To claim that weather prediction and climate prediction are different beasts is nonsense.
No, to claim they are the same displays a lack of understanding. Though it may be counter intuitive, it is often far easier to predict large scale phenomena than smaller scale phenomena. For example, we cannot predict where a single drop of water entering the Gulf Stream off the coast of Georgia today will be in a month or a year. We can however quite accurately predict where the average drop of water now in the Gulf Stream off the coast of Georgia will be in a month, a year, or further in the future.
First, Jeb, it proves nothing if some scientists complain that their data is used to contradict their opinion.
No, but it does mean something if a scientists work is said to mean one thing and the scientist who produced the work indicates that it means something else entirely.
Second, you can call a factual error an overstatement or an understatemet, it doesnt change the fact, that an factual error is a factual error. And Gores film is full of these errors. Many arguments that he tries to make are infact based on an “overstatement”, as you call it.
Depends on your definition of many I guess. I would call nine several. Most of those nine were attributing a change solely to climate change when climate change was but one factor (Kilamanjaro etc.). The others were matters of positing worst case scenarios. Sea levels will not likely rise 7m in the next hundred years (that is at the outside edge of predictions).
It was a flawed movie and is not the place to get your science, but I have yet to see a movie that is a good place to get your science.
Third, just because a majority of learned people believe something, does not make it true
No, but it is a good indicator of where the evidence currently available points.
Or was Galileo Galilei wrong just because he was in the minority?
Gallileo was not persecuted by other scientists and it was not other scientists that said he was wrong (at least not without prompting from the Church).
Fact is, nobody has the scientific means to prove how the weather will be in 10 years (there isnt even a reliable weather forecast for the next month)
Once again weather is not climate. If it rains tomorrow that is a change in the weather not a change in the climate.
Fourthly, civilization has taken its path, and there will be no reductions in CO2 unless our civilization stops all progress, and goes bakc to the bronze age
That is only potentially true if technology remains static.
I just do not believe that Nature, of which the human race is just one part, is trying to kill itself.
Anthropomorphizing nature leads to muddied thinking. “Nature” does not have motives. Man has motives and more often than we like or motives for actions and the results of those actions are at odds. That said, I do not think that any climate change we are at all likely to see will eliminate humans. We will survive (though perhaps less comfortably) and the world will survive (though perhaps with far less biodiversity).
