To answer your question, Revolutionary...Al Gore is a good propagandist.

I have no idea what you're saying...

__________________
"Duty is the most sublime word in our language. You cannot do more. You should never wish to do less." - Robert E. Lee

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was established in 1988 by two United Nations organizations, the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), to evaluate the risk of climate change brought on by humans, based mainly on peer reviewed and published scientific/technical literature.[1] The Panel is only open to members of the WMO and UNEP.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intergo...Climate_Change


Way before Gore's time.



As for the temperature changes see the attached graph. Courtesy of the encyclopedia as well.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Warming

Attached Images

	280px-global_warming_predictions.png (35.1 KB, 3 views)
	280px-2000_year_temperature_comparison.png (43.2 KB, 3 views)

__________________
Most people think Great God will come from the skies But if you know what life is worth You will look for yours on earth And now you see the light You stand up for your rights

.....Touche..... I didn't mean that he was the only reason, but he's contributed to adding fuel to the fire most in the past few years.

__________________
"Duty is the most sublime word in our language. You cannot do more. You should never wish to do less." - Robert E. Lee

They're adressed---very sloppily. They distort the truth concerning the computer models, the alleged consensus, and the make-up and honesty of the IPCC.

The computer models have such grave shortcomings that reknowned physicist Freeman Dyson informs us (about those very climate models), "They do not begin to describe the real world that we live in." Those models have failed time and again to come up with an accurated set of projections concerning the Earth's climate. In real science, when something that fails so miserably at simulating reality (best we can do or not), it fails to be science and must be disregarded as such. Yet, this is what we're to base billion-dollar policies on?!?

Constantly referenced is Naomi Oreskes research when the consensus is cited. Her research has since been updated. Shulte did a search of the same database and the same search terms as Oreskes used earlier this year. His search showed no consensus exists in the refereed literature. 7% of the papers he reviewed openly embraced the supposed consensus view, 6% openly opposed it. The rest gave no open opinion, and 48% gave no opinion at all, even implied. There is no "consensus" of scientists on this matter, let alone such a one as it's presented to the public (as believing that there is an imminent "crisis" if human industry is permitted to continue to produce GHG's).

The IPCC doesn't consist of 2500 scientists. It consists of 600 scientists, 600 expert reviewers, and 1300 government-appointed bureaucrats. That's from the press-releases from the IPCC itself, accompanying the February release of the IPCC's "Summary for Policymakers," which is what every reporter actually reads and quotes from. It's written by the bureaucrats, not scientists; in fact, it's not even reviewed by the scientists.

The IPCC isn't some honest scientific body. It's largely a political body, as evidenced from some of it's actions and it's lack of transparency. It never publishes the scientific reports first, a glaring mis-step for a scientific body. It publishes its "Summary" first (begging the question, how do you summarize a work not yet finished?), not the scientific work first.

The next most glaring action of the IPCC is its actions concerning that poster-child of bad science, the "hockey stick" graph (called the Mann or MBH graph in scientific circles). The IPCC almost immediately accepted this bad science as gospel truth, and published it in its 2001 summary as definitive proof that global warming was caused by human industry. As the studies mounted, showing the graph's glaring errors, the IPCC simply ignored the whole thing. It's 2007, and scientists accept that MBH is completely incorrect; although now advocates downplay its importance (which can't be done, I'll show why in a moment). The IPCC, however, never even acknowledged its mistake in accepting it as definitive proof, which shows an organization that's insulated itself from reality.

Next came the resignation of Dr. Chris Landsea, one of the world's finest hurricanologists. Dr. Landsea resigned from the IPCC because he viewed it as having become too politicized (especially in the section where his expertise is used). Dr. Landsea's odyssey began when he reviewed Kevin Trenberth's actions in regard to voicing the science to laymen. Trenberth made many remarks concerning frequency and intensity of hurricanes in relation to global warming that were far outside the bounds of the science; which prompted Dr. Landsea to bring his concerns to the attention of the IPCC, who casually dismissed and ignored them. This is yet another sign of an organization that has lost its scientific integrity.

The odyssey continues with the Bush administration's attempted appointment of Dr. Paul Reiter to the panel, which the IPCC attempted to veto the choice. Dr. Reiter is a very well-respected scientist as it regards his area of expertise in disease-related insectology. His outspoken criticism of the alarmist claim that global warming would cause more outbreaks of insect-related disease is the basic reason for such.

These problems within the IPCC, and more, are reasons why this agency should be disbanded and disregarded. It has no oversight within the UN, to assure that it would not become what it has---a political body. Its ready acceptance of a paper as definitive proof, bad methodology in publishing its reports, gross lack of leadership within it, and rejection of legitimate concerns of abuse of its authority demonstrate that it's no longer a purely scientific advisory body, but an advocacy group.

Advocates have tried continually to minimize the damage presented in the exposure of the bad science behind MBH. Anyone with half-logic and a little knowledge of the issue can point out the problem. It's that if the climate showed greater variability with relatively stable GHG concentrations in pre-industrial times (as numerous papers do), then it means that natural variability (through processes we still don't comprehend) is greater than it's credited for, and the probability that human contributions to GHG's cause the observed warming are greatly exaggerated.

That, in fact, is what appears to be the truth, and it's emerging within the scientific journals.

__________________
Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely----Lord Acton

Except that Dyson also writes
Hard to respond when you have no link to Schulte's survey. If you post it, I'll read it.
I don't see the claim that the IPCC "consists of 2500 scientists" anywhere in my link. Perhaps you'd like to direct me to it.
What evidence? What lack of transparency? Your claims are irrelevant without evidence.
A work can be finished but not yet published. You can read a manuscript of a book without the book actually being published. Here is the procedure. Note the science is done before the report is released.
This is totally inaccurate. from the working group 1 reportOther proxy evidence has confirmed the "hockey stick" (see link). IPPC concludes Controversy was between Landsea and Trenberth, whose comments were made without the backing of the IPCC. The IPCC included Landsea's research in the report and agreed with him on the influence of warming on hurricanes. From the IPCC report:
and IPCC's conclusion Page 50
Link ??
Lots of opinion from inaccurate statements with no links to back up your opinions.
Your claims of "problems within the IPCC" or "ready acceptance of a paper as definitve proof, bad methodology ..." has been backed up with zero evidence.
You claims of "They're (New Scientists debunking) adressed (sic)---very sloppily." has been backed with inaccuracies.
As I've suggested to other posters: Read the science studies, not the rightwingnutjob's (Livefree, I like that term ) blogs

__________________
Divide and rule, the politician cries;
unite and lead, is watchword of the wise.
Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

Recently, earlier in 2007, a Chico, California Meteorologist found that many of the temperature measuring sites were in locations that could devices were in metal sheds out in the middle of a hot patch of land, near the take off end of airport runways, thus picking up hot jet exhaust, near HVAC systems on roofs with heating pipes and equipment nearby. This is skewed data for testing and validating global warming.
Now, I'm not saying these temperatures have no use, they just have no use in measuring the global climate change Al Gore and other claim is occuring.
Yes, I conceed that man may play a very small role is localized warming i.e. large cities or industrial sites. However, if you look at the entire Earth and solar system that do have a major impact on our Earths temperatures, we are but a grain of sand on the beach in comparison.
How can we "compete" with the sun, moon, oceans, winds, rain, mountain ranges, natural structures and heavenly bodies so massive and powerful that our "heat sources" or pollutants are but a BB gun fired at an elephant in comparison. We have but a "second" of time; geologic reference, to draw upon. It is only in the last 150 or so years that we have any real accurate, scientific devices to measure temperatures, compare them, analyze how cities, pollutants, natural wild fires, hurricanes, volcanic events, ice status (mass, temperature, salinity, size, integrity), measure how past events affected the planet by soil, water, ice, tree, atmosphere and man made structures analysis to base any of our evidence on.
Even if the small effect we may have on global climate is measureable and occurring, I think it is going to be "adjusted" by the natural events of planet Earth itself.

__________________
Christian, moderate conservative, willing to consider other points of view and compromise when appropriate.

Looks like the Arctic Ocean could be ice free by 2013.BBC

__________________
Divide and rule, the politician cries;
unite and lead, is watchword of the wise.
Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

There is no question that global warming is happening, it is the fact that it is dangerous that is over-exaggerated.

Many environmentalists say that storms will be more violent, yet there has been no real increase in storm activity over the past 100 years. Environmentalists(especially Al-Gore) will often cut graphs off at 1970 or slightly earlier to support their case, but take a look at data for the last 100 years.

The percentage of tropical cyclones which touch land has decreased

Global warming has had no effect on the amount of major Atlantic hurricanes

The number of severe tornadoes has not been increasing either

Unlike many environmentalists will tell you there have been higher insurance losses because of hurricanes in the past.

The melting of ice is nothing new, it started in the early 1800s


I don't buy global warming's consequences. It seems everyone wants to blame global warming for the world's problems when in fact the problems having nothing to do with global warming.

__________________
“Good leaders abhor wrongdoing of all kinds; sound leadership has a moral foundation.”

-Proverbs 16:12

Science pretty much agrees with you on all you're links except the last one. Is that last image/graph of one glacier or all the glaciers? It would not surprise me if one glacier does not match the CO2 trend. It would surprise me if none of the glaciers match the trend. It would help if you linked to the stories instead of just the graphs.

__________________
Divide and rule, the politician cries;
unite and lead, is watchword of the wise.
Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

Hurricane frequency is discussed above but not intensity. Tentatively the IPCC leans in favor of global warming increasing hurricane intensity. It would make sense to me. With the oceans and air warming presumably one expression of that energy increase would be in higher energy hurricanes. Certainly the number of Atlantic #5 hurricanes have increased fairly dramatically in recent years.

RealClimate takes even a more emphatic position on the matter.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=181

Here is a graph from the above comparing SST(Sea Surface Temperature) with PDI(Power Dissipation Index - basically hurricane intensity) over an extended period.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal...03906-f1.2.jpg