The responses from the scientific community continues to emerge, in regards to Gore’s movie, An Inconvenient Truth.

And a lot of them are not too positive, but the media and his spin machine won’t bother telling you that.  They won’t tell you the truth about the scientific basis he drew his conclusions from.

So I will:

Scientists respond to Gore’s warnings of climate catastrophe

"The Inconvenient Truth" is indeed inconvenient to alarmists

"Scientists have an independent obligation to respect and present the truth as they see it," Al Gore sensibly asserts in his film "An Inconvenient Truth", showing at Cumberland 4 Cinemas in Toronto since Jun 2. With that outlook in mind, what do world climate experts actually think about the science of his movie?

Professor Bob Carter of the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University, in Australia gives what, for many Canadians, is a surprising assessment: "Gore’s circumstantial arguments are so weak that they are pathetic. It is simply incredible that they, and his film, are commanding public attention."

But surely Carter is merely part of what most people regard as a tiny cadre of "climate change skeptics" who disagree with the "vast majority of scientists" Gore cites?

No; Carter is one of hundreds of highly qualified non-governmental, non-industry, non-lobby group climate experts who contest the hypothesis that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are causing significant global climate change. "Climate experts" is the operative term here. Why? Because what Gore’s "majority of scientists" think is immaterial when only a very small fraction of them actually work in the climate field.

Even among that fraction, many focus their studies on the impacts of climate change; biologists, for example, who study everything from insects to polar bears to poison ivy. "While many are highly skilled researchers, they generally do not have special knowledge about the causes of global climate change," explains former University of Winnipeg climatology professor Dr. Tim Ball. "They usually can tell us only about the effects of changes in the local environment where they conduct their studies."

The world of politics is never pretty and often very ugly.

One of the most ugly features is how the politicians switch facts around to protect their argument.  They determine a conclusion that fits their needs, and then find the facts that support their conclusion, almost an intellectual reverse engineering.

It’s not all that hard, we teach it in every school that has a debate team.  You are assigned a topic, and have to develop an argument to support it.  The validity or accuracy of the facts you present is unimportant unless they are challenge by your opponent.  Preparation becomes the driving factor, are you able to anticipate the challenges and overcome them?  The bottom line is that in the end, the facts don’t matter.  Just the Feel.  Can you offer convincing sincerity?  Confidence?  Can you sway them with an emotional plea?  All powerful weapons.

Now consider that in relation to politics.  Politicians often present information based on how they want us to Feel, without regard to the facts.  The sell us on the emotional appeal.

The Bush administration was soundly thrashed by liberals for what they allege is fear mongering tactics, whether it is Social Security (the SS system will collapse), Al Qaeda (terrorism and 9/11), Iran and North Korea (nukes in the hand of dangerous countries) or countless other examples seen hourly at the Daily Kos.  The Bush Administration provided examples of things that were dangerous, to provide the Feel of security with them at the helm

The Democrats for all their piety are also masters of this game, only their goals are different.  They try to scare us about Abortion (women dying in back alley abortions), taxes (your children will bear the burden tomorrow of the tax cuts today), the war in Iraq (endless examples of a war we cannot win, replete with dying soldiers and civilians) and locally it even jumped into the arena of gas taxes, when politicians and local bloggers told their readers about the death traps on the road, despite the fact their plans didn’t even fix the problems they cited.  To them, the Feel they seek is betrayal of the Republicans and distrust.