Did Al Gore create global warming?

Question

So he can profit from the idiots that believe it. If global warming is so bad then why is there evidence of a global tropical weather in the Prehistoric Age which then brought the Ice Age and then our age... Where did all the Ice come from? Who scared the public then? If CO2 is to blame shouldn't we just plant more trees to create more oxygen?

Answer 1

i ask all the chicken littles that are sure to flock to this question to read this...
--------------------------------------------------
http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming020507.htm
--------------------------------------------------

Global Warming is not due to human contribution of Carbon Dioxide
Global Warming: The Cold, Hard Facts?

By Timothy Ball

Monday, February 5, 2007

Global Warming, as we think we know it, doesn't exist. And I am not the only one trying to make people open up their eyes and see the truth. But few listen, despite the fact that I was the first Canadian Ph.D. in Climatology and I have an extensive background in climatology, especially the reconstruction of past climates and the impact of climate change on human history and the human condition.“Few listen, even though I have a Ph.D, (Doctor of Science) from the University of London, England and was a climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg.” . For some reason (actually for many), the World is not listening. Here is why.

What would happen if tomorrow we were told that, after all, the Earth is flat? It would probably be the most important piece of news in the media and would generate a lot of debate. So why is it that when scientists who have studied the Global Warming phenomenon for years say that humans are not the cause nobody listens? Why does no one acknowledge that the Emperor has no clothes on?

Believe it or not, Global Warming is not due to human contribution of Carbon Dioxide (CO2). This in fact is the greatest deception in the history of science. We are wasting time, energy and trillions of dollars while creating unnecessary fear and consternation over an issue with no scientific justification. For example, Environment Canada brags about spending $3.7 billion in the last five years dealing with climate change almost all on propaganda trying to defend an indefensible scientific position while at the same time closing weather stations and failing to meet legislated pollution targets.

No sensible person seeks conflict, especially with governments, but if we don't pursue the truth, we are lost as individuals and as a society. That is why I insist on saying that there is no evidence that we are, or could ever cause global climate change. And, recently, Yuri A. Izrael, Vice President of the United Nations sponsored Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) confirmed this statement. So how has the world come to believe that something is wrong?

Maybe for the same reason we believed, 30 years ago, that global cooling was the biggest threat: a matter of faith. "It is a cold fact: the Global Cooling presents humankind with the most important social, political, and adaptive challenge we have had to deal with for ten thousand years. Your stake in the decisions we make concerning it is of ultimate importance; the survival of ourselves, our children, our species," wrote Lowell Ponte in 1976.

I was as opposed to the threats of impending doom global cooling engendered as I am to the threats made about Global Warming. Let me stress I am not denying the phenomenon has occurred. The world has warmed since 1680, the nadir of a cool period called the Little Ice Age (LIA) that has generally continued to the present. These climate changes are well within natural variability and explained quite easily by changes in the sun. But there is nothing unusual going on.

Since I obtained my doctorate in climatology from the University of London, Queen Mary College, England my career has spanned two climate cycles. Temperatures declined from 1940 to 1980 and in the early 1970's global cooling became the consensus. This proves that consensus is not a scientific fact. By the 1990's temperatures appeared to have reversed and Global Warming became the consensus. It appears I'll witness another cycle before retiring, as the major mechanisms and the global temperature trends now indicate a cooling.

No doubt passive acceptance yields less stress, fewer personal attacks and makes career progress easier. What I have experienced in my personal life during the last years makes me understand why most people choose not to speak out; job security and fear of reprisals. Even in University, where free speech and challenge to prevailing wisdoms are supposedly encouraged, academics remain silent.

I once received a three page letter that my lawyer defined as libellous, from an academic colleague, saying I had no right to say what I was saying, especially in public lectures. Sadly, my experience is that universities are the most dogmatic and oppressive places in our society. This becomes progressively worse as they receive more and more funding from governments that demand a particular viewpoint.

In another instance, I was accused by Canadian environmentalist David Suzuki of being paid by oil companies. That is a lie. Apparently he thinks if the fossil fuel companies pay you have an agenda. So if Greenpeace, Sierra Club or governments pay there is no agenda and only truth and enlightenment?

Personal attacks are difficult and shouldn't occur in a debate in a civilized society. I can only consider them from what they imply. They usually indicate a person or group is losing the debate. In this case, they also indicate how political the entire Global Warming debate has become. Both underline the lack of or even contradictory nature of the evidence.

I am not alone in this journey against the prevalent myth. Several well-known names have also raised their voices. Michael Crichton, the scientist, writer and filmmaker is one of them. In his latest book, "State of Fear" he takes time to explain, often in surprising detail, the flawed science behind Global Warming and other imagined environmental crises.

Another cry in the wildenerness is Richard Lindzen's. He is an atmospheric physicist and a professor of meteorology at MIT, renowned for his research in dynamic meteorology - especially atmospheric waves. He is also a member of the National Academy of Sciences and has held positions at the University of Chicago, Harvard University and MIT. Linzen frequently speaks out against the notion that significant Global Warming is caused by humans. Yet nobody seems to listen.

I think it may be because most people don't understand the scientific method which Thomas Kuhn so skilfully and briefly set out in his book "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions." A scientist makes certain assumptions and then produces a theory which is only as valid as the assumptions. The theory of Global Warming assumes that CO2 is an atmospheric greenhouse gas and as it increases temperatures rise. It was then theorized that since humans were producing more CO2 than before, the temperature would inevitably rise. The theory was accepted before testing had started, and effectively became a law.

As Lindzen said many years ago: "the consensus was reached before the research had even begun." Now, any scientist who dares to question the prevailing wisdom is marginalized and called a sceptic, when in fact they are simply being good scientists. This has reached frightening levels with these scientists now being called climate change denier with all the holocaust connotations of that word. The normal scientific method is effectively being thwarted.

Meanwhile, politicians are being listened to, even though most of them have no knowledge or understanding of science, especially the science of climate and climate change. Hence, they are in no position to question a policy on climate change when it threatens the entire planet. Moreover, using fear and creating hysteria makes it very difficult to make calm rational decisions about issues needing attention.

Until you have challenged the prevailing wisdom you have no idea how nasty people can be. Until you have re-examined any issue in an attempt to find out all the information, you cannot know how much misinformation exists in the supposed age of information.

I was greatly influenced several years ago by Aaron Wildavsky's book "Yes, but is it true?" The author taught political science at a New York University and realized how science was being influenced by and apparently misused by politics. He gave his graduate students an assignment to pursue the science behind a policy generated by a highly publicised environmental concern. To his and their surprise they found there was little scientific evidence, consensus and justification for the policy. You only realize the extent to which Wildavsky's findings occur when you ask the question he posed. Wildavsky's students did it in the safety of academia and with the excuse that it was an assignment. I have learned it is a difficult question to ask in the real world, however I firmly believe it is the most important question to ask if we are to advance in the right direction.

Dr. Tim Ball, Chairman of the Natural Resources Stewardship Project (www.nrsp.com), is a Victoria-based environmental consultant and former climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg. He can be reached at [e-mail]

Answer 2

I like how so-called scientists have completely thrown out the scientific process when it comes to global warming and other highly politicized theories. Science isn't about getting a bunch of lab coats in a room and forming a consensus. How many times have they changed how old the universe is? They can't even agree on what shape the universe is. Why isn't Pluto a planet any more? Scientists said there was no water on the moon. Now we know there's tons of water there. Why is it that every time an article comes out announcing they've discovered a new species of whatever has just been discovered, they somehow already know that it's being threatened by humans. Science is about constantly learning and adapting theories based on new information. It's ludicrous to close a debate, hide or delete your data, and reject criticism just so corporations will have to buy carbon credits from Algore.

Answer 3

The Ice Age was not brought about by global tropical weather. It is believed to have been brought on by a "Nuclear winter" after the earth was hit by an asteroid. Your idea to plant more trees would be great but in actuality the earth is losing more and more forests due to man, planting a few trees will not help. The increase in hurricanes, super-cell thunderstorms, and the disease caused by insects is increasing at an alarming rate. I don't understand why people don't want to face facts. Why are you unwilling to see what is happening? Why would anyone want to make something like this up? Who gains from it?

Answer 4

With every day pass, our country is getting into more and more trouble. The inflation, unemployment and falling value of dollar are the main concern for our Government but authorities are just sleeping, they don’t want to face the fact. Media is also involve in it, they are force to stop showing the real economic situation to the people. I start getting more concern about my future as well as my family after watching the response of our Government for the people that affected by hurricane Katrina.

According to recent studies made by World Bank, the coming crisis will be far worse than initially predicted. So if you're already preparing for the crisis (or haven't started yet) make sure you watch this video at http://www.familysurvival.tv and discover the 4 BIG issues you'll have to deal with when the crisis hits, and how to solve them fast (before the disaster strikes your town!) without spending $1,000s on overrated items and useless survival books.

Answer 5

Yes, along with those toilets that use no water. Ya know, sometimes I'm plunging away thinking "Why couldn't Al Gore have stuck to inventing the internet?"

But back to the global warming...
I think you make an EXCELLENT point. If it's CO2, then why not plant more trees? Makes sense me!
BTW, have you heard that nature puts about TWO-HUNDRED billion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere yearly, but we human beans (beings)contribute only about SEVEN billion tons? It's true! I read about it in my science book just a few days ago. I couldn't believe it, especially since there is SO much emphasis put on how we're 'destroying the earth from all the carbon dioxide we put into the atmosphere' by the news media.

But that's not to say we should abuse our planet. No, I'm not saying that at all. We should take care of our planet, but we can still live and exist on it. Earth will survive without us having to 'save' it.

Answer 6

people were talking about global warming before Al Gore's movie. As a matter of fact, some scientists starting seeing it as a possibility before it had any effects and before Al was born... when they saw industrialization flower, some were already questioning what effect it might have in the future. turns out they were right.

shouldn't we just plant some more trees? alright, go plant some in the amazon and see how long they last before someone cuts them down. We're emitting more CO2 than we can get rid of with plants.

Answer 7

There have been other warm periods when CO2 was lower than today. Some of those warm periods were warmer than today. Instead of trying to re-write the climate history to eliminate the most recent warm periods, like the Egyptians erasing the record of a blaspheming pharoah from their history, the AGW crowd should work on showing why it's different this time. That they don't tells me that they don't think they CAN show that it's different this time.

Sorry but typing "ACCELERATING" in all-caps doesn't make it true.

Answer 8

no he didn't and actually most of the CO2 is processed into O2 by oceanic flora and that is being severely impacted by rising ocean temps. as for dinosaurs they weren't burning 80 million barrels of oil every day. Global warming is very real and the scientific community realizes this so for laymen to be claiming it's a farce is amusing.

Answer 9

And another thing. There have been many ice ages in the past. What caused the warming that ended these ice ages? And this happened long before human activity!

Answer 10

These questions are addressed in the report just issued by the international committee on global warming. If someone wants to find out about I suggest they read the report instead of listening to the righties on the radio.

Answer 11

i really wish people like you would read up on the issue before blasting other people. everybody understands there has been warming and cooling in the past. we get that. however, humans are accelerating the rate at which it is happening to levels never before seen. let me say again...we are ACCELERATING it, not outright causing it. and you also need to understand that al gore did not create global warming. it is an issue that has been around for a long time, by every country in the world.