The Cool Blue Blog

I don't find climategate surprising at all

I really don't know what the hubbub is about climategate. It's been obvious for a very long time that the data upon which the arguments for anthropogenic global warming is wrong. And it has bee obvious for a long time that the most political scientists advocating for AGW have been hiding the source data.

Let's recap: in science you have a theory if and only if you have a model that can be tested against actual phenomena: In other words, you have to be able to predict some behavior in the real world. The models constucted by AGW proponents have never predicted anything which means they do not have the data necessary to create theory.

Due to the stunning failure of the AGW models, scientists have been asking since the 90's for the source data upon which the models were based and no data have been forthcoming.

Now in science, it is important and routine to share data. This is because a basic tenent of science is that experiments (i.e. testing the theory against reality) must be replicable by other scientists. This is how basic science is conducted. This is how scientific knowledge is advanced.

As an example, back in the 80's the Fleischmann-Pons announcement that they had achieved "Cold Fusion" (nuclear fusion achieved at something resembling room temperature, or minimally fusion achieved at something below temperatures of millions of degrees Celsius). This announcement excited many people about the promise of very cheap energy production. Now in this case, Fleischmann and Pons published their data and their experiments as they should. Scientists around the world attempted to duplicate their results and failed. Ultimately it was determined that Fleischmann and Pons had made an error and life moved on without Cold Fusion.

And that is how science is done. Of course, there was no politics involved here and we had ethical scientists who, though wrong about their discovery, acted honorably.

With AGW, the models have been demonstrably wrong for so long with no one on the the AGW side sharing data that the only conclusion one could reach was that they were hiding something: that they weren't really doing science at all. They were in fact politicians.

And the only thing climategate did was reveal this fact in a concrete way.

Now those who continue to support the exaggerated claims of AGW calls us doubters AGW deniers, but that's not the case.

It's not the case because I at least, and I suspect most who understand and respect scientific inquiry, are not deniers of anything other than phoney theories.

I do not deny that Global Warming is occuring; it clearly is occuring.

I don not deny that humans are contributing to Global Warming; it would be very surprising if we were not.

But, in order to make policy decisions we need to know how we are contributing to global warming, how much we are contributing, what the effects of our contirbution are on climate, and how much our actions can affect the outcome.

And, of course, we have to know what it means to "stop" global warming. I mean what are we talking about making the global climate colder? What would the effects of that be? Do we think we can adjust the climate so it is always the same? What are we talking about?

Policy, or at least good policy, needs to be informed policy. And the rabid proponents of Global Warming do not help the serious issues we must confront.

The idea that human produced "greenhouse" gases are the primary cause of Global Warming is clearly wrong. If it were correct, the models produced from this theory would be correct as well.

And we need to know the facts because if it turns out there is nothing we can do to "stop" Global Warming then we need to start to put in place policies that will deal with the inevitable.

In fact, the unproven idea that we can do something about Global Warming is effectively preventing us from mitigating the effects of Global Warming.

Which brings us to the importance of realistically predicting the effects of Global Warming is important from a policy point of view. If we don't know what were really talking about we don't know what we should do.

Now none of this should be construed to mean that we should stop our effort to control things like carbon dioxide emmissions; we should and not just for climate reasons but for national security reasons as well. But knowing more about Global Warming will tell us what the extent of our committment needs to be and over what period of time.

This bad science being propogated by AGW evangelists is dangerous from a number of points of view. First, it degrades the public's appreciation and valuation of real scientists and science and people will be more unwilling to believe correct information in any field when it is presented.

Second it prevents us from good realistic policy decisions as mentioned above.

And third, it restricts funding for real climate science because if you already think you know the answer to a question, why would you pour more money into researcing the answer?

The actions of the "scientists" at the University of East Anglia and elsewhere are deplorable and are anti-science.

But that wasn't anything new that was revealed in these emails.

We've known they have been bad actors for a very long time. I suppose, the new thing, is that now, maybe people will believe us and now, maybe, people will start doing the science again instead of trying to make everyone shut up.

Al Gore surrenders

Not that it surprises me, but the Americal Physical Society, an organization representing nearly 50,000 physicists, has found a few flaws with the Global Warming theory:

There is a considerable presence within the scientific community of people who do not agree with the IPCC conclusion that anthropogenic CO₂ emissions are very probably likely to be primarily responsible for the global warming that has occurred since the Industrial Revolution.

As a result,

With this issue of Physics & Society, we kick off a debate concerning one of the main conclusions of the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the UN body which, together with Al Gore, recently won the Nobel Prize for its work concerning climate change research.

In the peer-reviewed article Climate Sensitivity Reconsidered, Lord Monckton of Brenchley  states

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2007) concluded that anthropogenic CO₂ emissions probably caused more than half of the “global warming” of the past 50 years and would cause further rapid warming. However, global mean surface temperature has not risen since 1998 and may have fallen since late 2001. The present analysis suggests that the failure of the IPCC’s models to predict this and many other climatic phenomena arises from defects in its evaluation of the three factors whose product is climate sensitivity:

1. Radiative forcing ΔF;
2. The no-feedbacks climate sensitivity parameter κ; and
3. The feedback multiplier ƒ.

Some reasons why the IPCC’s estimates may be excessive and unsafe are explained. More importantly, the conclusion is that, perhaps, there is no “climate crisis”, and that currently-fashionable efforts by governments to reduce anthropogenic CO₂ emissions are pointless, may be ill-conceived, and could even be harmful.

And he has the data to back it up, concluding

Even if temperature had risen above natural variability, the recent solar Grand Maximum may have been chiefly responsible. Even if the sun were not chiefly to blame for the past half-century’s warming, the IPCC has not demonstrated that, since CO₂ occupies only one-ten-thousandth part more of the atmosphere that it did in 1750, it has contributed more than a small fraction of the warming. Even if carbon dioxide were chiefly responsible for the warming that ceased in 1998 and may not resume until 2015, the distinctive, projected fingerprint of anthropogenic “greenhouse-gas” warming is entirely absent from the observed record. Even if the fingerprint were present, computer models are long proven to be inherently incapable of providing projections of the future state of the climate that are sound enough for policymaking. Even if per impossibilethe models could ever become reliable, the present paper demonstrates that it is not at all likely that the world will warm as much as the IPCC imagines. Even if the world were to warm that much, the overwhelming majority of the scientific, peer-reviewed literature does not predict that catastrophe would ensue. Even if catastrophe might ensue, even the most drastic proposals to mitigate future climate change by reducing emissions of carbon dioxide would make very little difference to the climate. Even if mitigation were likely to be effective, it would do more harm than good: already millions face starvation as the dash for biofuels takes agricultural land out of essential food production: a warning that taking precautions, “just in case”, can do untold harm unless there is a sound, scientific basis for them. Finally, even if mitigation might do more good than harm, adaptation as (and if) necessary would be far more cost-effective and less likely to be harmful.

In short, we must get the science right, or we shall get the policy wrong. If the concluding equation in this analysis (Eqn. 30) is correct, the IPCC’s estimates of climate sensitivity must have been very much exaggerated. There may, therefore, be a good reason why, contrary to the projections of the models on which the IPCC relies, temperatures have not risen for a decade and have been falling since the phase-transition in global temperature trends that occurred in late 2001. Perhaps real-world climate sensitivity is very much below the IPCC’s estimates. Perhaps, therefore, there is no “climate crisis” at all. At present, then, in policy terms there is no case for doing anything. The correct policy approach to a non-problem is to have the courage to do nothing.

Neither physicists, nor I, deny that the globe is warming. And I think it is beneficial for a whole host of reasons to move to reducing our carbon emissions through the use of a mix of technologies such as nuclear, wind, and solar to name a few.

But as Christopher Monkton says, "we must get the science right, or we shall get the policy wrong".

The Climate Change Blog

Carl Wolk has been an occasional contributor to the Cool Blue Blog in the past. Now I am happy to say that he has gone off and started his own blog dedicated specifically to a scientific discussion of Climate Change. It's called A Skeptical Look at Climate Change.

In a post entitled New Paper Shatters the "Consensus" Myth, Carl Writes

There are many methods out there to silence the political opposition, yet, the most effective one is to simply deny the existence of an opposition, and liberals in government along with many in the environmentalist lobby have been employing this technique, successfully convincing the public that no debate exists on the threat of climate change, that there is a scientific consensus.
Now I said I wouldn’t bother delving into the “consensus” debate, but there has been a paper released by
Fergus W.M. Brown, CPE, UCLAN, Preston, UK
Roger A. Pielke Sr. CIRES, University of Colorado, Boulder, CO
James D. Annan, FRCGC/JAMSTEC, Yokohama, Japan.

The paper is Is there agreement amongst climate scientists on the IPCC AR4 WG1?

...This recent paper’s results are about what I would have expected; a clear majority of climate scientists agree with the UN or believe it is too conservative in its predictions, yet by no means do the results of the poll justify the description of a “consensus” in the climate science community. This, of course, means that statements made by many in government, especially on the left (although Republicans don’t have a clean record either) have made and continue to make false statements on the state of the debate on climate change. There is no consensus. The debate is not over. The science is not settled. I can think of a lot of issues where much less than 20% of those involved turned out to be wrong. In fact, it would be very interesting to see what percent of climate scientists bought into the “global cooling” scare of the ’70s...

Carl has done a lot of great work presenting the alternative theories that exist within the scientific community.

Check him out.

Feeling superior while people starve

Biofuels may seem like a great idea to some, but to others, not so much

This week, the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation will announce the lowest global food reserves in 25 years, threatening what it calls "a very serious crisis". Even when the price of food was low, 850 million people went hungry because they could not afford to buy it. With every increment in the price of flour or grain, several million more are pushed below the breadline.

The cost of rice has risen by 20% over the past year, maize by 50%, wheat by 100%. Biofuels aren't entirely to blame - by taking land out of food production they exacerbate the effects of bad harvests and rising demand - but almost all the major agencies are now warning against expansion. And almost all the major governments are ignoring them.

Just sayin'

The cost of hysteria

Canada is the latest country to decide that the Kyoto Protocol is an onerous burden for no discernable gain

In a somewhat surprising development, Canada, a long-time supporter of the Kyoto Protocol, announced that it may want to join the Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate (AP6), a six-nation coalition focusing on voluntary emission-reduction steps and technology transfers. Many environmentalists oppose AP6 out of a fear that it may undermine political support for the legally binding Kyoto treaty.

Legally binding? Who they gonna get to enforce it, the US?

Canada has run the numbers and Kyoto just doesn't add up

Reducing Canada's greenhouse gas emissions to meet Kyoto Protocol targets by 2012 could cost each Canadian upwards of $3,500 a year for the next several years, according to research done by The Fraser Institute, an independent research organization with offices across Canada.

The alternative is to purchase foreign emission credits, a move that would transfer $30 billion from Canada to other countries.

"In order to meet the Kyoto targets, Canada will have to make drastic cuts in its emission levels. No matter how we go about it, meeting a target that begins less than a year away is going to incur significant costs," said Nicholas Schneider, a policy analyst with The Fraser Institute and author of Welcome Back, Kyoto, published in the April issue of Fraser Forum, The Fraser Institute's monthly magazine of critical thought.

"One of the questions governments need to consider is, are Canadians willing to pay those costs?"

Schneider notes that research in the U.S. found people are willing to spend $13 to $21 per month to reduce climate change.

"If you convert that to Canadian dollars in 2007, that works out to a range of $200 to $300 per year - far below the $3,500 per person per year that may be required."

And here's the rub, the radical anti-Capitalists who are advocating Kyoto, and who are fueling the hysterical, end-of-the-world doomsday scenarios know precisely what the costs to successful capitalist nations are

Schneider's research looks at Canada's current emission levels, the Kyoto targets, and compares the results achieved by other countries to the targets for Canada. What he finds is that the easy options available to other countries are not available to Canada.

"You can control emissions by lowering a country's population or its GDP. But it's unlikely government would choose these policies since Canada has a policy of increasing population largely through immigration, and Canadians would be averse to falling real incomes," Schneider said.

And it is precisely this result that is intended. How else can you explain the fact that they were so willing to exempt the worlds largests carbon dioxide emmitters, namely China, India and Mexico, in order to make the deal "legally binding"? Because the target was, ultimately, the United States: To bring down the most successful economic engine in the world, and end capitalism as the driving force in the world.

Adding up the costs has forced people to challenge the assumptions advocated by the "environmental" groups promoting the doom-and-gloom environmental apocolypse

Before Greenpeace or anyone else criticises the Government for its failure to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, it should cite the valid verified scientific proof that carbon dioxide causes warming of the earth to an extent that would involve New Zealanders paying President Putin of Russia for so-called carbon credits. This today from Owen McShane, chair of the policy panel of the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition responding to a statement Friday by Bunny McDiarmid, executive director of Greenpeace which called for the immediate introduction of a carbon tax.

"There is no scientific evidence that justifies a carbon tax," said Mr McShane. "All we have is a scenario promoted by government funded scientists who are part of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), based on computer modelling that has been slammed by many independent climatologists around the world as  lacking any scientific validity or credibility.

The renewed scrutiny brought to bear when governments start groking the costs of Kyoto has forced people to realize that the Emperor has no clothes: In this case the fact that there is no scientific evidence to support the draconian measures  policy makers would have have to enact.

"What Kyoto will do, like the sale of indulgences in the Middle Ages, is make people and organisations pay for emissions of carbon dioxide by buying credits from countries like Russia that have vast tracts of forested land.

"New Zealand should have followed the example of other Pacific Rim countries like Australia and America, and refrained from ratifying the Kyoto Protocol until the science of climate is settled. Currently, and since 1998, the earth has been cooling. New Zealand still has the right, up until February next year, to withdraw from the Kyoto agreement without penalty, and it should do so."

And so should everyone else.

There are whole host of good reasons why the US and other countries should work to cut their carbon emmissions, and use less fossil fuels; not the least of which is national security. The more oil the US and other countries import, the more money flows into the hands of dictators, despots, and Islamists.

If I had my way, each and every oil and coal burning power plant in the US would be replaced by clean nuclear generators.

But none of that negates the fact that Anthropogenic Climate Change is a play to destroy capitalism by avowed Communists and has zero basis in scientific fact.

Dissecting Anthropogenic Warming

For today's discussion on Global Warming, I reprint (with permission) an article that will appear in "The General" a student publication of the Wooster School in Danbury CT. The Wooster School is a K-12 College Prep school and the following article is by Editor in Chief of The General, Junior Carl Wolk

Growing Doubts over the Extent of Anthropogenic Warming
by Carl Wolk

“Time” magazine recently declared to the world, “In the past five years or so, the serious debate has quietly ended. Global warming, even most skeptics have concluded, is the real deal, and human activity has been causing it.” This statement is the epitome of misinformation thrown daily at the American public by the media and those in power; not only has “the serious debate” continued to rage on, but the arguments presented by the skeptics are rock solid in their scientific foundations, and should be closely examined.

To understand fully what factors are at play, it is critical to understand the behavioral cycles of the earth’s temperatures. Every 100,000 years or so, the earth enters an Ice Age, only to reemerge into a warm period. Many environmentalists point to the fact that carbon dioxide (CO₂) levels and global temperature follow the exact same trend, implying that the increase in CO₂ levels that the atmosphere has recently undergone will cause a jump in temperatures, just as it did in the past. Yet this is very misleading, as the idea comes from the assumption that the earth’s temperature is dependent on CO₂ concentration, when in fact, it is just the opposite. Ice ages actually suppress CO₂ levels: colder oceans absorb more CO₂, and larger ice caps reduce the CO₂ exchange with the atmosphere.

Between 1100 AD and 1250 AD, the Medieval Maximum, in which the sun was especially strong, brought about a worldwide warming period, which was followed by the Little Ice Age (1650-1850). The Little Ice Age was brought about by the “Maunder Minimum,” which was accompanied by few sunspots, less irradiance, and low magnetism. Since then, solar activity has increased to its highest level in eight-thousand years (Sami Solanki), producing much of the warming we have experienced since 1850.

For a long time, scientists have recognized the correlation between solar intensity and global temperatures, but because they lacked the ability to explain scientifically how that relationship functions, little credibility had been given to the argument. Recently, however, a connection has been found—one that could spell the death of the Greenhouse theory.

When solar sunspots are at their peak, the plasma solar winds around the earth also increase in intensity. These solar winds block cosmic rays (rays of energy from imploded stars), which enter the earth’s atmosphere and react with nitrogen, creating carbon-14 (C-14) atoms and liberating electrons. Those electrons then ionize other molecules that cluster together in a chain reaction to condense water molecules, thus creating clouds.

When 2000 scientists are wrong

On Sept 12th 2005, Hurricane Katrina had already happened and Al Gore gave a speech on Hurricanes and Global Warming. He said (in part)

the scientific community is warning us that the average hurricane will continue to get stronger because of global warming. A scientist at MIT has published a study well before this tragedy showing that since the 1970s, hurricanes in both the Atlantic and the Pacific have increased in duration, and in intensity, by about 50 %. The newscasters told us after Hurricane Katrina went over the southern tip of Florida that there was a particular danger for the Gulf Coast of the hurricanes becoming much stronger because it was passing over unusually warm waters in the gulf. The waters in the gulf have been unusually warm. The oceans generally have been getting warmer. And the pattern is exactly consistent with what scientists have predicted for twenty years. Two thousand scientists, in a hundred countries, engaged in the most elaborate, well organized scientific collaboration in the history of humankind, have produced long-since a consensus that we will face a string of terrible catastrophes unless we act to prepare ourselves and deal with the underlying causes of global warming. [applause] It is important to learn the lessons of what happens when scientific evidence and clear authoritative warnings are ignored in order to induce our leaders not to do it again and not to ignore the scientists again and not to leave us unprotected in the face of those threats that are facing us right now. [applause]

But where are all the hurricanes today? By this time last year we had had nine named tropical storms and four hurricanes: Cindy, Dennis, Emily and Irene.

To date in 2006 we have had only three named Tropical Storms and no hurricanes.

Hurricanes require warm sea surface temperatures (SSTs), and last year the tropical Atlantic sea surface temperatures were running well above normal. Global warming was the explanation given by most 'experts' the media interviewed. And since global warming will only get worse, those SSTs were expected to just keep on increasing.

But now those same regions that had anomalously warm SSTs last year are -- gasp! -- near normal. The accompanying graphic shows large areas in the tropical Atlantic even a little cooler than normal.

And what's more

A new scientific article now accepted for publication in Geophysical Research Letters shows that the globally averaged upper ocean cooled dramatically between 2003 and 2005, effectively erasing 20% of the warming that occurred over the previous 48 years!

So what happens when the "Two thousand scientists, in a hundred countries, engaged in the most elaborate, well organized scientific collaboration in the history of humankind" are all wrong?

Well....nothing.

Kyoto Update

After criticizing the US for years about not adopting the Kyoto Protocol, it turns out Europe hasn't adopted it either.

New data has shown that the European Union (EU) remains embarrassingly off track for meeting its pledges under the Kyoto Protocol, the UN climate-change pact it championed after a US walkout.

Instead of falling, EU greenhouse-gas pollution actually rose in the latest year of monitoring, adding to the task of meeting the Kyoto goals, according to figures released by the European Environment Agency (EAA) in Copenhagen.

"Despite the various policy initiatives, this report highlights that the trend is still going in the wrong direction," declared EAA Executive Director Jacqueline McGlade.

Despite their negligence, it looks like we'll be OK anyway.

Using temperature readings from the past 100 years, 1,000 computer simulations and the evidence left in ancient tree rings, Duke University scientists announced yesterday that "the magnitude of future global warming will likely fall well short of current highest predictions."

Supported by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the Department of Energy and the National Science Foundation, the Duke researchers noted that some observational studies predicted that the Earth's temperature could rise as much as 16 degrees in this century because of an increase in carbon dioxide or other so-called greenhouse gases.

The Duke estimates show the chances that the planet's temperature will rise even by 11 degrees is only 5 percent, which falls in line with previous, less-alarming predictions that meteorologists made almost three decades ago.

At least the US stated quite clearly that it wasn't going to be a part of Kyoto.

The least Europe could have done was admit the same.

Scientific method

ABC News is soliciting evidence from viewers that global warming is real.

Witnessing the impact of global warming in your life?   

ABC News wants to hear from you. We're currently producing a report on the increasing changes in our physical environment, and are looking for interesting examples of people coping with the differences in their daily lives. Has your life been directly affected by global warming?

We want to hear and see your stories. Have you noticed changes in your own backyard or hometown? The differences can be large or small — altered blooming schedules, unusual animals that have arrived in your community, higher water levels encroaching on your property.

Show us what you've seen. You can include video material of the environmental change, or simply tell your story via webcam. Please fill out the form below, and be sure to include captions or other descriptive information if you're sending video. We hope to hear from you. Thank you.

No video? Share your story in words here.

Who needs scientists anyway? They might disagree with your conclusion, then what will happen?

An Inconvenient Rebuttal

Former Senator Al Gore assembled a group of scientists to back up his claim that human produced CO2 is changing the world's climate for the worse. But are the scientists he collected for his film "An Inconvenient Truth" climatologists or just experts in other fields? Tom Harris writing for the Canada Free Press does the legwork

...[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."

This is highly valuable knowledge, but doesn't make them climate change cause experts, only climate impact experts.

So we have a smaller fraction.

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."

So why did Al Gore avoid using actual Climatologists when preparing his argument and film and book? Because actual climatologists disagree with his conclusions.

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."

What is professor Bob Carter's position on the cause of Global Climate change?

In January 2006 Carter told The Australian that "atmospheric CO2 is not a primary forcing agent for temperature change," arguing instead that "any cumulative human signal is so far undetectable at a global level and, if present, is buried deeply in the noise of natural variation". [5]

But why take Professor Carter's word for it?

Appearing before the Commons Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development last year, Carleton University paleoclimatologist Professor Tim Patterson testified, "There is no meaningful correlation between CO2 levels and Earth's temperature over this [geologic] time frame. In fact, when CO2 levels were over ten times higher than they are now, about 450 million years ago, the planet was in the depths of the absolute coldest period in the last half billion years." Patterson asked the committee, "On the basis of this evidence, how could anyone still believe that the recent relatively small increase in CO2 levels would be the major cause of the past century's modest warming?"

Patterson concluded his testimony by explaining what his research and "hundreds of other studies" reveal: on all time scales, there is very good correlation between Earth's temperature and natural celestial phenomena such changes in the brightness of the Sun.

..."The breaking glacier wall is a normally occurring phenomenon which is due to the normal advance of a glacier," says [ Dr. Boris] Winterhalter [former marine researcher at the Geological Survey of Finland and professor in marine geology, University of Helsinki]. "In Antarctica the temperature is low enough to prohibit melting of the ice front, so if the ice is grounded, it has to break off in beautiful ice cascades. If the water is deep enough icebergs will form."

Professor Carter, it turns out, is only one among many who dispute Gore's conclusions and evidence.

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.

The bottom line

Carter does not pull his punches about Gore's activism, "The man is an embarrassment to US science and its many fine practitioners, a lot of whom know (but feel unable to state publicly) that his propaganda crusade is mostly based on junk science."

You see, in science, if there is disagreement among major players about a theory then you can not claim "this is what science tells us". You can at best say "this is what some scientists believe may be occurring."

But in this case, it seems, that the majority of the scientists whose expertise is actually climate change, the verdict appears to go against Gore's claims.

The fact that Al Gore did not include the consensus opinion of the actual experts in the field which was under consideration means that Gore is presenting the conclusion he wants you to hear not the conclusions supported by the evidence.

And that may be a lotta things, but it ain't science.