In last week's NEWSWEEK, the cover story was a hymn to "The Thinking Man's Thinking Man." Beneath the story's headline ("The Evolution of an Eco-Prophet") was this subhead: "Al Gore's views on climate change are advancing as rapidly as the phenomenon itself." Which was rather rude because, if true, his views have not advanced for 11 years. (Click here to follow George F. Will)There is much debate about the reasons for, and the importance of, the fact that global warming has not increased for that long. What we know is that computer models did not predict this. Which matters, a lot, because we are incessantly exhorted to wager trillions of dollars and diminished freedom on the proposition that computer models are correctly projecting catastrophic global warming. On Nov. 2, The Wall Street Journal's Jeffrey Ball reported some inconvenient data. Soon after the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change—it shared the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize with the Thinking Man's Thinking Man—reported that global warming is "unequivocal," there came evidence that the planet's temperature is beginning to cool. "That," Ball writes, "has led to one point of agreement: The models are imperfect."Models are no better or worse than their assumptions, and Ball notes how dicey these assumptions can be: "The effects of clouds, for example, are unclear. Depending on their shape and altitude, clouds can either trap heat, warming the earth, or reflect it, cooling the planet." It gets worse: "The way that greenhouse gases affect cloud formation—and how clouds in turn affect temperature—remains a subject of debate. Different models treat these factors differently."Some scientists say the cooling is a product of what Ball calls "the enigmatic ocean currents." Others say that even if the cooling continues for several decades, as some scientists think it might, warming will resume.And if it does not? A story in the April 28, 1975, edition of NEWSWEEK was "The Cooling World." NEWSWEEK can recycle that article, and recycling is a planet-saving virtue.Meanwhile, however, the crusade against warming will brook no interference from information. With the Waxman-Markey bill, the House of Representatives has endorsed reducing greenhouse-gas emissions to 83 per-cent below 2005 levels by 2050. This is surely the most preposterous legislation ever hatched in the House. Using Energy Department historical statistics, Kenneth P. Green and Steven F. Hayward of the American Enterprise Institute have calculated this:Waxman-Markey's goal is just slightly more than 1 billion tons of greenhouse-gas emissions in 2050. The last time this nation had that small an amount was 1910, when there were only 92 million Americans, 328 million fewer than the 420 million projected for 2050. To meet the 83 percent reduction target in a nation of 420 million, per capita carbon-dioxide emissions would have to be no more than 2.4 tons per person, which is one quarter the per capita emissions of 1910, a level probably last seen when the population was 45 million—in 1875.Such nonsense is rare, but nonsensical fears are not. In their new book, SuperFreakonomics, Steven D. -Levitt and Stephen J. Dubner revisit the great shark panic of the summer of 2001. Eight-year-old Jessie Arbogast was playing in the surf near Pensacola, Fla., when a bull shark bit off his right arm and gouged a piece of his thigh. The country, with an assist from the media, became fixated on the shark menace. Time's cover proclaimed "The Summer of the Shark"; Time's story began:"Sharks come silently, without warning. There are three ways they strike: the hit-and-run, the bump-and-bite and the sneak attack. The hit-and-run is the most common. The shark may see the sole of a swimmer's foot, think it's a fish and take a bite before realizing this isn't its usual prey."Jeepers. Everyone out of the water!Or not. Time, to its credit, let the air out of its story by noting that the numbers of shark attacks "remain minuscule." They were small during all of 2001, all over the globe. That year there were 64 shark attacks, only four of them fatal. Between 1995 and 2005, shark attacks worldwide varied between a high of 79 in a year and a low of 46, averaging 60.3. Fatalities averaged 5.9, about 50 percent higher than in 2001. The unfortunate Jessie Arbogast became an occasion for the fun of experiencing a frisson of synthetic fear. The real thing arrived in late summer 2001, on September 11.George Will is also the author of One Man's America: The Pleasures and Provocations of Our Singular Nation and With a Happy Eye But . . .: America and the World, 1997—2002.

Here is an inconvenient truth George your a douche....

Mr. Will, please look for information about man-made climate change ('global warming' is a misleading term at best) from climate scientists that are not in the pocket of the petroleum industry. The American Enterprise Institute doesn't qualify as unbiased in any sense of the word. Try the IPCC (ipcc.ch) to start.

Simply put, the debate as to whether we humans are influencing the climate is over. We do. What will happen in the future, and what to do about it, on the other hand (if anything) is a debate that is just beginning.

They aren't un biased. They are only employed because their scaremongering keeps them secure in their jobs. After all, who would try to fire them if they are trying to save the world? Here's a clue, every atom of carbon that is in oil, natural gas or coal, was once part of a living organism. And not so coincidentally, already in the atmosphere. It's as foolish as trying to stop the beach from eroding. As foolish as trying to stop the rivers from washing away the banks. The man made affect is NOT settled science. Thousands of scientists, meteorologists, and geologists, and more have DISPROVED it; that the sheep continue to believe it is astonishing. I want a cleaner planet too. But let's do it under real pretenses and facts and conscience. Not through lies, deception and fraud. Fat Al stands to become rich(er), not from his investment in green technology, but from his investment in "off-sets" which are totally fraudulent.

George Will missed the best example of panic in the population, aided by certain public figures. Bin Laden spent $50K training a few people to (partially) fly a plane, and the last administration got the entire country into such a panic that they spent $3T invading the wrong country. In the process, they let Bin escape entirely. Oh, and they also let N. Korea develop nukes, because W. and Cheney did not want to be distracted from a proven vote-getter.

Comparing global warming to a shark panic is ridiculous. When you dig deeper into shark attack stats you can see right away that the danger is remote. With global warming the opposite occurs. The basic science makes sense...visualize running your auto in a hermetically sealed garage...it is just a matter of time before you poison yourself. The earth is just a huge closed garage and human industrial activity is like an auto engine except that it keeps getting bigger at an increasing rate...it is just a matter of time. Normally the earth goes through periodic mini ice ages, and in fact we should be experiencing one now, except that it is has been overridden by the global warming effect. I am not a climate scientist but for unknown reasons I keep running into them and I have yet to meet one who questions the reality of human caused global warming. It seems that these days the debate is not whether global warming is happening but whether it will play out in a sudden catastrophic way or in a more gradual timetable that allows humans to take action that might slow it down. The catastrophe camp seems to be growing but ultimately who knows??

George Will's analytical abilities seem overwhelmed by a blinding ideology and the complexities of the global climate. He is behind in the climate debate. The term "global warming" has been superceded by "climate change." Thomas Friedman, in his book, "Hot, Flat, and Crowded," chooses the term "climate weirding" because of the strange climate effects now being observed. I object to selected information being used out of the context of the operation of a comprehensive model properly initialized. Friedman tests the models in his book; he does things like talk to outdoorsmen in Montana about how the elk, the trout, and forests are doing. What Friedman reports is consistent with what climate models are telling us. George Will should confine himself to literature and avoid climate science before he gets us all killed.

George Will was already put into the carpet on the same topic in George's program last Sunday in ABC. Apparently, the article had been written that Mr. Will is too lazy to revise it and write another column on subjects he knows best: how to be a right-wing idiot while sounding smart.

Mr. Will is basing his argument on a "trend" of 11 years. I encourage him to consult a statistics textbook in order to understand why that is a rather uneducated position to take.

Green politics is GREEN all the way to the bank for Al Gore. Won't you please be fearful, he begs. He hasn't changed in 11 years.

Mr. Will

"Computer models" aside pal .... If you don't believe there's a Global warming trend going on I suggest you go to Google, and ask for before, and after pictures of our glaciers around the world and see for yourself. They say a picture is worth a thousand words... Or in your case, the word of a neophyte on the subject.

What is it with you Republican Conservatives? Is there some kind of report card you all have to check to remain in the party, or else? Do you have to absolutely think like some kind of Borg-like community?

Global warming does not exists.... Check
Fiscal deficits are only bad when we are not in power.... Check
Taxes cure all of man kind problems.......... Check
Health care for all Americans is a terrible idea..... Check

And the list goes on, and on..... And in absolute lock step you guys think, and act in the exact same way.This on going practice by the GOP is becoming so unatural is freaky Mr. Will. I am almost expecting your next national leader (you have none presently) to anounce your party as "The Community of the Repuborgans" , and say to us "Convert all resistance is futile" .
This of course will happen right around Halloween time next year.

The reason I am saying this Mr. Will is because sureley you are an intelligent man that knows perfectly well that the evidence of global warming is as clear now, as the evidence of Darwin's evolution, not that your party believes on that either. So in your current article you are either posturing for the benefit of your Borg-like political allies.... Or the most disturbing possibility , you are part of the "Community" of people that .... Hate Intellectuals like you !!!

And that my poor "intellectual" friend will make you rather stupid in your choice of allies. I can see you just about now comparing notes on Global warming with such "experts as Joe the Pluber , Sarah Palin, and Rush Limbaugh ... Is that how low you have sank on your "intellectual" credentials Mr. Will?

Yes there is global warming...............and global cooling, and more importantly many of both (cyclical weather patterns), which we humans may or may not have had anything to do with and surely can not claim to actually be able to do anything about either!

vicious.

..... And yes there is a need for new jobs in new industries , so why not give renewable energy a chance to grow before we end up importing it just like our Arab oil?

Or you think that "drill baby drill" has any future in a world where $6.00 /Galon on a $200.00 per barrel is the norm? We can drill all we want pal, but what good will that be to the consumer?

Or to put it in other words .... Why on earth are we arguing about global warming produced by CO2 .... A SCIENTIFIC FACT..... If we can stop producing CO2 and create jobs at the same time?

Are you Republicans dumb or something?

What about agencies that are considered the Federal government? Are they biased as well, remember they have input as well to the IPCC as being a huge resource of data to these private sectors. Get educated before you make a decision on this topic.

Seems that you are ASSUMING that I am a republican, not!
Furthermore I would never be stupid enough to be a democrat either!
No one is arguing with you, I made a comment on the newsweek "comment pages", and I believe that comment is completely accurate, and would bet money that it is more accurate than the last 4 years weather predictions for much worse hurricane seasons than the year that produced Katrina (and easily proven that they were made and more easily proven that they were eroneous). Those predictions were ideed made by some of the "chicken littles" who suggest we all put our money in a large pile and fling it at "man controlling the weather" magic!

Hard to argue that man CAN fix the weather or planet when it has never been done before except when there were traveling medicine shows that fleeced desparate and gullable country folk of a century or more passed!