So is global warming real or not?

Question

This expert was first to sound the alarm now having second thoughs.

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=2f4cc62e-5b0d-4b59-8705-fc28f14da388

Al Gore is a chairman of company helping people with carbon credits isn't that a conflict?

Please remember how everyone dismiss Exxon claims because they were selling oil and couldn't be trusted.

So does this count Al Gore out of the debate.

Answer 1

As far as global warming goes, Al Gore invented it. (This is just speculation, but I think his "significant other" tree partner and him had a falling out and it was a very messy breakup. He still has splinters from the incident, and I do not think he will ever forgive that oak tree. I guess this is Al's way of trying to get back at all the trees, to destroy them by depleting what they thrive on the most.)

Now for the science of it. Yes, global warming is real! Not only is the Earth warming all over the globe, but so are the rest of the planets, all the way out to Pluto! It's solar system warming! Oops, did our SUVs do that?

Answer 2

The climate could be changing, that is up for debate. What is at issue however is the effect man has on global climate. Some people who are vested in socialist, one world government, would have us believe that data collected for only some 100 years should be used to create economic policy that if implemented would cause mass starvation(no more fossil fuels used for food production, turning food into fuel, ethanol). Redistribution of wealth(Kyoto, carbon credit trading) and loss of personal freedoms and private property rights. Gore is the worst of the lot of these Earth worshiping zealots and should be ridiculed and then ignored. Even the UN report on this issue points out that even if man were to stop all industrial activity climate change would still occur. Man will adapt to any changes in climate, the world will go on. there is nothing to fear other than to fear those who would use junk science in an attempt to controll our lives

Answer 3

We have, since 1800, increased the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere by 30% of the prior CO2 concentration, or 1/11,000th of the atmosphere.

One of CO2s properties is to trap heat.

Starting about 85 years after the beginning of the industrial revolution it began to get warmer. In 130 or so years the earth has warmed, on average, 1.1 degrees F.

This warming trend followed on the heels of a 500 year cool cycle known as the Little Ice Age or LIA. The LIA followed on the heels of a 400 year warm cycle known as the Medieval Warm Period or MWP. The climate history is one of an ebb and flow between such multicentury periods, not one of a constant climate.

Through the earth's history, CO2 levels line up with climate cycles over hundreds of thousands of years but not with climate cycles over hundreds of years. The CO2 concentration was lower during the MWP and during the three other major warm periods since the last Ice Age.

Starting about the time Clinton was elected the stratosphere began to cool. This is really the only thing that could be considered physical evidence consistent with the CO2 blanket theory as to why the present warm period is occurring.

Even if you attribute all of the warming since the stratosphere began to cool as having been caused by humans, which would mean that the natural warming would have stopped right at that point - which would be inconsistent with the last several warm periods, that lasted several centuries - that would give you about 0.3 degrees F of warming over 15 years - - rapid but material only when lumped together with the prior warming.

Another point about the earlier warm periods is that very few of the disasters presently predicted actually happened - well, one, actually, the drought in what is now the American southwest.

The question is what is the burden of proof in a free society? Meeting Kyoto would require either outright restrictions on our energy use, from forced rolling brown outs to driving limits, or significant taxes on energy use so as to discourage or prevent it - on the order of tripling your electric bill and doubling the cost of your commute. How can you do this without tangible proof that the activities you have curtailed actually caused the issue and still consider it a free society?

Now, if the crowd that is clamoring for controls in response to global warming hadn't been clamoring for the same controls for decades and for countless reasons including the opposite reason, and if they had any sort of track record for accuracy, maybe you could argue that "we" ought to "err on the side of caution" simply based on the severity of the harm alleged, but it is what it is - these are the same people who gave us Monsanto butterflies and Patagonian sheep. Nobody made them make up those urban legends. There are also a lot of gross overstatements - if you keep a caged bird in a small kitchen and heat a Teflon pan above 600 degrees F the fumes may kill the bird, but that's true of an aluminum or copper pan as well - - there was no reason the headlines should have read "use of Teflon pans can kill birds." They just decided to "go after the chemical industry" regardless of the facts. And they overstate the facts - there's some circumstantial evidence that Navy sonar could interfere with some marine mammal communication and they insist that every beaching is the result of a Navy submarine simply because there was one "in the area" - - even though if you divided international waters into 1000 square mile squares there'd be a Navy sub in pretty much every one. And it's always OUR Navy they blame it on - - sorry but at least a dozen countries have subs that use high-powered sonar.

At some point there's a boy who cried wolf phenomenon. Yes the Cuyahoga River was burning in the early 1970s and yes these folks were right about acid rain but a stopped clock is right twice a day. These folks really have run through any credibility they ever had and I think that in so doing they have injured the cause they claim to represent. They use environmental issues real, dramatically exaggerated, perceived and made-up to push their anti-business and anti-American agenda and the result is that many moderates who consider themselves "Teddy Roosevelt Republicans" end up dismissing the entire environmental movement out of hand.

And man-made global warming is a great example. If Mann et al weren't busy trying to re-write two of the last three warm periods out of the climate history, I might give him some benefit of the doubt on what's causing the present warming period.

Answer 4

It IS real, and it is a natural phenomenon caused by the energy output of the Sun. There is evidence of global warming on Mars as well. Man is not the cause. To assume man's actions can affect the weather of the world so greatly is just ludicrous. Within the next 2-5 thousand years, we should begin the descent into global cooling into the next Ice Age. See for yourself:

http://www.worldviewofglobalwarming.org/images/vostok.jpg

Global Cooling is STILL man's biggest obstacle if we manage to survive as a species over the next 10,000 years.

Answer 5

Yes global warming is real but it's a naturally occurring event. The crap that our companies are putting in the air might be bringing it on a little sooner than normal but there is nothing anyone can do to stop it no matter how many millions Gore scams out of people. Oh and a lot of that money that he does scam out of people goes in his pocket. No politician EVER does anything for free!

Answer 6

There is no concrete answer. But here are some ideas:

Yes - it's all like Al Gore says.
Yes - it's real, but it is a natural cycle of the Earth, and human involvement in this is negligible.
Not real - scientist and politicians see a cash crop and platform booster.
Not real - the government is using scare tactics to keep the citizens at bay.

Who knows.

Answer 7

Personally, I don't believe it's real. Climates have their NATURAL cycles and we are in one. Besides, the "experts" that are claiming we will be destroyed by Global warming also predicted a warm wet winter for California - sorry but we were dry and very cold (for CA).

I don't trust Gore - he's a blow-hard and a hypocrite. If he says that Global Warming is a problem, that's a good reason to not believe in it.

Answer 8

Here's my take:

Yes, the average temperature of the world has gone up by 0.6 degrees over the last 100 years. So, there is global warming.

1) Is it as bad as Al Gore wants you to think? I think not.
2) Is he a hypocrite? Yes, obviously.
3) Will anything we do change global warming, or is it a natural cycle we have little effect on? Natural. We may influence it a little, but I doubt as much as the UN wants you to think.
4) Why does the UN want you to think it is so bad and we are doing it? Because it helps third world countries by clamping down on us but not them. It helps world socialism by taking from the haves and giving to the have nots. That's why it sounds so good to Liberals. "We are bad as Americans (duh) and we owe it to the rest of the world to give it back and be nice socialists."

Answer 9

Ask the "scientists" from the 70's that wanted to spread soot on the polar ice caps because of global cooling.

Answer 10

wikipedia.org/greenhousegasses

I think the idea of "Global Warming" is less relavent than the idea of Greenhouse Gasses and if you can understand the properites of Greenhouse Gasses you can understand why many scientists belive it is in the best interest of humanity to call for their reduction..