Does anyone with real credentials believe Al Gore's apocalyptic assertions regarding global warming.?

Answer 1

Pretty much all of them do.

Here is the answer from a real climate scientist: "The skeptic attitude to consensus usually starts with "there is no consensus". That's wrong, and they usually retreat from it to "but consensus science is meaningless", and/or "consensus has nothing to do with science". The latter is largely true but irrelevant. The existence of the consensus doesn't do a lot to determine what science is done; it doesn't prevent contrary lines being explored. But the consensus view does come into the tricky interface between science and policy, and science and the media."

That quote is from the second link below. Their description of the site is: "RealClimate is a commentary site on climate science by working climate scientists for the interested public and journalists. We aim to provide a quick response to developing stories and provide the context sometimes missing in mainstream commentary. The discussion here is restricted to scientific topics and will not get involved in any political or economic implications of the science."

The first link below is a Summary for Policymakers of The Third Assessment Report of Working Group I of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change prepared in 2001. Many hundreds of scientists from many countries participated in its preparation and review. There was a consensus on this issue 5 years ago.

There are only a small hand full of skeptics but you hear from them to a disproportionate degree because the news media feels it must report a "balanced" view even though the scientific consensus is overwhelming.

Answer 2

Yes. Most scientists believe it. It is not even really the scientists believing Al Gore. Al Gore believes them, and is bringing the message from the scientists to us. Put "Global Warming" into Google Scholar, and bore yourself trying to find one of the few papers in the list that disagree. Now, it is common to discredit these scientists by saying they need to write such papers to get grants. But if you dismiss the vast majority of scientists when they think you should do something you don't want to (cut back on things that emit CO2), science is useless.

Anyway, starting from the very basics: CO2 blocks heat. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere increases each year (3 steps forward in winter, 2 steps back in summer when plants do absorb some).

http://www.cmdl.noaa.gov/ccgg/trends/

Humans have produced more & more CO2 over the last century, volcanoes have not increased their CO2 production.

Temperatues are increasing, more so at night and in the Arctic.
These warming trends are more consistent with a thicker blanket of CO2 keeping the earth warm, rather than increased warmth from the sun. The solar constant is also monitored and varys on an 11 year cycle.

ftp://ftp.ngdc.noaa.gov/STP/SOLAR_DATA/SOLAR_IRRADIANCE/COMPOSITE.v2.GIF

Warmer water causes individual Hurricanes to strengthen, and is a factor in the yearly hurricane forecast being bad.

http://tropical.atmos.colostate.edu/forecasts/2006/june2006/

"Weaker trade winds have led to anomalous warming of the tropical Atlantic since the early part of April. We therefore continue to expect that another very active hurricane season is likely for the Atlantic basin."

It is a logical extapolation that if the world got permenently warmer, that would increase hurricanes.

Also it's logical that if the ice on Greenland and Antarctica melted, the sea level would go up. Floating ice such as the north polar cap would not increase the sea level if it melted, because it displaces it's own weight in water. So the experiment some opponents of global warming suggest (putting an ice cube in a full glass of water, and seeing that the glass doesn't overflow) might convince you the melting ice is no danger. I consider the people that suggest this experiment the dishonest snake-oil scientists.

Answer 3

GLOBAL WARMING/THE ENVIRONMENT IN GENERAL

Any and I mean any environmental cause or approach must be grassroots in nature. Having PhD's talk about global warming and having those representing industry interests debunk these present theories is a high level and almost an entirely futile effort. Don't get me wrong, it is great that someone with Al Gore's connections and exposure is getting the word out. However, people are people they want to see results.

Yes, the expression is now trite but still true, "Thing Globally, Act Locally". Watching the sky over a city, town or even a more rural area become darkened by smog has local impact, people take note and actually see A PROBLEM. A problem that can measured in terms of air quality or perhaps an AIR QUALITY HEALTH INDEX like the one that the provincial government in Ontario, Canada is in the process of implementing. You can measure results (however small) in terms of air quality and the affect it has on the health care system (those with breathing problems, doctor's visits, etc). It certainly speaks to the advantage of a UNIVERSAL health care system (however, actually implemented) as it actually makes sense to improve the environment as it keeps people healthy (a humanitarian cause) and when health care it publicly funded it affects the public coffers when people become ill therefore it even makes better financial sense to keep the environment a top priority.

Plus any approach must be entire with a complete overall plan (the big picture). Including recycling initiatives, energy solutions (alternatives/renewables can now present a real potential financial threat to the big oil companies and even power companies...), government involvement at all levels, public transit, greener vehicles in general (Hybrid, Hydrogen, Conventional electric, bio-diesel, ethanol), conservation in all energy arenas, ETC!

Economic viability is the real sell as many of these solutions are just that economically sensible (ensuring we look at the entire picture). Yes as more people use solar, wind and other renewable energy sources the cheaper the technology will get. Two of the newest billionaires have earned a large portion through renewables Solar (India I believe) and Wind (China I believe). Yes in many ways developing nations and economies will be the first and early adopters of such renewable tech as they are just building much of their infrastructure.

So what do we all need to do? GET INVOLVED ! Contact your local government about improving your recycling program, contact provincial/state/federal government about the adopting of these new technologies (renewables such as solar/wind), buy gas with ethanol in it and demand it, use and demand bio diesel, buy products with less packaging and demand manufacturers to reduce packaging and to offer a price break as a result. More ECONOMIC VIABILITY! After all energy diversity just like economic diversity is the safest and best bet for good long term results and return on investment.

Joe...


KEEP IT UP MR. GORE THE POLAR BEARS NEED YOU FIRST **GRIN**.

Answer 4

high quality rant, dude, yet there's a difficulty (previous the incontrovertible fact which you're ranting. a million) Beck isn't a retard. He bargains with info (some thing liberals hate. 2) Gore has pushed demanding on a fantasy that hasn't been shown. 3) Gore has made hundreds of million on GW. 4) the completed international does not have confidence in GW. 5) source to your declare that Beck suggested Gore invented GW? 6) this is been shown that the earth is COOLING, not warming. 7) worldwide COOLING became supposedly a shown prevalence interior the mid Seventies. It became a fantasy too!

Answer 5

The answer depends on what credentials you're looking for. There are a number of scientists who study the EFFECTS of climate change who are on board with algore. The people who study the CAUSES of climate change though, dispute the notion that man is responsible for the one degree change over the last century.

Many people have an unfortunate tendancy to be a bit narrow-minded about the world that surrounds them. First there is a tendancy to believe that things have always been they way THEY found them upon their arrival. Add to that our instinctive distrust of change, ( What's known is safe, what's unknown can kill you ) and you have a recipe for the environmental hysteria we currently see.

There are environmental cycles longer than all of human existance, and I believe it's the height of arrogance for anyone to believe that we understand it all, or to pronounce that the current climate is the "Correct" one for the Earth, or even the ideal climate for man, for that matter.

Starting around 2.6 million years ago, the Earth entered a period of repeated glaciations and deglaciations. The most recent glaciation began 125,000 years ago, and reached it's maximum 18,000 years ago. Since then the Earth has been warming, but many climatologists would tell you that the Earth has been in an an Ice Age for 2.6 million years, we are still in that Ice Age, and that all of recorded human history has transpired in one of the intermissions between glaciations. 18,000 years ago, sea levels were 350 to 400 feet lower than they are today. The entire Persian Gulf was dry land, and much of North America and Europe was uninhabitable. Over the next 12,000 years the glaciers slowly melted and the environment approached the conditions we see today. There have been periods lasting hundreds of years, that have occured since the most recent meltdown, when temperatures have been WARMER and sea levels have been HIGHER than they are today!

Think about that. There have been "cold spells" and "warm spells" that have lasted longer that the United States has been in existance, far longer than any one person's life.

Please be sure to follow the link I've provided to the USGS page on the Flandarian Transgression.

Answer 6

He makes big claims, but does Al Gore lead by example? Does Al Gore drive a prius Hybrid? As a former VP, he must also have some kind of protection, do his body guards also drive hybrid or alternative fuel vehicles?

Everything I've heard and seen points to no on this and other environmental examples! So Al Gore apparently does not agree with himself! The rest of us need to change our evil wasteful ways, but as the messenger, he is immune!

Answer 7

Duh. The real question is, why are so many of us willing to believe the non-scientists (or non-reputable scientists) who oppose the consensus scientific view? There are literally hundreds (thousands?) of scientists from dozens of countries who have reviewed thousands of research papers to come up with the consensus view in the IPCC report. That would be some conspiracy if they're all lying....

In response to Jay S, below, who said:
"The people who study the CAUSES of climate change though, dispute the notion that man is responsible for the one degree change over the last century."
NOT TRUE. The IPCC report clearly and unequivocally states that humans are responsible for the recent warming (not necessarily earlier ones), and shows data that confirms this.

Answer 8

The only people who do not agree are those who profit from putting noxious emissions into our environment. And THEY have deep pockets. And THEY have hired expensive lobbyists and PR people. And THEY have the cooperation of the US media, which are happy to print anything coming from expensive lobbysits. Try reading The Economist or some other non-usa based source of information.

Answer 9

Dupont discoverd many other refridgerats that they could sell to make money. The ozone layer is affected by volcanic actions. Our wonderful land of the free forces us to stop useing these product so Dupont can rake in the cash.

Answer 10

NO
in 1973 the same scientist that are predicting global warming were predicting doom and gloom, about the coming ICE age, didn't believe then then, Don't believe them now!