Has The Global Warming Theory (a la Al Gore) has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt?

Question

Imagine you are on a jury. Would you convict on the evidence that's been presented to you?

Answer 1

It has been proven as thoroughly and sincerely as the existence of the Invisible Pink Unicorn.
Seriously though, the Earth's climate has been changing for billions of years; you can't legislate that away, but we can certainly harm millions of innocent humans (and other organisms!) by trying selflessly in the proud service of eco-fascism.

Answer 2

No, global warming scientists have not come up with answers to the many common objections raised by studies that contradict the idea of man made global warming.
examples.
-Why is mars/neptune warming also?
-What about studies that show that solar output matches the earths temperature?
-Why historically, has CO2 risen after temperature?
- Water vapor acconts for 95% of the greenhouse effect, CO2 accounts for only 3.6%. Goes along with the fact humans only add a small percentage of that to the atmosphere compaired to animals. (about 6Gt to 150 Gt)
- Why are only portions of the arctic/antarctic melting?
- If the wolrd is being warmed by the accumulation of CO2 why is the troposphere cooling, if the world was warming by the greenhouse effect the troposphere would be warming along with surface temperature but its not.
- If CO2 caused warming why did the global temperature plummit between 1940 and 1970 while the CO2 content was rising faster?
- What about the medievil warm period? How did the world warm to a much greater extent without major human production of CO2.

The debate is far from over in the eyes of legitimate scientists, however no global warming scientist will answer these questions they won't even acknowledge them, these questions are immediately dismissed by saying that global warming has been proven long ago. This is blatant disregard for the scientific discovery process, scientists always must take into account conflicting evidence and base their claims on all evidence not just evidence that supports their initial conclusion. Thats what global warming is, it is based on selectively chosen evidence while the rest of the evidence is ignored.

Answer 3

Not if scientists who compile statistics on what causes global warming (and cooling) have a chance to present their findings to this jury, the public. Not if the girl who took Al Gore's polar-bear pictures gets a chance to be heard (the polar bears are fine, thank you). The only really-clear connection between global warming and anything else is a connection with sun spot activity--not human activity. When there are many sun spots we have warming. When few, we have cooling. In the 1970s the big hype was about cooling, that another Ice Age may be starting, and everybody got scared to death over that--the exact opposite of now. The 1970s was a decade of few sun spots. Warming and cooling have been going on for millions of years--long before there were any humans on this earth. In addition to the effect of sun spots, it always warms between Ice Ages, and guess what, we are between Ice Ages. So... For the science, watch this YouTube video where you can hear the real scientists present their case (and hear from the girl who photographed the bears). Al Gore is simply not a scientist, he does not understand, though he is a nice man. Here's the link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PXc9H5JSyow - The Great Global Warming Swindle - (nine parts, takes about an hour to watch, but you will be glad you spent the time, believe me). In a real jury trial, of course, Al Gore would be asked for his scientific credentials and his case would fall apart right there. He would be up against astrophysicists from Harvard, Cambridge, etc., and MIT professors and climatologists and metererologists and NASA and so on. You will really understand what the hype is about when you realize there are millions of dollars at stake and that it is money, big money, that is driving this nonsense--well explained in this video. Also the political power that's at stake, for not Al Gore particularly, but for many others. So, money and power--that's what it's all about. It is not, not, not about science. No. We have absolutely no reason to worry about global climate change. It always changes. Always. So it will change again, it will cool--without any effort on our part. There are other serious threats to the earth's ability to support life (like destroying vast forests, which changes the water cycle and has other effects which bring drought and starvation) or using too much land for grazing animals, which is often connected to razing forests, and which erodes the soil and fills the rivers with silt. This then ruins the water supply in that area, making it impossible for humans to survive there. But CO2/fossil fuels is simply not the problem. So no, in answer to your question: It has not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

Answer 4

We should never waste our resources. We shouldn't pollute our environment.

Science, however, (not the media frenzy and pseudo-science used to support human driven greenhouse warming) indicates that sunspots activity can cause the earth to warm and this in turn causes the oceans to release stored carbon dioxide at a rate that far exceeds anything humans could ever wish to match. Sunspot activity is directly linked to the natural warming and cooling cycles that the earth has gone through for millenia.

That carbon dioxide is cause of global warming is a misnomer, it's an effect. Check out the website below if you'd like to understand the real issues of the global warming scare.

The UN is a political organization trying to run a supposed scientific arm called the IPCC. The IPCC findings have been called into question by many of the scientist on the commitee that resigned because of the unscientific manner in which the IPCC pursued the conclusion that global warming is a result of human activities.

Currently the science community is receiving billions of dollars in grants to research global warming. This should show that much of the scientific community has a significant vested interest because global warming is the catch phrase that gets them their grant. If they said, "Nope, not finding much evidence for humans causing this problem." Funding would be cut. Therefor the answer will remain, "We need to study this further to understand how the humans and their environment interact...blah, blah, blah"

Answer 5

Absolutely, global warming exists, as does global cooling.

You are aware that if it were possible for man to destroy the planet, there would not be anyone alive to document it?

Do you believe in coincidences?
I don't.

So, would you think it a coincidence that al gore's big push for global warming comes in the year when the earth is closest to the sun?

Its called parihelium, goggle it.

Would you think it a coincidence that al gore owns the co. that sells carbon credits?

Some inconvenient truths;
1) Greenland is called that, because during the
mid-evil warming period, it was.
2) Greenland's ice cap is increasing in depth,
yet melting from the bottom, global
warming is atmospheric.
3) During that same period, Great Briton had a
wine exporting economy.
4) Evidence has been found of grape vines in
Nova Scotia for the same period.
5) The mid-evil warming period is conveniently
"glossed over" by the environmental wackos,
even though it lasted for 3 centuries.
6) There does not exist, scientifically established
minimum or maximum levels of co 2 for any
geographical region.
7) CO 2 is the food for plants.
8) The by-product is Oxygen.
9) The Wackos ignore the most abundant
element which causes global warming, water
vapor.

I wonder why.

10) Science is not a consensus, because a
consensus is a lack of leadership,
it either is, or is not.

Does it make you wonder, when "large al" says that the science is complete one week and the next week another exploration expedition will be launched?

Answer 6

Applying a legalistic standard of proof to a scientific theory suggests that you don't know enough about science in general. Moreover, Al Gore is not one of the scientists responsible for evaluating the mountains of evidence supporting the theory, so attributing the theory to him (when it was first described by a Swedish scientist over 100 years ago) is completely invalid.

That said...

The latest IPCC report, which evaluates the state of science globally relating to the climate concludes thus:

"Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations."

Under their definitions, 'Very Likely' is the second highest level of probability, representing a confidence level of between 90 and 99% certain. (see the third link)

From this point of view, no reasonable scientist has any significant doubts about the issue, which is not quite the same thing, but the best you will get, since this is not a matter that is subject to legal proof. Nor should it need to be.

Note that some (but not many) aspects of the issue are described within the documents as 'virtually certain' which is a probability of more than 99%. If you look at them you will realise that the IPCC is a very conservative body that descibes an event that has clearly already happened merely as 'virtually certain'!

The second paper contains answers to FAQ relating to the science and deserves a read, if you feel you can spare the time.

Answer 7

I have not personally read the thousands of scientific studies which have contributed towards the global scientific concensus that global warming is real and being caused by humans.

Also I have not read the much smaller number of papers which claim it is not caused by humans, and generally written by "scientists" on oil company payrolls.

However I have kept up to date on the information from these reports as it has filtered down to the general public by reading science publications such as New Scientist and kept an eye on respected news sites like the BBC.

So as far as I can say - as a person with a scientific mind and understanding, and a degree in chemistry... YES human caused global warming is true beyond reasonable doubt.

Answer 8

the place am i able to %. up the money? a million. circulate to the customary public library close to you. 2. Ask the female at the back of the counter for a reproduction of the June, 2007 subject of that pinko, commie, Democratic liberal e book, national Geographic magazine. 3. Open it to internet site 32. check out the photographs. 4. clarify: how did this take place? Do YOU or Rush have a logical rationalization? 5. Or do you have self belief the earth is flat, humanity became created by utilising alien invaders, there have been dinosaurs interior the backyard of Eden? there became no Jewish Holocaust, Hitler gained the conflict? 6. Do you have self belief something that Rush and his employers, ExxonMobile, inform you? 7. Rush is guffawing all a thank you to the economic employer. 8. Did you, by utilising any risk, deliver him money to create this fund? 9. you're a chump and a flunkie for the main suitable. There are human beings getting PAID to do PR for the oil companies; you're doing it for unfastened!!! shaggy dog tale's on you!!!

Answer 9

Well, the United Nations have had plenty of meatings about this. They determined that global warming is real and that it's caused by us humans. Al Gore was right: all the articles in the press that argued this issue, were funded by companies like Shell and Exonmobile.
In America it was worse though, here in Holland we almost never read stuff like "It's normal for climate-temperature to rise 5 degrees in 10 years time"....
Your media is corrupt, sorry to say.

Btw: the dutch have troops in iraq as well. As you could see in an inconvient truth, the Netherlands will be flooded if we continue doing nothing about global warming. Since America is the greatest contributor, it isn't exactly a nice "thank you"....

Answer 10

My opinion is that there is much evidence to say that human activity has caused (is causing) an increase in global temperature, however it is not conclusive. I would not convict on this evidence, however it is still such a great idea to work on energy conservation, alternative fuels, renewable resources that it doesn't matter that much for me.

Answer 11

Climate change is natural.....it's been going on for years.

The only opinion I have is to recycle as much as possible and quit littering.

The Inconvenient Truth is the third-highest-grossing documentary in the United States to date.
The film's distributor, Paramount Classics, is donating 5% of the box office receipts and Gore is donating all of his proceeds from the film to The Alliance for Climate Protection (of which Gore is both founder and chairman).

If it was such a sucessful documentary, why is Paramont donating ONLY 5% ? And Gore is putting 100% to a company he is chairman............sounds odd to me.