More Inconvenient Truth for Al Gore

No matter how many posts and no matter how many links I provide regarding problems with the "science" and "facts" in Al Gore's docuganda An Inconvenient Truth, I will never be able to overrun the loads of articles and links out there that support the information Al Gore presents. I read somewhere on the internet that there is an attempt to establish truth by repetition of the same information regardless whether or not it is accurate - if you tell a lie enough people start to take it as truth. I agree with that sentiment and you see it with this issue. I have so often heard there is a consensus regarding man's part in global climate change. Despite the clear fact there is not a consensus, many still claim there is. I'm linking some additional articles regarding An Inconvenient Truth below for your reading enjoyment. The first article addresses the consensus issue. The WSJ Opinion Journal article below is written by a Mr. Lindzen who is the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT.

http://www.canadafreepress.com/2006/harris061206.htm
http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0607/S00400.htm
http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba/ba561/
http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008597

My prior post on this subject was about an article in Car and Driver magazine. Using an article from an automobile magazine got me in trouble but I don't find the source of the information an issue as long as the science and facts are presented correctly. I could cite that a lot of the support on the net for An Inconvenient Truth comes from liberal sources or environmental organizations or activists. It is hard to avoid bias but it is the information that counts. The science in the Car and Driver article is accurate and presented in numerous places, including some of the articles above. The information in An Inconvenient Truth is countered or clarified in the articles linked. A truly thoughtful and exploratory documentary would include both sides of the issue. Perhaps those such as Al Gore do not find it necessary to do so due to their claim of consensus but, quite frankly, any such claim is a lie. I don't throw that term around lightly but there is just too much evidence to the contrary to claim consensus. Of course, the purpose of Al Gore is not to provide a thoughtful and exploratory look at global climate change but to create a climate of fear and it is hard to do that when your science is not so clear cut.