Hey Scorpion...IT'S A *BLEEP*ING MOVIE!!! There were so many holes and flaws in Captain Global Warming's so-called "documentary" (that have already been discussed here a hundred times) that it has NO credibility.

Veronicas...WHO SAID THEY DIDN'T CARE ABOUT THE FUTURE? PLEASE TELL ME!!! I'm not seeing where this is coming from. Please, read my previous posts (including "The probelm with consensus"). I sum everything up there. The causes of climate change OTHER THAN THE ALREADY-PROVEN NATURAL CAUSES have not been proven at all. Human-induced global warming is speculative at best.

Folks, please do not start pointing out NASA and NOAA's computer modelling. Here is a fact about the Geological Forecast System and Climate Forecast System (GFS and CFS). First of all, they are mathematical probability models, not windows to the future. They are tools that must be used with caution and speculation because quite often they are wrong, and not by a little bit. The models can't handle heat, atmospheric or oceanic. They are not capable of seeing what will happen ten days from now, much less a century from now. The GFS, specifically, can barely zero in on a hurricane track from more than 2 or 3 days out. Remember the record-breaking cold that came into the north east this past winter? We had a week of near-zero temperatures here in Pittsburgh in early February. A week prior, the GFS had temperatures in the 40s. PLEASE, don't trust a computer model to prove anything.

The funny thing is when you point out the flaws in math models, you are immediately branded a heretic for not having absolute faith. Its crazy, but so many people really believe we can control the weather.

That is quite true, which is why I try to post on this topic. As I said in earlier comments, I am not officially a meteorologist, but I do study the weather (OK, I'm a bit of a geek in that respect) and I do understand atmospheric patterns and what can drive a phenomenon like El Nino or La Nina, and I know a thing or two about tropical cyclones. That's another fallacy of the leftists that try to drive global warming down our throats. "Global warming causes more hurricanes!!!" Well, tell me then, why there were so few hurricanes in the Atlantic last year. Tell me why with a weak to moderate El Nino going (warm tropical Pacific waters) that Pacific tropical activity was below normal. People broad-brush everything anymore to the point where, as you said, it's like a religion. Have faith in the CFS, all hail NOAA or be shunned.

Disclaimer: NASA and NOAA have developed some amazing products, and I respect the real scientists that work there. This is not a knock against American technology or the hard-working, intelligent people that strive to improve our weather forecasting ability. I just get thoroughly annoyed when people look at a computer and 1) call it a forecast and 2) buy everything it says hook, line and sinker.

FordTruck...I've read several of your comments...thank you... I am not as well-versed in the scientific aspects of weather. I do, however, completely agree with your assertions and appreciated the scientific back-up you provided.

My biggest problem with Al, though is that he doesn't deserve a Nobel Prize. From the Nobel site...

"The said interest shall be divided into five equal parts, which shall be apportioned as follows: one part to the person who shall have made the most important discovery or invention within the field of physics; one part to the person who shall have made the most important chemical discovery or improvement; one part to the person who shall have made the most important discovery within the domain of physiology or medicine; one part to the person who shall have produced in the field of literature the most outstanding work of an idealistic tendency; and one part to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between the nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses."

According to this, I don't (and never will) believe that Al Gore's efforts (even if they were proven to be scientifically valid), fall within the parameters set forth. Everyone has causes that we are emotional and passionate about. That does not warrant a Nobel Prize.

Thanks again.

For those of you who still don't get it. Local weather patterns are only a microcasim of the "GLOBAL" Warming problem. The real danger caused by Global Warmming is the evaporation and salination of the Earth's fresh water suppy. No one in California cares about the weather patterns of Florida, just as one and Amerca cares about the drought in Africa. But Californians do care if the Sierra Nevada snow pack melts and the entire fresh water suppy of the south west is gone. The same for Florida or in the future the former State of Florida which would be under the ocean because of rising sea elevations. Not to mention Dust Bowl 2 of the Midwest, where landlock states run out of fresh drinking water because all the lakes and rivers have dried up. Tornados, snow storms, hurricanes, what ever; these weather events are byproduct of a global harm on the fresh water. The evaporation and salination of fresh water has more effect on global weather patterns the warming itself.

Listing possible catastrophes is one thing. Proving and accurately predicting them is completely different.

OK, so one that looks at the actual weather is a rightie? OK, then I'm a rightie. By the way, when I say "weather", I don't mean the daily forecast fot the Greater Pittsburgh area. I'm talking about global weather conditions, atmospheric patterns, ocean cycles, etc. The weather shows me more than any "consensus" ever will. Yeah, a lot of scientists say that they believe the human-induced climate change theories, but a bunch of them don't. I've examined the evidence, and I'm trending more to the side of the ones that don't. Why? Because they're all co-conspiriators with the Republican National Committe and they're paying me to say this. (If you believe that, I have some swamp land in New Mexico I'd love to sell you). Actually, I just believe the evidence. I have no idea what their political affiliations are. I look at the facts, not the people providing it. I compare both sides, and come to an intelligent conclusion.

This brings me to another point. Why are there political positions associated with weather? I know hurricanes get names, but I don't think any of them register to vote. Unless it is so blindingly obvious that only conservatives believe that there are other explanations to global warming and only liberals believe that we're causing it all, I can't see how the weather should receive a political designation.

How about this. Let's get the politics and "right vs. left" and "liberal vs. conservative" out of meteorology all together? Let the weather be the weather, and the meteorologists/climatologists study it and look at all of the players on the field before making a decree.