I would recomend Penn and Tellers show BullS@#t over this one side scare feast.
I disagree with almost half of penn and tellers point of veiw but at least they give both sides of a storie.

----
editor note: Yes, they give both sides, meaning they try to confuse the issue and attack the scientific consensus by raising doubts that have been laid to rest by the credible people a while ago. You think 2,500+ scientists working on the problem don't know what they're doing (who on this planet is more competent than them about that subject?), didn't look at more than one side, and that two magicians with a TV show - or the average non-climate scientist viewer - are more competent than them to make a call on this *crucial* issue? Now *that* is bullshit.

I'm also sick of this "show both sides as if they had equal value" trend and "cite isolated non-peer reviewed skeptics as authority". That's the strategy that has been used by the tobacco industry a while ago, bullying the media into covering their propaganda as if it was as credible as the scientific evidence, and that's the strategy now used by those who want to keep the status quo, or reiforce some of their beliefs despite the evidence, or gain ratings for their TV shows, slowing down our progress to address the problem and endangering all of us and our children. "Showing both sides" may sound reasonable for truly undecided or non-scientific issues (morals, politics, opinions, arts), but in this case it's like the flat-Earthers getting equal time in the media despite all the evidence that they're wrong.

Please have a look at this and then go ask RealClimate.org what they think of Penn & Teller's stuff.

But you've seen Gore's movie and heard him talk, right? If not, how can you call it a "one side scare feast"? And if so, which things that he said do you think are inexact?

Wow, that's a rather lengthy editorial response. For two weeks now, TH has been a non-stop wankfest over this movie, and it's gotten rather borish. Enter one poster who doesn't necessarily disagree with Al Gore, but merely points out a criticism of the movie itself, and he's practically tarred and feathered by none other than a TH editor. Hell of a way to show love for your readership.

I've seen the movie, and it is precisely a one-sided scare-fest couched in the cautious language of a politician who is careful to use words like "if", "may", and "can" instead of "will". It's hard to disagree with someone who doesn't make a firm statement, and why should he? Al Gore makes hundreds of thousands of dollars annually through speaking engagements where he beats the global warming drum. To paraphrase Al Gore's own criticism of Michael Crichton in this month's "Mens Health" interview: 'The first thing to remember about Al Gore is that he's just a lawyer.' Nothing in Gore's curriculum vitae qualifies him to be any sort of authority on climatology, but to read TH the past few weeks you'd think he was the guy who invented the Atmosphere. The bottom line is, he's a politician. And he's doing what just about every good politician does; he's playing off peoples fears, uncertainties, and doubts. And oh what a Holy Grail of FUD he's found in Global Warming.

I am almost giddy with glee that you linked to Naomi Oreskes's essay from which the notion of scientific consensus as fact arose. First, let me point out that like Michael Crichton, Al Gore, Penn & Teller, and 99% of everyone who are flapping their gums on this issue, Oreskes is unqualified to comment. She is a geologist and a historian. She is your "isolated non-peer reviewed" authority. She did not write a scientific study subject to peer review, but instead an essay piece meant to inform and persuade. In this essay, she cites a survey of the abstracts of some 970 scientific papers filed with the United Nations Environmental Program and the World Meterological Organization. She noted that none of the abstracts concluded that global warming was natural. She then inferred from the absence of conclusions to the contrary in the abstracts of papers on file at these organizations, and a plurality of supporting statements from other scientific bodies (none of whose publications where actually part of this survey), that there was in fact a consensus on the idea that global warming was caused by human activity. For those who took philosophy and managed (no doubt with herculean effort) to stay awake, this is easily recognized as a logical falsity. For everyone else, google or wiki "argumentum ad ignorantiam".

So, in conclusion (working backwards): There isn't actually a scientific consensus on global warming, least of all among people actually qualified to form opinions about it. "An Inconvenient Truth" is an interesting and thought provoking movie, more worthy of your cinema bucks than just about anything playing right now, but it is not an unbiased presenation of facts by any means. Lastly, God help you if you don't march in perfect lockstep with a TH editor, because your two sentence comment will result in a four paragraph assault on your right to actually have an opinion of your about anything.

This is not about "showing love for your readership" or not (we actually love our readership). It's about being tired of always seeing "this is a scare feast!", "go check out this special on TV!", etc, without any specific criticism of any particular point.

I'll admit the frustration wasn't directed at that reader in particular but at the situation in general (straw that broke the camel's back), so it was a bit of a faux pas to put it as a reply, but now it's a bit too late to change that.

Back to what you wrote:

re: making firm statements, you know very well that the scientists themselves are being very careful in how they word things. They know they are not oracles, but it doesn't mean we shouldn't go with the best information we have from the most competent people we have. Even if we were less sure about things, the precautionary principle would still apply, and if we're waiting for scientists to be sure about the future, we'll never do anything, ever.

What does Al Gore being a lawyer have to do with the validity of his slide presentation? He never claimed to be working in the lab, he's just - along with his collaborators, fact checkers, etc - relaying the information on a subject he's been interested in for decades (just like us here at TH aren't specialists on all the topics we write about, and how real journalists aren't either, how Carl Sagan and Dr David Suzuki aren't specialists on everything they talked about, and how you probably aren't a climate scientist either, etc).

He's what's sadly missing in the US scientific community: someone with enough name recognition that the media can't ignore, and with vulgarization skills and enough money to get projects to take off, someone to fight the huge PR efforts from special interests. I'm not saying he's perfect and has all the answers, but the climate scientists at Reaclimate.org reviewed the science of An Inconvenient Truth and didn't find much wrong with it, and I haven't seen any major (any at all, in fact) criticism from scientific groups, so that's a good sign.

Naomi Oreskes' piece does show that the people arguing against anthropogenic global warming don't seem to be publishing in peer-reviewed scientific papers and that, unlike the 50/50 that is seen in the mainstream media in the US, the ratio is very different in peer-reviewed papers (enough to be called a consensus). That was the objective of the essay, and I think it succeeds (she's not qualified to do climatology, but she's probably qualified to read abstracts, no?). I'm sure that if it was that flawed and could be disproved, it would have been done a long time ago by the Exxon-backed think tanks. But Oreskes' essay does not stand alone, it's just one (convenient) piece that brings it all together. To it you can add the various reports from the IPCC, the National Academy of Sciences and other scientific bodies.

As for implying that Al Gore does it for the money, come on! He's already wealthy, is on the board of Apple, a consultant to Google and owns part of a TV channel. Do you really think he would put himself out there for all to attack, trying to convince people of something they don't want to believe in, giving a slide presentation over and over again, just for some money. There are easier ways to make cash and more pleasant ways to live...

David,
SourceWatch has a few choice words for Penn & Teller: http://tinyurl.com/rb2tp

Naomi Oreskes' literature review also was critiqued on RealClimate a while back. While there were indeed some serious flaws pointed out, they were not philosphical in nature, at least not at the level inferred by comments here. (By my recollection of the review, her portrait of the consensus on climate causation was not seriously undermined.) Gore's point that a false dichotomy about climate science consensus has been sustained in US media is supported by other anecdotal evidence. One only has to scan the decades worth of opinion page letters and self published essays by the "skeptics" to see that most have no current scientific work underway and a sparse history of relevant peer reviewed publishing. Many of the prominent skeptics have no research background in climate. One of the most laughable symbols of this is when meteorologists and engineers portray themselves as in the same league as atmospheric chemists or physicists, signing petitions which state that the UN position is flawed. These are technicians, not scientists. Easy to fool politicians I guess.

Lately some skeptics are claiming that they, as a group ,lack peer reviewed climate science publications only because the major scientific journals are steered by biased peer panels who have for decades overlooked their brilliant insights. If we accept that at face value, then the same bias must explain why they also don't get top jobs at NOAA and also do not get grants to do original research. The whole world is biased. Yeah...that's the reason.

I'm on the side of the editor here. I've heard too many people say that there isn't enough scientific facts to support the claims. The problem I have with that is that they never state how much "enough" will be. 51%, 60%, 75%, 80%, 90%, who knows? But they never state what "enough" consensus actually is before they start believing it.

The truth is far more simple. It requires no scientists at all. It doesn't matter what you believe, if it's true, it will happen, and then we'll get to listen to everyone say, "But I didn't know!"

I think maybe one of the issues for the doubting thomases in the general public (aside from being plied by the pro-corporation propagandists) is that scientists don't have the best track record in the eyes of the public. Most people don't understand much about the field of science. And what we don't understand, we don't trust.

Add this to the problem that, for most US Americans, the only "scientists" they see on a regular basis are the TV weather people. And they are wrong most of the time...

But even if predicting global weather was as inaccurate as predicting local weather, wouldn't it be better to do our best to take precautions before it's too late? Wouldn't we rather have to carry around the umbrella all day than risk being drenched all day?

Propaganda films for the gullible "sky is falling" crowd continue to be big business in certain markets.

I sure hope Al Gore enjoys jetting around the country promoting this.

What Can be Done about Trolls?

When you suspect that somebody is a troll, you might try responding with a polite, mild message to see if it's just somebody in a bad mood. Internet users sometimes let their passions get away from them when seated safely behind their keyboard. If you ignore their bluster and respond in a pleasant manner, they usually calm down.

However, if the person persists in being beastly, and seems to enjoy being unpleasant, the only effective position is summed up as follows:

The only way to deal with trolls is to limit your reaction to reminding others not to respond to trolls.

When you try to reason with a troll, he wins. When you insult a troll, he wins. When you scream at a troll, he wins. The only thing that trolls can't handle is being ignored -- or banned.

I just read An Inconvenient Truth on the plane ride home last night. It was compelling, stimulating (I was taking notes at 10:30 at night after a full day meeting) and moving (I cried. Twice.).

Al is donating all proceeds from the book and movie to non-profit organizations.

And frankly: It is *intended* to be a scare fest. If enough people are scared, they act.