Selective Fact Usage
We pick the facts that represent our side of the story and obscure the ones that don't line agree.
Last Saturday, I talked to a girl about the Mavs / Spurs series. She was a Spurs fan (sadly) and was pointing out all of the injustices that had hampered the Spurs. The evidence was spurious, at best, but to her, it was perfect proof that Mark Cuban had swayed the refs. I pointed out some alternate facts, but she didn't want any part of them because she was predisposed to believing something else.
The facts that didn't fit within her worldview were eliminated; they didn't seem to be facts because they didn't line up with her a priori beliefs.
I think the same is true with Al Gore and many climate scientists: they are predisposed to believing that global warming is an imminent threat to our world. They grab onto every piece of evidence that supports their thesis while suppressing all of the other facts. It is possible that it is true of the Climate Scientists that don't believe in the theory of global warming.
The problem with most of us is that we rarely consider information that doesn't fit within our worldview. This makes change difficult because we don't ever look at opposing facts. I'm not proposing that we should accept any and all facts, but I do know that we miss so much because we refuse to interpret all of the facts. We should definitely try to examine all of the evidence before we make our conclusions.