mr. gore has dictated to no one, he's taken the scientific consensus, of reputable climatologists, not apologists for the energy industry, and used it as the basis for his lectures and documentary.

two climatologists don't, by themselves, deny a consensus, as webster's defines the term.

as for the "creationism" museum, it's utter nonsense, lacking any scientific merit. however, as the man said, you're entitled to your own opinion, not your own facts.

A lot of soothsaying and question begging: God created the world.  How do you know?  Because it says so in the Bible.  How do you know the Bible is true?  Because God wrote it.

Intelligent design and creationism on the other hand, have no basis in science whatsoever, let me repeat that for the peanut gallery, NO BASIS IN SCIENCE WHATSOEVER, it's a sham that was created for political purposes.  The same people who espouse and promote intelligent design and creationism, believe that its ethical and morally acceptable to deceitfully prey upon the followers of a religious belief by playing upon their superstitions with this concocted pseudoscience.  Their aim is to manipulate the faithful into falling in line with a specific political agenda.  Such pseudo-religious movements can be found in every society and among every faith.  I find them utterly reprehensible and they must be condemned in the strongest terms.

...but beliefs can not dictate to science.

So Gore cannot tell scientists that they have a consensus!  Did not two state climatologists draw political heat recently for questioning the Gore's beliefs.

Washington State and:

Gov. Ruth Ann Minner has directed Delaware's state climatologist to stop using his title in public statements on climate change, citing a clash of views on global warming and confusion over the position's ties to the administration.

  When the government is the actor, it cannot promote religion in the sense of favoring one conception of religion over other conceptions or even religion generally over being non-religious or anti-religious.

   The government is not required to be "right." There is nothing to prohibit government from stating man's exacerbation of global warming has been proven-- but IT would be prohibited from interjecting as to God's supposed position on the subject.

What is in dispute is the assertion that that consensus also includes an end of the world scenario if we don't quit using fossil fuels in the next decade or so.

because not one of the reports, or the scientific consensus make this claim. again, show me.

One of my professors told me that physicists did not reach a consensus on quantum mechanics the ones who did not believe in quantum mechanics all died. I told one of my colleagues that and he said I don't believe in quantum mechanics and I'm still alive. By the way several of my colleagues who are quantum mechanicians are very dubious of the theory of global climate change.

Scientists are skeptics by necessity they have seen too many beautiful theories destroyed by ugly facts. I believe that much of the skepticism is based on the complexity of the problem.

I have tremendous respect for Jim Hansen ever since I was a member of his thesis committee (a dust insulation model for Venus a fine piece of work even though it was wrong) but I think it is too early to say that the prevailing view of scientists is that the theory of human induced climate change is true. I do agree there is a very strong trend in that direction.

One problem was that the data sets that were used to test the theory were not very reliable twenty or so years ago. In the past twenty years these data sets have been vastly improved.

The are still unresolved questions about feedback (in particular by clouds) in the global climate system so to some degree the theory is incomplete. I don't think that ocean currents are very well understood and they transport an enormous amount of heat so that even a small change in an ocean current can have a major impact on climate.