This comment is more a response to the dialogue that has been going on in the press more than the actual article  written above.

I was at the conference mentioned above and my memory is the same as Sharon's.  Yes, Penn said "i don't know".  But the tone was definately "this is BS because Al Gore said so".

When sharon stated that during her speech there was a huge amount of applause.  I'd say that most of the people in the room agreed with her assemsment of the situation.  

Her point is about emotion driven thought and it is well made.  

Nobel prize winners debate.

"Much like every year since 1951, there has been another meeting (6/29-7/3) of Nobel prize winners in Lindau, Bavaria, Germany."

"Seven Nobel prize winners participated in a climate debate. How did it look like? Well, there may be a climate consensus among the high-school dropouts but there is none among the Nobel prize winners. There was one more difference. Many of the Nobel prize winners said, unlike the high-school dropouts, the following sentence: "I am no expert." ;-)"

Here is what Ivar Giaever (Norway), the 1973 Nobel prize winner for superconductivity said:

"First of all, I didn't volunteer to be on this panel. Second of all, I am a skeptic, as I told you yesterday. Third of all, if I am Norwegian, should I really worry about a little bit of warming? I am unfortunately becoming an old man. We have heard many similar warnings about the acid rain 30 years ago and the ozone hole 10 years ago or deforestation but the humanity is still around. The ozone hole width has peaked in 1993.

Moreover, global warming has become a new religion. We frequently hear about the number of scientists who support it. But the number is not important: only those who are correct are important. We don't really know what the actual effect on the global temperature is. There are better ways to spend the money [question period],"

From the blog of Lubos Motl, formerly assistant professor of physics at Harvard

http://motls.blogspot.com/

"Newsweek's senior editor Sharon Begley has taken it upon herself to publicly declare the recent floods in the Midwest are being caused by global warming.Those familiar with her work shouldn't be even slightly surprised by this, as Begley was the person responsible for the August 13, 2007, Newsweek cover story "Global-Warming Deniers: A Well-Funded Machine" which evoked widespread criticism including from one of her fellow editors."

"As is her typical modus operandi, Begley chose not to offer any balance concerning this recent report, or identify that top scientists around the world have been critical of both its findings and the lead author."

"Such facts pertaining to the Midwest floods eluded Begley, much as they did with her following declaration: "Hurricanes have become more powerful due to global warming." Really, Sharon? That's not what hurricane experts such as William Gray and Christopher Landsea believe."

"But why should their opinions matter when you're on a roll? Although the last time Begley was so reckless with her reporting, one of her colleagues, contributing editor Robert J. Samuelson, called the piece "fundamentally misleading" and "highly contrived." We can only hope her most recent addition to this debate is similarly derided."

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2008/06/29/newsweek-blames-midwest-floods-global-warming

Yes indeed, the Nobel Peace Prize committee is chock a block full of noted climate scientists ;)

So a bunch of people completely ignorant of the science awarded the Holy Goracle a "peace prize." Tell us, what conflict, other than theoretical conflicts that may or may not happen some time in the future, maybe, did Gore bring peace to?

But Al Gore won a Nobel Prize.

Surely he wouldn't have won a Nobel Prize if his movie contained errors.

Well, this just in. You hysterics have got something to answer for!

In the Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, Joshua Wolf and Robert Salo of Melbourne’s Royal Children’s Hospital write:

We describe a patient with climate change delusion, a previously unreported phenomenon. A 17-year-old man was referred to the inpatient psychiatric unit at Royal Children’s Hospital Melbourne with an 8 month history of depressed mood… He also ...had visions of apocalyptic events…

The patient had also developed the belief that, due to climate change, his own water consumption could lead within days to the deaths of ‘millions of people’ through exhaustion of water supplies. He quoted ‘internet research’ to substantiate this. The patient described that ‘I feel guilty about it’, had attempted to stop drinking… He was unable to acknowledge that the belief was unreasonable when challenged.

http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~content=a791365692~db=all~order=page

via http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/

Blake Stacey (June 29, 2008 at 4:57 PM) wrote:

"It’s great how Penn, who is a big guy who cheerleads for science, can’t stand Al Gore, who is also a big guy who goes “Rah! Rah! Science!” in front of an audience. Whether Al Gore is personally intolerable has jack to do with the validity of climate science, just like the validity of evolution has nothing to do with Penn’s hairstyle. It’s the ice cores, stupid."

You don't cheer for science by deliberately misrepresenting the facts as Gore does.

Ice cores eh? You know that Gore misled people here, falsely saying that the ice core data showed that CO2 levels preceded temperature rises, ie rising CO2 caused the temperature increases, when it has been known for many years in climate science circles that it is exactly the OPPOSITE.

Temperatures rise first, THEN CO2 levels increase.

But of course, as a British court found, An Inconvenient Truth was riddled with such errors. As yes, the court's judgement referred to errors, not "errors".

It was known for years before the film was made that the retreating snows on Mt Kilimanjaro couldn't have been caused by rising temperatures, because the summit has been getting colder, not warmer.

"Being skeptical of Climate Change is like being skeptical that Agent Orange poses a health risk or smoking causes cancer."

What an incredibly foolish thing to say.

The nature of the evidence and associated margins of error is quite different in each case.

One thing you must try to understand is the extent of what we don't know about the cliamte and how it works, especially in relation to climate feedback mechanisms.

Reply to bigdaddyjt

"He's avoiding knowing because he is aware the scientific consensus is that Climate Change is very real."

Sigh. Firstly, "consensus" in science does not mean right. Consensus positions have been wrong in the past. You need to learn more about the way science actually operates.

Your comment about climate change being "real" is simply fatuous. The Earth's climate is always changing. It's what it does - all the time.

Now that we know that the Hockey Stick was also wrong, based upon suspect bristlecone and foxtail pine proxies that should never have been used as temperature proxies - and certainly should never have been weighted against all the other proxies used by Mann and co - and that it involved a data mining algorithm that produces hockey sticks when fed random series of numbers, this should be obvious to you.

Over just the last 5,000 or so years we have seen:

the Holocene Climate Optimum;

intervening cool period;

possible Minoan Warm Period;

intervening cool period;

Roman Climate Optimum;

intervening cool period;

Medieval Warm Period (yes folks, it's still around and better supported by evidence than ever!);

cool period so severe it is known in the literature as the Little Ice Age, ending around 1850

Oh, ending around 1850? So the Earth was due for another warming spell? Think about it alarmists.

Reply to I. Ratant

"I've noticed GW is more likely to be split miles apart by party lines.. conservatives vehemently against the very idea, with liberals wanting to do "something"" By and large true, though Alexander Cockburn of CounterPunch.org has written a series of scathing articles on climate change hysteria and the dodgy science behind it.

"Hard liners resent that, and want -their- viewpoint confirmed by everyone, all the time."

Because it's essentially a religious movement, separated from real science and reason.

've always respected someone who knows what he doesn't know, and is willing to state that fact, rather than someone who may know he doesn't know, but is constitutionally unable to admit not knowing.

With GW being a hot issue, and good information both for it and against it, it isn't unreasonable for anyone to withhold a statement on the subject.

I've noticed GW is more likely to be split miles apart by party lines.. conservatives vehemently against the very idea, with liberals wanting to do "something", yet unsure of what that "something" might be.

Penn's "I don't know" merely says he wants more information, as is quite reasonable.

Hard liners resent that, and want -their- viewpoint confirmed by everyone, all the time.

When someone with Gillete's status indicates there's a potential lack of verification, yea or no, these people get their knickers in a twist.

He's avoiding knowing because he is aware the scientific consensus is that Climate Change is very real.

Acknowledging this would mean he would have to question some cherished libertarian beliefs that he is uncomfortable confronting.

Notice his wording, "global warming, or climate change, or however they're branding it now."

He's dismissive of the idea, not just undecided.

He also writes ""I don't know" can be a very bad answer when it is disingenuous." without realizing he's being disingenuous throughout his entire missive.

Being skeptical of Climate Change is like being skeptical that Agent Orange poses a health risk or smoking causes cancer.

You can always find a few scientists who hold unfounded beliefs if that is your goal.

That isn't healthy skepticism, it's crackpottery.

He hasn't spent a lifetime studying cancer but I bet he believes smoking causes cancer. Maybe not?

Look Lady, Penn said on "Penn Says" that while he doesn't like Gore  at all ( and really who does?) his answer to the global warming question was quote "I don't know". It is a complicated issue and not all the facts are in, moreover a reasonable plan to fix it (if we can do anything at all) has not been devised so "I don't know" is a pretty honest and fair statement to make about the subject. This was not an attack or dismissal on those who believe in global climate change, it was Penn taking a verbal  jab at Al Gore. Crappy journalism Sharon!

What a crappy blog. Since your rash characterisation of his answer is about as poor as the position you made up for him, it should be you that is ashamed at just how feeble your recollection of what is being said is.

Nice journalism, if by journalism i mean spin, and by nice i mean terrible in every single way.

I didn't see the Q&A, but according to the "Penn Says" video,he doesn't think global warming is garbage, he doesn't know.  His disdain for Al Gore makes him WANT to disbelieve, but he realizes that isn't a good basis to make a decision.  

See Penn's response here:

http://crackle.com/c/Penn_Says/Penn_Says_Newsweek_and_TAM_6_0/2328055

It’s great how Penn, who is a big guy who cheerleads for science, can’t stand Al Gore, who is also a big guy who goes “Rah! Rah! Science!” in front of an audience. Whether Al Gore is personally intolerable has jack to do with the validity of climate science, just like the validity of evolution has nothing to do with Penn’s hairstyle. It’s the ice cores, stupid.

But that’s not the best part.

What I found absolutely hi-larious was how Penn could say that we should abolish the public school system — YA, RLY: somebody asked him how to fix the schools and his answer was to privatize the whole schmeer — moments before he complained about how Hearst ruined the press through commercialization.

In the Venn diagram whose circles are <i>skepticism</i> and <i>libertarianism,</i> there exists a strange, lens-shaped region of overlap which focuses irony to a sharp point of flame.

To his credit, Penn also said (I paraphrase), “I have a lot of smart friends who are into climate science and who say that global warming is real.” His final stance was rather neutral, I’d say, and he did admit that he could have blind spots on political issues — an idea Michael Shermer would also do well to consider, if I might be so bold to suggest it.