take care of it, but it's not a bad thing to recycle, find new ways to prevent smog and other emmissions, switch to energy efficient items in your home. But again, don't read it if you only want to know about what's happening in the weather - nobody's forcing you to.

Two thoughts:

1. The wonderful job that Accuweather does in forecasting still can't reliably see much beyond a 5-day window. Al Gore can see centuries in the furure? If so, he should have been able to predict Katrina. C'mon Al.

2. I thought his inventing the internet would have at least gotten him an honorable mention somewhere by now. How can a science fiction book and the resulting movie earn him the Nobel? The Internet is the largest commercial growth enterprise in the last 100 years. He must really be frustrated.

Dear Josh,

Can you spell G-U-L-L-I-B-L-E?

This was the approaching global freeze in the '70s, then it became global warming. Now it's conveniently called Global Climate Change. Afer losing face for 30 years, they've got all possible scenarios covered now. No matter what happens to planet Earth, they will claim they "told you so".

Here's my forecast: Tomorrow, the weather is going to change. See how easy it is for me to be as smart as Al Gore?

"At the same time, many areas of the country are having recorded breaking cold temps. and record snow falls. How can that happen if the Earth is getting warmer?"

Eric, it would be too simple and too superficial to state Global Warming is (or it's not) happenning just because the Mid-West is freezing (or because it was baking for a week in Summer) Actually, what Global Warming is said to cause is extreme weather conditions. For example, last Winter here in Argentina, Ushuaia (The southern-most Argentinean city) was enduring a severe winter storm that turned deadly in Southern "Los Andes". At the same time, however, Reconquista (the town I live in, located in the North) was dealing with spring-like temps.

Even more extreme is the case of Antarctica and Europe during the same period: -78?C registered in an Argentinean Military base. Simultanously, France, Spain and Italy were suffering from extreme heat.

If you compare both cases (I would call them comparisons), you'll be tempted to say: "Oh, look what Global Warming is doing." If you analyse it carefully, however, you have to know what the weather "ingredients" were like in such areas. The problem arises when these extreme conditions become more frequent. That's why I think we're experiencing Global Warming. See, I don't say climate change, because I believe there's a trend to warmer temperatures, particullarly in the Northern Hemisphere: Europe, Moscow (Russia), Central Asia... and even the US have all seen above-average temps.

Don't think that just a heat wave or a cold snap can determine a trend towards cooling or warming. Let's take different things into account before we make our minds up. But if most cases turn out to be showing warmer temps, I think that's indicating something.

When did propaganda become a Nobel category??
Extremes of temperature and precipitation happen all the time, every day in some part of the world. Don't be fooled by those who claim it has anything to do with climate change.
A good place to look at past weather is right here on the home page, under headlines. Extreme weather is not happening with any more frequency, depite claims to the contrary.

This debate reminds me of the path that recycling took a few years back when all you saw were documentaries and news about how the planet was covered in garbage and we had better start reducing to the landfills. Well, enough politicians were scared into the picture and municipalities came up with the "Blue Box" system. Recycle or we will be buried in trash, they said the scientists and their studies.

The money train that this started, shifted a lot of big corporations, engineering and scientific firms on to the bandwagon to benefit from the spin-offs. New manufactured steel buildings by the thousands on new land bases for landfill sites, sprang up across N. America, along with the manufacturing of new trucks to triple the amount that were in place to collect and transport trash and double the exhaust output. New heavy equipment, shredders, compactors all running on deisel or electric consumption. All adding heat and fumes to the atmosphere.

The major banks, oil, electric and steel corporations and all the new green companies that took advantage of the gravy train are thankful, even though the entire system has been responsible for adding more waste and pollution than what was there before.

Sure the earth is warming, as it has many times in the past. Hello! We are living on a very, very thin, segmented and flowing skin that covers an extremely hot and volatile magma furnace just beneath our feet, that could consume us at any given moment if this skin comes apart at the seams. We live only a few minutes from massive solar flares that could radiate us out of existance in a flash. Look around. We're very tiny.

There is no amount of money, science and resources available on this planet to even put a small dent in trying to slow down a natural global climate shift. You followers should give your heads a shake for not seeing the real big picture.

This is just another "keep the cash cow alive and make me rich and famous scenario". "Look how may more folks are tuned in to my weather channel", she's thinking, eh! Just watch how many books will be written, patents for new systems, green grants that will be doled out and all the new spin-off manufacturing and transportation ideas that would not have made a profit yesterday, will boggle the imagination. A lot of doomsday folks are just waiting in the wings to jump on this one.

The only study that is right on the mark is that you can guarantee that someone on the left will come up with another profit scheme 25 years down the road to keep their businesses flourishing and their funding from being channeled to the right.

I find it interesting that people who are skeptical are so insulting. Do you have to insult someone to make a point? I have no problem discussing various ideas and viewpoints, but I'd like to do so without the insults.

Outside of Al Gore's film, there is a ton of information about global warming. I think it's happening and will continue to happen. Will the world end? No. Will it be as extreme as some say, probably not. I think there needs to be a balance.

There is no way that pumping more and more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere is healthy for our planet. I've traveled all over the world. I've stood in crowded streets and struggled to breathe in smog filled cities.

America has led the world throughout the industrial age. I think if we had someone who stood up and said, let's build a better vehicle. Let's end our dependence on fossil fuels. Let's build safe clean nuclear power plants. Let's launch into an energy revolution. If someone would lead us into a better future and not just stand by and watch and place blame, we as Americans would get behind them.

We went to the moon. Surely we can come up with a vehicle that runs on something other than gasoline. Surely someone could come up with ways to keep indusrial emissions to a minimum.

The problem is, we Americans are bound to our consumerism. we can't see past our checkbooks to see what we are leaving to our children and grandchildren.

Josh

Why is this nomination given any mention at all on a supposely serious web site?!

Al Gore's crude propaganda film has been utterly decimated by 99.9% of the serious scientists that have reviewed it! It's so riddled with absurd, unscientific facts that no one takes it serously.

Again I ask... what is it about this topic that makes so many go "BRAINLESS"?!

Y,know the last time i checked, global warming has just caused it to snow, in Malibu and Phoenix, Los Angeles, caused huge ice on crops in California.Polar ice has expanded the last hundred years in Antartica.I notice Al Gore conveintly chooses his facts to his benefit?I could go on and on and react when weather warms and cools from day to day, week to week and so on. Well lets see, as we speak, its very cold in the Mid West so cold that ice may stsrt to form on Lake Superior for first time In hundred years.I have also notice that you weather people, with all your computers diagnostics Radar etc..You cannot predict what weather will be next week let alone what global warming may do in 10 years or 50 years. Last year for instance you said, more heat brings more Hurricanes.Well we all know how that went, have you ever considered that Maybe the SUN might get hotter from time too time.You cannot put a THERMOSTAT ON THE SUN its a natural object and fluctuates daily, yearly annualy ect...I really do not like the manipulating of facts you present in global warming and then present them as fact, especially to the kids in school.Al Gores` movie has been forced down all schools in AMERICA. THATS WRONG it is obvious your propaganda and brain washing, you are Radical environmentilists.I can sum up your Global warming, the sun runs in cycles, the jet stream fluctuates and volcanoes are a reality .that makes sense.ONE MAJOR ERUPTION OF A VOLCANOE FORCES MORE POLLUTION IN THE ENVIRONMENT THAN MAN COULD IN A HUNDRED YEARS.YOUR FACTS ARE NOT FACTS THIER OPINIONS TOO WHICH YOU ARE ENTITLED.

When did propaganda become a Nobel category??
Extremes of temperature and precipitation happen all the time, every day in some part of the world. Don't be fooled by those who claim it has anything to do with climate change.
A good place to look at past weather is right here on the home page, under headlines. Extreme weather is not happening with any more frequency, depite claims to the contrary.

So now relying on science is "liberal", and recognizing the contribution that a person makes towards making the world a better place is "progaganda."

Chris sounds like another right-winger who on one hand tells us that the absence of "extreme weather" events on a website means that global warming is taking place, and on the other surely says -- when an extreme event like last spring's floods, or this winter's storms in the northwest, or Katrina, or any of the other episodes happening at ever-increasing frequency -- we can't rely on current weather conditions because we "need a longer perspective."

In other words, folks like Chris rule out ANY evidence that the phenomena is, in fact, happening all around us RIGHT NOW. This is called "denial."

The scientific evidence is clear, in spite of the best efforts of the current administration to suppress it.

The bulk of the "propaganda" I see on this blog comes from Chris's side of the aisle -- along with the name-calling, threats, mud-slinging, and boorish rudeness that in recent years has so characterized the rabid right. No doubt Chris will get a "ditto" from woodNfish or Oiznop any time now, along with an informative link to Rush's website for some "objective" information. "Propaganda" indeed.

Tell us, Chris, is information about the adverse health impacts of tobacco also "propaganda"?

It's red-herring that people mention the 1970s. Just because pundits may have been wrong then doesn't mean the same is happening now. The Earth is warmer. As far as this winter any examination of the NA data will likely show more high temp records than cold. Locally the weather has not been as anomalous for cold as it was for warmweather that occurred the first half of the winter. It's probably cause be ocean warming through insolation and a dash of mam-made warming, As for latter that has been increasing with time. A dash to become who knows what when. Yo, I didn't read the latest IPCC assessment. Can't say that I want to.

When is the funeral for "common sense"?

After reading some of the postings here calling Global warming "propaganda" and "nonsense" it is obvious common sense has perished.

Lets see... humanity dumps millions of tons of carbon, a proven greenhouse gas, into the FINITE atmosphere every day which is then soaked up by FINITE oceans and FINITE forests and you flat Earthers really believe it will have no effect? This line of (non) reasoning is so pathetic it proves America really is in need of a radical over haul of our educational system... it obviously is failing us in a very dramatic, scary way.

Not only is Al Gore deserving of the Nobel but more... He should be the next President also.

I THINK WE ALL, BETTER START THINKING OF GLOBAL
WARMING AT SOME POINT IN TIME. !!!

25 inconvenient truths for Al Gore.
By Iain Murray
With An Inconvenient Truth, the companion book to former Vice President Al Gore�s global-warming
movie, currently number nine in Amazon sales rank, this is a good time to point out that the book, which is
a largely pictorial representation of the movie�s graphical presentation, exaggerates the evidence
surrounding global warming. Ironically, the former Vice President leaves out many truths that are
inconvenient for his argument. Here are just 25 of them.
1. Carbon Dioxide�s Effect on Temperature. The relationship between global temperature and carbon
dioxide (CO2), on which the entire scare is founded, is not linear. Every molecule of CO2 added to the
atmosphere contributes less to warming than the previous one. The book�s graph on p. 66-67 is seriously
misleading. Moreover, even the historical levels of CO2 shown on the graph are disputed. Evidence from
plant fossil-remains suggest that there was as much CO2 in the atmosphere about 11,000 years ago as there
is today.
2. Kilimanjaro. The snows of Kilimanjaro are melting not because of global warming but because of a
local climate shift that began 100 years ago. The authors of a report in the International Journal of
Climatology �develop a new concept for investigating the retreat of Kilimanjaro�s glaciers, based on the
physical understanding of glacier�climate interactions.� They note that, �The concept considers the
peculiarities of the mountain and implies that climatological processes other than air temperature control
the ice recession in a direct manner. A drastic drop in atmospheric moisture at the end of the 19th century
and the ensuing drier climatic conditions are likely forcing glacier retreat on Kilimanjaro.�
3. Glaciers. Glaciers around the world have been receding at around the same pace for over 100 years.
Research published by the National Academy of Sciences last week indicates that the Peruvian glacier on
p. 53-53 probably disappeared a few thousand years ago.
4. The Medieval Warm Period. Al Gore says that the �hockey stick� graph that shows temperatures
remarkably steady for the last 1,000 years has been validated, and ridicules the concept of a �medieval
warm period.� That�s not the case. Last year, a team of leading paleoclimatologists said, �When matching
existing temperature reconstructions�the timeseries display a reasonably coherent picture of major
climatic episodes: �Medieval Warm Period,� �Little Ice Age� and �Recent Warming.�� They go on to
conclude, �So what would it mean, if the reconstructions indicate a larger�or smaller�temperature
amplitude? We suggest that the former situation, i.e. enhanced variability during pre-industrial times,
would result in a redistribution of weight towards the role of natural factors in forcing temperature
changes, thereby relatively devaluing the impact of anthropogenic emissions and affecting future
temperature predictions.�
5. The Hottest Year. Satellite temperature measurements say that 2005 wasn't the hottest year on record
� 1998 was � and that temperatures have been stable since 2001 (p.73). Here�s the satellite graph:
Iain Murray on Inconvenient Truths on National Review Online Page 1 of 5
http://article.nationalreview.com/print/?q=YmFiZDAyMWFhMGIxNTgwNGIyMjVkZjQ4OGFiZj... 6/23/2006
6. Heat Waves. The summer heat wave that struck Europe in 2003 was caused by an atmospheric pressure
anomaly; it had nothing to do with global warming. As the United Nations Environment Program reported
in September 2003, �This extreme wheather [sic] was caused by an anti-cyclone firmly anchored over the
western European land mass holding back the rain-bearing depressions that usually enter the continent
from the Atlantic ocean. This situation was exceptional in the extended length of time (over 20 days)
during which it conveyed very hot dry air up from south of the Mediterranean.�
7. Record Temperatures. Record temperatures � hot and cold � are set every day around the world;
that�s the nature of records. Statistically, any given place will see four record high temperatures set every
year. There is evidence that daytime high temperatures are staying about the same as for the last few
decades, but nighttime lows are gradually rising. Global warming might be more properly called, �Global
less cooling.� (On this, see Patrick J. Michaels book, Meltdown: The Predictable Distortion of Global
Warming by Scientists, Politicians, and the Media.)
8. Hurricanes. There is no overall global trend of hurricane-force storms getting stronger that has anything
to do with temperature. A recent study in Geophysical Research Letters found: �The data indicate a large
increasing trend in tropical cyclone intensity and longevity for the North Atlantic basin and a considerable
decreasing trend for the Northeast Pacific. All other basins showed small trends, and there has been no
significant change in global net tropical cyclone activity. There has been a small increase in global
Category 4�5 hurricanes from the period 1986�1995 to the period 1996�2005. Most of this increase is
likely due to improved observational technology. These findings indicate that other important factors
govern intensity and frequency of tropical cyclones besides SSTs [sea surface temperatures].�
9. Tornadoes. Records for numbers of tornadoes are set because we can now record more of the smaller
tornadoes (see, for instance, the Tornado FAQ at Weather Underground).
10. European Flooding. European flooding is not new (p. 107). Similar flooding happened in 2003.
Research from Michael Mudelsee and colleagues from the University of Leipzig published in Nature (Sept.
11, 2003) looked at data reaching as far back as 1021 (for the Elbe) and 1269 (for the Oder). They
concluded that there is no upward trend in the incidence of extreme flooding in this region of central
Europe.
11. Shrinking Lakes. Scientists investigating the disappearance of Lake Chad (p.116) found that most of it
Iain Murray on Inconvenient Truths on National Review Online Page 2 of 5
http://article.nationalreview.com/print/?q=YmFiZDAyMWFhMGIxNTgwNGIyMjVkZjQ4OGFiZj... 6/23/2006
was due to human overuse of water. �The lake�s decline probably has nothing to do with global warming,
report the two scientists, who based their findings on computer models and satellite imagery made
available by NASA. They attribute the situation instead to human actions related to climate variation,
compounded by the ever increasing demands of an expanding population� (�Shrinking African Lake
Offers Lesson on Finite Resources,� National Geographic, April 26, 2001). Lake Chad is also a very
shallow lake that has shrunk considerably throughout human history.
12. Polar Bears. Polar bears are not becoming endangered. A leading Canadian polar bear biologist wrote
recently, �Climate change is having an effect on the west Hudson population of polar bears, but really,
there is no need to panic. Of the 13 populations of polar bears in Canada, 11 are stable or increasing in
number. They are not going extinct, or even appear (sic) to be affected at present.�
13. The Gulf Stream. The Gulf Stream, the ocean conveyor belt, is not at risk of shutting off in the North
Atlantic (p. 150). Carl Wunsch of MIT wrote to the journal Nature in 2004 to say, �The only way to
produce an ocean circulation without a Gulf Stream is either to turn off the wind system, or to stop the
Earth�s rotation, or both�
14. Invasive Species. Gore�s worries about the effect of warming on species ignore evolution. With the
new earlier caterpillar season in the Netherlands, an evolutionary advantage is given to birds that can hatch
their eggs earlier than the rest. That�s how nature works. Also, �invasive species� naturally extend their
range when climate changes. As for the pine beetle given as an example of invasive species, Rob Scagel, a
forest microclimate specialist in British Columbia, said, �The MPB (mountain pine beetle) is a species
native to this part of North America and is always present. The MPB epidemic started as comparatively
small outbreaks and through forest management inaction got completely out of hand.�
15. Species Loss. When it comes to species loss, the figures given on p. 163 are based on extreme
guesswork, as the late Julian Simon pointed out. We have documentary evidence of only just over 1,000
extinctions since 1600 (see, for instance, Bj�rn Lomborg�s The Skeptical Environmentalist, p. 250).
16. Coral Reefs. Coral reefs have been around for over 500 million years. This means that they have
survived through long periods with much higher temperatures and atmospheric CO2 concentrations than
today.
17. Malaria and other Infectious Diseases. Leading disease scientists contend that climate change plays
only a minor role in the spread of emerging infectious diseases. In �Global Warming and Malaria: A Call
for Accuracy� (The Lancet, June 2004), nine leading malariologists criticized models linking global
warming to increased malaria spread as �misleading� and �display[ing] a lack of knowledge� of the
subject.
18. Antarctic Ice. There is controversy over whether the Antarctic ice sheet is thinning or thickening.
Recent scientific studies have shown a thickening in the interior at the same time as increased melting
along the coastlines. Temperatures in the interior are generally decreasing. The Antarctic Peninsula, where
the Larsen-B ice shelf broke up (p. 181) is not representative of what is happening in the rest of
Antarctica. Dr. Wibj�rn Karl�n, Professor Emeritus of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology at
Stockholm University, acknowledges, �Some small areas in the Antarctic Peninsula have broken up
recently, just like it has done back in time. The temperature in this part of Antarctica has increased
recently, probably because of a small change in the position of the low pressure systems.� According to a
forthcoming report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, climate models based on
anthropogenic forcing cannot explain the anomalous warming of the Antarctic Peninsula; thus, something
natural is at work.
Iain Murray on Inconvenient Truths on National Review Online Page 3 of 5
http://article.nationalreview.com/print/?q=YmFiZDAyMWFhMGIxNTgwNGIyMjVkZjQ4OGFiZj... 6/23/2006
19. Greenland Climate. Greenland was warmer in the 1920s and 1930s than it is now. A recent study by
Dr. Peter Chylek of the University of California, Riverside, addressed the question of whether man is
directly responsible for recent warming: �An important question is to what extent can the current (1995-
2005) temperature increase in Greenland coastal regions be interpreted as evidence of man-induced global
warming? Although there has been a considerable temperature increase during the last decade (1995 to
2005) a similar increase and at a faster rate occurred during the early part of the 20th century (1920 to
1930) when carbon dioxide or other greenhouse gases could not be a cause. The Greenland warming of
1920 to 1930 demonstrates that a high concentration of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases is not a
necessary condition for period of warming to arise. The observed 1995-2005 temperature increase seems
to be within a natural variability of Greenland climate.� (Petr Chylek et al., Geophysical Research Letters,
13 June 2006.)
20. Sea Level Rise. The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change does not forecast
sea-level rises of �18 to 20 feet.� Rather, it says, �We project a sea level rise of 0.09 to 0.88 m for 1990 to
2100, with a central value of 0.48 m. The central value gives an average rate of 2.2 to 4.4 times the rate
over the 20th century...It is now widely agreed that major loss of grounded ice and accelerated sea level
rise are very unlikely during the 21st century.� Al Gore�s suggestions of much more are therefore
extremely alarmist.
21. Population. Al Gore worries about population growth; Gore does not suggest a solution. Fertility in
the developed world is stable or decreasing. The plain fact is that we are not going to reduce population
back down to 2 billion or fewer in the foreseeable future. In the meantime, the population in the
developing world requires a significant increase in its standard of living to reduce the threats of premature
and infant mortality, disease, and hunger. In The Undercover Economist, Tim Harford writes, �If we are
honest, then, the argument that trade leads to economic growth, which leads to climate change, leads us
then to a stark conclusion: we should cut our trade links to make sure that the Chinese, Indians and
Africans stay poor. The question is whether any environmental catastrophe, even severe climate change,
could possibly inflict the same terrible human cost as keeping three or four billion people in poverty. To
ask that question is to answer it.�
22. Energy Generation. A specific example of this is Gore�s acknowledgement that 30 percent of global
CO2 emissions come from wood fires used for cooking (p. 227). If we introduced affordable, coal-fired
power generation into South Asia and Africa we could reduce this considerably and save over 1.6 million
lives a year. This is the sort of solution that Gore does not even consider.
23. Carbon-Emissions Trading. The European Carbon Exchange Market, touted as �effective� on p. 252,
has crashed.
24. The �Scientific Consensus.� On the supposed �scientific consensus�: Dr. Naomi Oreskes, of the
University of California, San Diego, (p. 262) did not examine a �large random sample� of scientific
articles. She got her search terms wrong and thought she was looking at all the articles when in fact she
was looking at only 928 out of about 12,000 articles on �climate change.� Dr. Benny Peiser, of Liverpool
John Moores University in England, was unable to replicate her study. He says, �As I have stressed
repeatedly, the whole data set includes only 13 abstracts (~1%) that explicitly endorse what Oreskes has
called the �consensus view.� In fact, the vast majority of abstracts does (sic) not mention anthropogenic
climate change. Moreover � and despite attempts to deny this fact � a handful of abstracts actually
questions the view that human activities are the main driving force of �the observed warming over the last
50 years.�� In addition, a recent survey of scientists following the same methodology as one published in
1996 found that about 30 percent of scientists disagreed to some extent or another with the contention that
Iain Murray on Inconvenient Truths on National Review Online Page 4 of 5
http://article.nationalreview.com/print/?q=YmFiZDAyMWFhMGIxNTgwNGIyMjVkZjQ4OGFiZj... 6/23/2006
National Review Online - http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YmFiZDAyMWFhMGIxNTgwNGIyMjVkZjQ4OGFiZjFlNjc
�climate change is mostly the result of anthropogenic causes.� Less than 10 percent �strongly agreed� with
the statement. Details of both the survey and the failed attempt to replicate the Oreskes study can be found
here.
25. Economic Costs. Even if the study Gore cites is right (p. 280-281), the United States will still emit
massive amounts of CO2 after all the measures it outlines have been realized. Getting emissions down to
the paltry levels needed to stabilize CO2 in the atmosphere would require, in Gore�s own words, �a
wrenching transformation� of our way of life. This cannot be done easily or without significant cost. The
Kyoto Protocol, which Gore enthusiastically supports, would avert less than a tenth of a degree of
warming in the next fifty years and would cost up to $400 billion a year to the U.S. All of the current
proposals in Congress would cost the economy significant amounts, making us all poorer, with all that that
entails for human health and welfare, while doing nothing to stop global warming.
Finally, Gore quotes Winston Churchill (p. 100) � but he should read what Churchill said when he was
asked what qualities a politician requires: �The ability to foretell what is going to happen tomorrow, next
week, next month and next year. And to have the ability afterwards to explain why it didn't happen.�
�Iain Murray is a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute

Don't you have to "do" something to win the Nobel Peace Prize? Al Gore has done absolutely "nothing" about the pretense of global warming. What studies has he done to prove it's existence? Since when did putting together a film based on what you personally believe in or feels is the best politically correct information become rationale for this prize? It would make a farce out of the entire honor.

Better question is what did Al Gore do about it when he was in the White House for 8 years? Yep, nothing! If he couldn't do anything while being in the White House, what is he going to be able to do being a normal, impressionable citizen?

For example, last Winter here in Argentina, Ushuaia (The southern-most Argentinean city) was enduring a severe winter storm that turned deadly in Southern "Los Andes". At the same time, however, Reconquista (the town I live in, located in the North) was dealing with spring-like temps.

REPLY: I guess elevation has nothing to do with such occurrances either, eh?....

I wonder when people will stop pretending to have phd's in environmental sciences when they respond to things like this. Do some real research and cite findings in your arguements, for or against the global warming issues. Until then, I don't think that anyone wants to hear what you heard from the New York Times, US Weekly or your Uncle Frank. So please, bring something worth while to the table or we're all going to starve.

Bob - can you cite your "serious scientists"? Because I guess I've only found the 0.1% who say the science is pretty good in Gore's movie.

Global warming is definetely a serious threat to the planet Earth within a not so forseeable future. Global cooling may be an equally serious threat within the same not so forseeable future. The UN climate panel is undoubtedly making a very serious effort to determine the likelihood of climate changes. However, according to The Fraser Institute, the report summary publish is not very accurate in its findings using critical scientific criteria for evaluation. The bottom line according to the Fraser Institute is that the future climate changes are as uncertain as ever. Politicians, and especially Norwegian politicians,(being a Norwegian myself)love to be in the forefront of environmental correct attitudes. I find it, however, rather alarming that a former Vice President pushes his commercial video on the world market, and in addition is being nominatet for the Nobel Peace Prize. A very dubious effort of promoting world peace in my opinion.

In case anyone is wondering where our buddy Chris cut and pasted his "25 inconvenient truths" rhetoric from- Lain Murray is right wing evangelical and the "Competitive Enterprise Institute" received over 2 million dollars from Exxon/Mobile from 1998-2005. Now let's talk inconvenient truth. You should be ashamed of yourself.

I congratulate Al Gore or anyone else with the courage to stand up for believing in such a noble cause, regardless of its (or the individual's) popularity, and bringing the issue to the people's attention. Such ambition and perseverance is exactly what has enabled our country to test the old paradigms and lead the way in the discovery of new and more efficient ways to make life better for all of us. The knowledge that comes out of this will benefit us for generations to come.

Many of the "25 inconvenient truths for Al Gore" are discussed and refuted here, here, and in the 2007 IPCC report.

And the CO2 forcing effect being logarithmic rather than linear (#1) is a basic tenet of climate science already included in models. That's far from meaning CO2 forcing and it's feedback effects are insignificant. But perhaps Murray is banking on his readers not having much knowledge of climate science.

Hi 2 All:

Has anyone done any serious studies on how the upcoming magnetic shift may be partly responsible for global climate change? Large "negative" and "positive" charged fields are forming under parts of the ocean where they were not previously. It would seem that this phenomena has implications to how and where wind patterns are formed.

Yes, I believe man can cause short-term temperature changes to his surroundings, but to affect world-wide climate is more science-fiction than fact. Until the science of global warming is seperated from the politics of the left (and its money), then it will continue to be suspect.

With enough math & statistics, I can build many models that incorporate today's weather data and project future calamity. This way I can get more funds by preying on the fears of the scientifically "weak". But I'd rather educate, then make money off the "weak".