as all al gore showed was his hypocracy and some pictures of the effects of fluctations in temperatures why?

Question

why are so any people now convinced that he proved that CO2 was the cause of so called global warming, it may be regional or hemispherical but he never proved that it was CO2 the question that must concern people is why do people not grasp that science is proving a theory and no one has proven CO2 is the cause, concensus is not proof you would not want an operation done on a concensus would you. well it may be the left side of the heart lets take a vote on it.

Answer 1

Allow me to correct a couple of errors that you make...

Al Gore didn't prove anything, he's not a scientist and is effectively nothing more than a spokesperson reporting on the science of others. I really don't think there can be many people who consider Gore to be a scientist, much less, the one who proved CO2 caused global warming. This distinction goes to Svante Arrhenius who established the causes of global warming 52 years before Al Gore was born.

It seems some climate change skeptics have an unhealthy obsession with Al Gore. If he'd never made his movie, delivered his speeches, written his book or even been born it would make no difference to global warming.

Science isn't proving a theory. The greenhouse effect has been an intergral part of Earth since it was created, it's what keeps it at a habitable temperature. If it wasn't for natural global warming there would be no life on this planet.

Consider this, the Moon averages the same distance from the Sun as that of the Earth, theoretically it should be at the same temperature - it's isn't. The lunar average is far colder than here on Earth and and the reason is that we have global warming (natural and / or manmade) to keep our planet warm.
Note that it is not the atmosphere per se that keeps our planet warm, the vast majority of gases in the atmosphere are not greenhouse gases and neither warm nor cool our planet.

I would explain how the greenhouse effect and global warming work but I fear you have closed your mind to anything that doesn't support your beliefs. Apologies if I am wrong, if you would like an explanation I'll happily provide one for you.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

EDIT: To amancalledchuda (below),

We do need to keep things in perspective and both sides of the global warming debate are guilty of distorting the truth. I wouldn't go so far as to say that Gore's presentations are propoganda, they are after all, based on over 100 years of detailed sceintific research and the work of many of the top climate scientists around the globe. It does over dramatise things and there are errors and inaccuracies. However, it is by and large factually accurate.

The scientists don't have time to do their work. Global warming is established, we know how and why it happens, we have already observed many of it's effects, we can be reasonably confident about future predictions. The longer we delay taking action the more complicated and expensive the solutions become. Nicholas Stern, the former chief economist and senior vice president of the World Bank, has calculated that the cost of global warming is already $600 billion a year and predicts that the cost will rise to $4.2 trillion a year. There are potential solutions that would cost a few billion at the most, if successful they could pay for themselves in a matter of days.

The science will not be telling us that the global warming scare is over. The next report will be published in November this year and will tell us that the implications of global warming and climate change are more serious than previously published (and that's after the report has been 'watered down' to comply with the wishes of the Bush Administration).

You can't compare the witch hunts to global warming. Witch hunts were the result of religious hysteria brought about by the deliberate misinterpretation of the Bible by preachers and the like. Back then all Bibles were printed in Latin and the only people who could read them were clerics and medics. The public had no option but to believe what they were told. Global warming is a sceintific issue, the findings are made available to the entire world, the effects can be observed first hand, critics aren't put to death.

You should be more concerned about the economics of doing nothing. The US is lagging behind the rest of the world when it comes to 'going green' and with the worldwide population increasingly demanding greener products and services it's already seriously impacting on the US economy. Conversely, those countries that have 'gone green' are able to supply the goods and services the world demands. Economies are driven by supply and demand, the US is failing to meet the demand.

There are positives to global warming, each of which is offset (or more than offset) by a corresponsing negative but there are a far greater number of negatives that do not have a corresponding positive.

I'm not sure why you state that global warming is not causing significant problems. According to the WHO millions are now dead, tens of millions have been infected by the spread of disease, a million farmers in China alone have lost their land, several island communities have been lost to rising sea levels, droughts, famines, floods and storms are increasing etc etc.

Yes, keep things in context but don't hide or run from the facts.

Answer 2

Why? I think for a few reasons. Some people who really have big egos and on top of that lean to the far left politically have to have a cause, have to be in charge of something. One of the best and most often used tools by the left is fear and giving out half truths and lies as the truth. Knowing that a lot of people won't do any research on the subject just take his word for it as gospel. And even after it was proven that he "doctored" up some of the visuals in his movie people still believe it to be true. And of course the hypocrisy of his using more energy in one of his mansions in a month then the average family uses in a year. Yet they wring their hands and bite their lower lip while seemingly hypnotized while listening to one of his shriking speeches. But people on the left who believe that socialism will work here even though it has failed everywhere its been tried don't go by facts or reality they live by emotions and good intentions. And saving the planet from us evil people (especially Americans) is a nobel goal with good intentions. Oh and plus according to the records he has made over 12 million profit on his first book and movie so far. While jetting around the country and the world and driving in a caravan of gas guzzling chevy blazer limo's. what a scam lol gotta love it!

Answer 3

Suppose you go to 100 doctors and 99 of them say you need to take some medicine. One says you're fine, don't worry about it. Would you listen to the one?

There is consensus BECAUSE there is conclusive evidence. But proving it can't be done here, the proof is far too long. You have to actually study the scientific data. That's what scientists do and that's why, outside of a few skeptics, scientists agree global warming is real and mostly caused by us.

Here are two summaries of the evidence, very short and very long. with references:

http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Image:Climate_Change_Attribution.png
http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-report.html
summarized at:
http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf

Good site for more information:

http://profend.com/global-warming/

Answer 4

Hey, the ice is melting. Who cares whether it is the co2 or not? He drew attention to the problem.

Answer 5

have you seen his movie before you come and ask the thing he already answer on the movie.?

"he never proved that it was CO2" ha!
you really need to get your self the movie before saying that!

Answer 6

Trevor, the reason that Gore’s film/book/presentation is so dangerous, it that it is propaganda. It scares the public into believing his rubbish, and the danger is that, once the public are on board, the politicians will have to act if they want to get, and stay, elected.

It’s like the witch hunts of the 17th century which stirred up mass hysteria and eventually lead to lynch mobs. How many of the people killed during this time were actually carrying out witchcraft, do you think?

My fear is that similar mass hysteria over global warming will result in knee-jerk policies being put into place that will cause economic damage (or, in other words, hit *my* pocket) whilst doing nothing to prevent any of the alleged problems of climate change.

It is important that the climate scientists are given time to do their work; to gain a better understanding of the hugely complex climate of planet Earth. Currently, the Global Warming Alarmists seem to be using scare-stories of impending doom as a way of getting governments to take action now, before the scientific work is complete. Surely this has to be wrong?

When you consider that, according to the IPCC, the science is showing that we’d over estimated the problem in the past (comparing the IPCC’s 2001 and 2007 reports shows that they’ve reduced their estimate of man’s affect on the climate by a third, and halved the top-end estimate of sea level rise), we should definitely be waiting to see what the science will say next, shouldn’t we? If the science was about to tell us “panic over, we’re not causing global warming after all”, I’d want to hear that *before* we spent trillions of pounds, rather than *after*. Wouldn’t you?

Thus, it’s important that we keep the “problem” in perspective. Currently, there is no evidence that global warming is going to cause the catastrophes suggested by Gore & Co. In fact, there is some evidence that suggests we may be net *better off* as a result of mild warming, and certainly billions of people in the developing world will suffer if the proposals of Gore and others are put into place.

Given that, at present, global warming is not causing any significant problems, I absolutely believe that it is vital that we wait and see, before taking any drastic action that may do far more harm than good. Gore’s propaganda machine will likely do nothing to help the planet and may, in fact, make things worse. It’s making him very rich, of course – and that’s all that matters to Gore!

::::EDIT::::

Trevor,

I’ll have to keep this relatively short, or I’m going to exceed the Yahoo! Answers limit, so you’ll have to excuse me if my points are brief.

I disagree that AIT is “by and large factually accurate”. http://www.cei.org/pdf/5539.pdf is the place to read about it. I’ve linked to it before so I assume you’ve read it, but just in case you haven’t, I’ve done a bit of counting and it lists: 26 one-sided, 15 misleading, 8 exaggerated, 26 speculative & 18 wrong statements. You can read the book length version of it here http://www.cei.org/pages/ait_response.cfm

Your second paragraph overstates the confidence we have in the science. I remind you again that the IPCC have *reduced* their estimate of how bad global warming is. The fact that they have changed their view *at all* shows that the work of the scientists is not done. As for the Stern report, you can read Christopher Monckton’s take on it here http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/11/12/nclim12.xml&page=1 Stern doesn’t put a figure on the discount rate and if the world stabilises atmospheric CO2 at about 485 parts per million we'll have spent 1 per cent of GDP to get a 1.1 per cent fall in consumption. Hardly worthwhile.

Your third paragraph talks about the next report, that will tell us that the implications “are more serious than previously published”. Well, that disagrees with what the IPCC are saying, so who should we believe? This disagreement also highlights the fact that we cannot have confidence in the science.

I disagree with your comments on the witch hunts. Yes, the bible was in Latin then, but your implication is that, after someone watches AIT, they go online and check the science for themselves. Sadly, not everyone in the world is like you and me!  So, the science may as well be in Latin as far as they are concerned. They watch AIT and assume it’s the reality. Oh and “critics aren't put to death” – not yet! ;) But they are harassed and even insulted in an attempt to get them to change their views. The latest example being Michael Griffin, the boss of NASA who was bullied into an apology after saying this…http://ff.org/centers/csspp/library/co2weekly/20070615/20070615_08.html Why should he apologise for stating his opinion?

Significant problems caused by global warming. Temps have risen by between 0.3°C & 0.7°C depending on who you listen to (probably the former since the latter is from the IPCC and it has been show that their view is biased. See… http://ff.org/centers/csspp/library/co2weekly/20070622/20070622_05.html ). I find it difficult to accept that such a tiny change could be having any effects at this stage. Most of the problems you mention are likely caused by human land use (think of the Dust Bowl in the USA in the 1930s, caused by excessive cultivation of the land, exposing dry soil to the wind), increases in population and decreases in living standards. Sea levels have risen by only 6 inches in the last century so are extremely unlikely to be the cause of lost island communities. Storm activity is not being affected by global warming – only today, I read about Christopher Landsea, who was a major contributor to the IPCC’s first three reports in the area of tropical cyclones. He resigned before the forth report when he discovered that the IPCC were announcing the conclusions before he’d even done the research! See - http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=ae9b984d-4a1c-45c0-af24-031a1380121a&k=0 Droughts, famines & floods have happened continuously throughout history, so the fact that they continue to happen today can hardly be blamed on global warming. Despite this the GWAs mention Katrina & New Orleans almost every other day!

So yes, lets keep things in perspective and stop trying to blame every (probably) completely natural event on global warming.

Oh, and to Bob, below: Your constant repetition of the idea of a consensus does not make it any more true.

The U.S.-based National Registry of Environmental Professionals is an accrediting organization whose 12,000 environmental practitioners have standing with U.S. government agencies such as the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Energy. In a November, 2006, survey of its members, it found that only 59% think human activities are largely responsible for the warming that has occurred, and only 39% make their priority the curbing of carbon emissions.

Is that a “consensus”?