The most prudent comment is:- "but to give ANY credence to Al Gore is the definition of insanity."


>>>Unfortunately, most of today's science is prostituted. Everything is relativized, there's no firm truth, anything can be bought. Research is more often ordered than orderly. If majority of people don't trust them, it's because they have betrayed the trust hundred times before.
>>
>>Is your head in the sand again? :o) That is what happens when you limit the sources of the news you are willing to watch or listen to :o) I've heard discussions on it and read/listened on the news pretty regularly.
>>
>>Jan 1-3, 2010 articles:
>>http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/editorial/outlook/6795858.html
>>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/31/AR2009123101155.html
>>http://www.mysanantonio.com/opinion/Your_Turn_--_Juan_3_2010.html
>>http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/article/20100103/LIVING09/91231027/E-mails-The-world-is-already-giving-us-a-powerful-sense-of-what-is-going-on
>>
>>I like this article (especially the final paragrah which you should find humorous):
>>http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/earth/4338343.html?page=1
>>
>>There are plenty more out there and it was on the plain jane news programs again over the weekend.
>
>Doesn't it seem a bit too late? The conference in Copenhagen went on based on the scientific consensus as if nothing happened, i.e. this was successfully ignored where it mattered (please, prove me wrong on this one, I'd like that).
>
>The last paragraph - this?
>Most scientists know and acknowledge these uncertainties, and reason as follows. We're in an unprecedented situation, with regard to the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere and the rate at which it is rising. Because this is unprecedented, we are not sure what is going to happen. But global warming is very likely, and reasonably probable outcomes could be fatal. Ignoring it would be like Russian roulette. Want to play? I do not.
>
>Not funny. It's a threat.
>
>Actually, except the first link (which seems to give some voice to the other side), most of this is repeating what I already heard a few weeks ago, when this started - general effort to minimize the damage, paint the fraud as mislead effort and the skeptics as passionate zealots with a grudge, beholden to big oil et al (!). Thanks for the sample, though - here's how each of the three major sides are described (note the different tone in the last one or two in the middle section, coming from chron.com):
>
>about consentual side
>
>- is very likely
>- reasonably probable outcomes
>- Ignoring it - like Russian roulette
>- simple, well-known observations
>- impossible to prove beyond all doubt
>- For sure, ... has been rising
>- A good-faith effort has been made
>- it is all but certain
>- It is not necessary to cover the globe with sensors to determine
>- end this by taking stock of the data (n.b. - but data were withheld!)
>- predict some very unfavorable outcomes for humans within the next 50 to 100 years, unless we take substantial action to reduce and mitigate CO2 emissions, starting right now
>- global climate change, which is a robust hypothesis based on well-established observations and inferences.
>- the frightening probability of wholesale and irreversible planetary change
>- translating “esoteric” research into terms useful to the public and to policymakers.
>- Thankfully, most of us have moved beyond debating the science
>- If we wait to start, we all lose
>
>The choice of words is driving the conclusion that "scientific consensus" equals proof (though it could just as well be an well financed and published echo chamber, the likes of which we often see), assigns high likelihood, good faith, not necessary to prove more, and OTOH threatens with dire outcomes in the case they aren't believed.
>
>
>about the data fraudsters
>- fooling with the data and leaving no footprints, it is not okay.
>- some key scientists were uncomfortable with providing basic data to their critics
>- limit "amateur" access to "confusing" data that might be "misleading."
>- scientists provide elaborate explanations of a complex scenario
>- clear by now why this is problematic.
>- might be "right for the wrong reasons"
>- it is very unusual to try to get editors fired as a result.
>- viewed any critic of their work, no matter how ethical or well-informed, as incompetent (so wanted to get them fired(!))
>- if scientists attempted... this was unethical in my view.
>- But do the potentially unethical acts implied by these e-mails invalidate the hypothesis that human output of greenhouse gases, most notably CO2, creates a serious risk of rapid climate change? No.
>- If so... it certainly is not acceptable.
>- hardly cause for self-loathing.
>- Americans will become better educated and less likely to relapse into skepticism when minor transgressions occur again.
>- was taken out of context, and was relatively mundane
>- e-mails do little to undermine the scientific consensus
>- you’ll get some scoundrels in the bunch... But it doesn’t mean that... the fundamental truth of the matter — is comprised.
>- “a diversion, a sideshow” that complicates policy development and public perceptions.
>- culture of self-importance ... heightened its vulnerability to the accusation of hiding data
>- The leaked e-mails do nothing to disprove the scientific consensus on global warming.
>- the skeptics were demonized through false labeling and false accusations.
>- Climate alarmists would like you to believe the science has been settled and all respectable atmospheric scientists support their position. The believers also would like you to believe the skeptics are involved only because of the support of Big Oil and that they are few in number with minimal qualifications.
>
>This is like chiding kids for doing their usual stuff in front of important guests - "not okay", "problematic", "unusual", "potentially unethical", "still not compromised", "heightens the vulnerability to accusations", "does not disprove"... bad dog... but still the pet. And the "scientific consensus" is intact. Consensus is politics, science wants proof.
>
>about skeptics
>- critics who are determined to magnify every discrepancy in order to knock down what they deem a house of cards
>- paint a simple picture
>- could easily leave the public wondering about the science of human-induced global warming.
>- critics often portray climate science as a house of cards
>- vigorous exaggeration of the import of the stolen messages
>- the vested interests that drive the phenomenon itself, i.e., the oil, gas, and coal industries.
>- endlessly tortured interpretations about what the data is (!) telling us
>- Efforts to undermine climate research echo those by tobacco companies
>- They have a single purpose: to discredit scientific inquiry
>- It is irresponsible for the San Antonio Express-News to continue printing letters from those who deny climate change. ... I am sure the Express- News would not print letters denying the Holocaust, maintaining the Earth is flat or the superiority of some races.
>- global-warming skeptics suffer no such compunctions.
>
>Now the skeptics are treated in an entirely different manner - "determined to magnify", "simplifying", "could leave the public wondering" (they, not the fraudsters), "they portray" (i.e. slander), "exaggerate", "vested interests", "endlessly tortured interpretations", "purpose to discredit", "tobacco companies", likened to holocaust deniers, flat-earhers and racists.
>
>Regarding the alleged links between skeptics and big oil, I'm sure big oil would like to join in, but that doesn't mean the consentual side is without vested interests. On the contrary - they are creating laws now, will introduce carbon taxes on pretty much everything imaginable, and the cap and trade will create a large market of nothing tangible - papers akin to indulgences, with rights to emit... and emission will somehow be measured? My bet is that it will be estimated, which will create an even larger an more corrupt bureaucracy, worse and costlier than any one before. And AFAIK Al Gore already owns a brokerage for this trading.
>
>And that's from a single day's sample, as unscientific as it gets. Here's a person of distinction, if I haven't posted this already: lord Monckton:
>http://clareswinney.wordpress.com/2009/11/29/monckton-on-climategage-the-evidence-that-shows-global-warming-is-a-fraud/