Why have I focused so much on Gores hypothesis in An Inconvenient Truth? Several reasons. For one, Gore is the best-known spokesman for the anthropogenic hypothesis, even though most of what he preaches is misleading, exaggerated, and often plain wrong. Much of it doesnt even agree with what the IPCC preaches (see Al Gore: The speech he needs to give).
A second reason is that few of the consensus climate scientists have come out against Gores ideas, although these scientists are very willing to attack those skeptical of the human-caused warming theory. In general, orthodox climate science would rather support Gore than criticize his errors errors so glaring that even a British judge could easily point them out lest the anthropogenic hypothesis lose public support.
And, most tellingly, the IPCCs consensus scientists were willing to accept a Nobel Peace Prize with Gore, even though most climate scientists, if not all of them, must be aware that much of what Gore says in his film and books is misleading, exaggerated, and often plain wrong. Clearly, they accept Gores hypothesis even though recent climate research, and particularly findings that the planet isnt currently warming, have falsified most of the anthropogenic hypothesis and the rest Gores predictions of doom cant be tested and therefore cant be falsified and therefore dont qualify as true scientific hypotheses.
In other words, much of what passes for climate science these days isnt science because it either fails to provide a proper falsifiable hypothesis or, when it does, the hypothesis is falsified but not abandoned or revised. Climate researchers with the true scientific spirit would, at this point, leave the anthropogenic carbon dioxide hypothesis behind and move on to learning more about what are more likely the real causes of climate change: natural cycles.
Postscript
What would qualify as good hypotheses on global warming? JunkScience.com has issued the Ultimate Global Warming Challenge: $500,000 to the first person to prove, in a scientific manner, that humans are causing harmful global warming. The winner only has to disprove (falsify) the following two non-anthropogenic hypotheses, thereby increasing support for the anthropogenic hypothesis:
Global Warming Challenge Hypothesis 1
Manmade emissions of greenhouse gases do not discernibly, significantly and predictably cause increases in global surface and tropospheric temperatures along with associated stratospheric cooling. [In non-hypothesis language: Prove human emissions are causing warming.]
Global Warming Challenge Hypothesis 2
The benefits equal or exceed the costs of any increases in global temperature caused by manmade greenhouse gas emissions between the present time and the year 2100, when all global social, economic and environmental effects are considered. [In non-hypothesis language: Prove that the benefits of fighting warming will be greater than the costs.]
So far, nobody on the anthropogenic side has stepped forward to collect what should be easy money.
