Scientists respond to Gore's warnings of climate catastrophe

"But it becomes smaller still. Among experts who actually examine the causes of change on a global scale, many concentrate their research on designing and enhancing computer models of hypothetical futures. 'These models have been consistently wrong in all their scenarios,' asserts Ball. 'Since modelers concede computer outputs are not 'predictions' but are in fact merely scenarios, they are negligent in letting policy-makers and the public think they are actually making forecasts.'

We should listen most to scientists who use real data to try to understand what nature is actually telling us about the causes and extent of global climate change. In this relatively small community, there is no consensus, despite what Gore and others would suggest."

What if it turns out that, as one study suggested, reduced amounts of soot and other light blocking pollutants has actually caused more heat generating light to hit the ground and is thus responsible for what we call "global warming"? Would Gore and his followers suggest then that we all go back to burning coal in our fireplaces rather than using natural gas or electric heat?

Like many politicians, he can only operate in an environment where there is a "boogyman" to be overcome. Let's turn our collective boogyman field glasses on the destructive power of simplistic Powerpoint presentations as a substitute for true substantive debate. The left made a surprisingly stupid mistake when they tried to make the Bush academic record a campaign issue, inviting comparisons with Gore's record. Gore was the type of guy you loved to have in your class to bring the curve down. View the movie as a comedy, if you must see it. We really are dealing with a conspiracy of dunces here. Real scientists hopefully won't be distracted from real work on the issues by all the needless media attention created by the Duncmaster General.