What is Al Gores Plan to stop "The Climate Crisis"?

Question

How does Al Gore personally plan on stopping "Global Warming".

Answer 1

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 one of the first Canadian Ph.Ds. 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, is a Victoria-based environmental consultant and former climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg. He can be reached at [e-mail]

Other articles by Tim Ball

Answer 2

Firstly, I don't know if Gore has any specific set of plans. He is not a legislator and hasn't been one since 1992. On the other hand, he is plugged into environmental and research circles who have been investigating the whole matter. The point of Gore's movie--which I found quite good--was to inform people of projected consequences of a warming trend globally. Gore showed what climatologists are very much agreed upon: that the warmest years since 1880, when records were first kept have pretty much all come in the last 15 years. He uses scientific research to correlate that to carbon emissions since the industrial revolution. He's not doing it to rain on people's parade. This is a matter which the scientific community is nearly all in agreement on (that the earth is unnaturally warming). Some replies have indicated that cold temperatures in the United States stand in contrast to the likelihood of global warming. Local weather patterns are not an accurate measurement of global warming's existence or not. Temperature and climate data are. The thickness of polar ice caps is. Since X-Mas people who doubt global warming point to the blizzards in Denver and in some states in the midwest as examples of this. That is not an accurate way of measuring it. If that were the case then us here in Eastern New York, from Albany all the way out to the Hamptons could attest without doubt to global warming, for we had our first significant snowfall the other day, which is on average two months later than normal.

Answer 3

Since Gore personally pollutes 100 times as much as the average person he's going to cut himself into 100 pieces to make it even.

The liberals say it's ok for Gore to pollute that much more than others because he buys "carbon credits." So you can pollute as long as you pay for it? That is so ridiculous.

Also, those who say it's proven that humans create "global warming" are sadly misinformed. Maybe they'll wake up one day, but in the meantime we shouldn't destroy our economy with the notion that it's possible we are responsible. That's just plain silly. If there's no proof then what's all the bickering about?

Answer 4

Al Gores first plan involves walking to work, and eating off of paper plates.

Answer 5

To Spud: Have you ever heard of politically motivated propaganda?
Since many of the politicians are payed (given "donations") by big business, especially those who are contributing to the pollution, of course they would not want anyone to believe in global warming or any of the HARD FACTS given by the scientific community.
Besides, Bush would definitely want to put out propaganda to discredit the scientists and Gore and all of us others who have looked at the FACTS and made up our own minds. His family is in the fossil fuel business.

Why don't we STOP arguing and discussing whether or not Global Warming is a fact or who caused it. IF it is true, wouldn't the responsible thing to do be to work towards STOPPING it. Wouldn't it behoove us to work together to minimize pollution and carbon emissions, instead of bickering?
Or does no one care about future generations anymore?

Look at the FACTS, not the propaganda. All of the scientific community agree that humans are at fault for over 70 % of all carbon emissions. Shouldn't we move towards correcting the situation as best as we can.

There are many things we can do. Buy only high milage or alternative fuel cars, cut down on the electricity we use everyday, turn down our thermostats, stop smoking, encourage industries to move towards non or low polluting systems, fly less, drive less, recycle.

Will all this cost money? Of course, but won't it be better for the entire planet in the long run.

Gore has put out an excellent commentary about pollution and it's effects. He has talked to many scientists and people "in the know" all over the world. Only the nah-sayers and "fat cats" want to shut him up and all others like him. Believing we are doing wrong and taking responsibility might mean we will have to get off our fat a@@es and actually DO something.

Answer 6

Al Gore answers the question in his documentary "The Inconvenient Truth"

He is going around the work raising awareness of the issue and has specific action items to stop the climate crisis

Answer 7

He personally planned to stop global warming by doing his research and writing a book and starring in a dvd to help get others to know how urgent this is. He also recycles and limits his carbon emissions into the atmosphere.

Since he can't do it alone, he decided to inform people about it, he's done his job, now the question is, what is your personal plan to stop the crisis, instead of asking about what Al's gonna do? It's not about placing the responsibility on public figures, life is about taking responsibility for your life and the world around you, so get up and do something about it. Sorry to be rude, but I don't like questions like this because it implies that it's someone else's job to the dirty work, when we're all here to for a reason and that's to get involved with what we're passionate about and make a difference in the world.

Answer 8

He could get rid of his Chevy Tahoe that his wife drives and move from his 8000 sq. ft. house to a much smaller house.

Answer 9

Jump into his private plane and tour the globe to promote his movie and to sponsor "Woodstock" style rock concerts.

Of course all the big celebrities will be arriving in uber large limos, as they care more than us common folk.

Answer 10

What's with all the effing Gore questions today?

Answer 11

catch the first swift boat out of here