Since we're talking about Al Gore...

There's a nice column by Lorne Gunter on the National Post website about climate change and the incessant exaggeration portrayed by "scientists."

A slight drop in the oceans' temperature over a period of five or six years probably is insignificant, just as a warming over such a short period would be. Yet if there had been a rise of any kind, even of the same slightness, rest assured this would be broadcast far and wide as yet another log on the global warming fire.

The context Gunter uses for his data are from buoys referred to as the Argo Buoy Movement which take different measures of ocean water around the globe constantly submerging and reemerging to provide new data. What they've showed is a general cooling trend over the past few years and Gunter analyzes it to a tee. Here's more:

Just look how tenaciously some scientists are prepared to cling to the climate change dogma. "It may be that we are in a period of less rapid warming," Dr. Willis told NPR.

Yeah, you know, like when you put your car into reverse you are causing it to enter a period of less rapid forward motion. Or when I gain a few pounds I am in a period of less rapid weight loss.

I couldn't have said it better myself.

In nearly 30 years of operation, the satellites have discovered a warming trend of just 0.14 C per decade, less than the models and well within the natural range of temperature variation.

I'm not saying for sure the models are wrong and the Argos and satellites are right, only that in a debate as critical as the one on climate, it would be nice to hear some alternatives to the alarmist theory.

I don't understand why there's such a "consensus" for the sensationalist theory of global warming when data suggests otherwise. I took a class last semester pushing the alarmism and was totally shocked at how the professors pushed the "consensus" without any sort of opposing views.