Is this the year that God embarasses Al Gore about global warming?

Question

The following notes taken from Dr Edward Blick writer of about 150 scientific papers and publications.
Acording to him we need CO2 for the growth of vegetation [trees to veggies]. Also everything can be blamed on the sunspots that causes global warming only for a season of time. He also listed 15 wrong assumptions made in the movie !!! Starting this year we will have the beginning lesser sunspot activity and the decrease of the warming trend !!!
What will Al Gore say then? A new movie, eh?

Answer 1

In reality, global warming is merely a weather pattern. This stuff about carbon dioxide being bad for the atmosphere is full of it. Even Dr. Gray, originally with the NOAA, stated that this global warming thing is natural not man-made.

You are right about the CO2...the process is called photosynthesis. This is where the plants feed on the air we breath out. This is not only humans but any other mammal that breathes out. In my opinion, too much CO2 would result in really green earth and too much brush growing too fast. That is not happening.

This Al Gore thing is nothing more than a way for the government to create a way to tax things that we use everyday and to scare the American public into thinking green. Not that I necessarily think it is bad for people to wean off the petro in the US but the petro is not the cause of global warming.

Another thing to think about...we have been keeping temperature records for only 150 years. Temperatures have changed for the past million years, at least, so how do we truly know where we are in terms of the weather patterns on earth. Sure, with rocks and stuff we can get an idea but that is definitely NOT concrete proof.

Like most other big time scientists, I think that we are in a NATURAL warming trend and will probably get cooler again in a few hundred years or maybe even 1,000 years if the earth is still here (meteor or something like that).

Here is something else to think about and is just merely a theory...

All planets in our solar system are aligned via a magnetic force. One event occurs that throws that magnetic force off will result in all the planets being sucked into the Sun and all the planets burning in a pool of fire. If the Bible is full of crap, maybe everyone should go read the book of Revelation and see what God says will happen to the earth in the end. The first major disaster was water (Noah's Flood). The second and final major disaster will be what? Fire?

At that point, God will have the last word over Al Gore, Satan, and every other Darwinian freak.

I think it is more likely that this will happen vs. a big hole in our atmosphere suffocating us.

Answer 2

If anybody should be Embarrassed it is Jehovah the ^^God ^^
for totally having lost control over the planet

As well as over the behavior of his people
The best he can come up with is to offer a paradise better than Earth on the condition that you Die first .

That is not very impressive to say the least
It is time he was fired for gross incompetence ,and negligence

The reigns should be handed back to Pan and Gaia at least they were local and are more motivated.

Instead of an Alien Invader who has managed to screw up the place in less than a few hundred years, by failing to include environmental behavior ,in his scriptures ,

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=Atby.nxrv3R9QcH.5wZp9azsy6IX?qid=20070627081822AAniEYV

Answer 3

Dr. Edward Blick is a true skeptic. He simply rejects scientific data and science.

How is that known?

He thinks the Earth is 6000 years old. He rejects Carbon 14 dating. Etc.

http://www.amazon.com/o/ASIN/1879366126/102-2165101-7747356?SubscriptionId=1KDHEGDEXZNBKYAEECR2

There is nothing in science that denies the existence of a Creator who designed us and still watches over us today. Science merely says that, if there is a Creator, he started His work with a Bang 13 billion years ago.

Veggies do need CO2. Some like it more than others. Turns out poison ivy is particularly fond of it.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB118281532052547766.html?mod=fpa_mostpop

Answer 4

international warming is in simple terms the subject rely of the 2d. My chum Al is in simple terms getting exposure to maintain himself somewhat proper. AL is the same guy that fluctuate into crying international cooling a gaggle of years in the past. Did you notice that the vast assembly in Washington D.C. on international warming had to be canceled because of the fact of a snowstorm? right this is my take on the total deal -- it relatively is a organic prevalence, and we pass by 10~11 365 days cycles. That lots is actuality. it relatively is real that flora choose the CO2. I say do your area to shop the trees!!

Answer 5

Is that the same Dr. Edward Glick that wants the U.S. to reinstate the draft?

Yes, we do need CO2 for plants to grow. The problem is we are cutting down the world's forests and clearing land and not replanting the trees we cut down. Therefore, an over abundance of CO2.

Why are conservatives so vehemently against anything good for our planet?
How would hurt if we used renewable energy sources and learned to conserve more?

Answer 6

I hate to break it to you, but sunspot cycles have been pretty constant over the past few decades while global warming has increased fairly constantly. As a matter of fact, there were more sunspots in 1960 than in recent years. Compare these plots of sunspots and average global temperature:

http://www.smeter.net/propagation/sunspots/sunspot-cycle-forecasts.php
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/warming/

This climate model plot explains it pretty clearly:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Climate_Change_Attribution.png

Also nobody is denying that plants need CO2. They've had plenty of CO2 for millenia. The problem is that we're emitting so much CO2 that it's accelerating global warming.

Answer 7

Alarmist Global Warming Claims Melt

Under Scientific Scrutiny ---

By James M. Taylor --- Chicago Sun-Times --- 30 June 07

In his new book, The Assault on Reason, Al Gore pleads, "We must stop
tolerating the rejection and distortion of science. We must insist on an end
to the cynical use of pseudo-studies known to be false for the purpose of
intentionally clouding the public's ability to discern the truth." Gore
repeatedly asks that science and reason displace cynical political posturing
as the central focus of public discourse.

If Gore really means what he writes, he has an opportunity to make a
difference by leading by example on the issue of global warming.

A cooperative and productive discussion of global warming must be open and
honest regarding the science. Global warming threats ought to be studied and
mitigated, and they should not be deliberately exaggerated as a means of
building support for a desired political position.

Many of the assertions Gore makes in his movie, ''An Inconvenient Truth,''
have been refuted by science, both before and after he made them. Gore can
show sincerity in his plea for scientific honesty by publicly acknowledging
where science has rebutted his claims.

For example, Gore claims that Himalayan glaciers are shrinking and global
warming is to blame. Yet the September 2006 issue of the American
Meteorological Society's Journal of Climate reported, "Glaciers are growing
in the Himalayan Mountains, confounding global warming alarmists who
recently claimed the glaciers were shrinking and that global warming was to
blame."

Gore claims the snowcap atop Africa's Mt. Kilimanjaro is shrinking and that
global warming is to blame. Yet according to the November 23, 2003, issue of
Nature magazine, "Although it's tempting to blame the ice loss on global
warming, researchers think that deforestation of the mountain's foothills is
the more likely culprit. Without the forests' humidity, previously
moisture-laden winds blew dry. No longer replenished with water, the ice is
evaporating in the strong equatorial sunshine."

Gore claims global warming is causing more tornadoes. Yet the United Nations
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change stated in February that there has
been no scientific link established between global warming and tornadoes.

Gore claims global warming is causing more frequent and severe hurricanes.
However, hurricane expert Chris Landsea published a study on May 1
documenting that hurricane activity is no higher now than in decades past.
Hurricane expert William Gray reported just a few days earlier, on April 27,
that the number of major hurricanes making landfall on the U.S. Atlantic
coast has declined in the past 40 years. Hurricane scientists reported in
the April 18 Geophysical Research Letters that global warming enhances wind
shear, which will prevent a significant increase in future hurricane
activity.

Gore claims global warming is causing an expansion of African deserts.
However, the Sept. 16, 2002, issue of New Scientist reports, "Africa's
deserts are in 'spectacular' retreat . . . making farming viable again in
what were some of the most arid parts of Africa."

Gore argues Greenland is in rapid meltdown, and that this threatens to raise
sea levels by 20 feet. But according to a 2005 study in the Journal of
Glaciology, "the Greenland ice sheet is thinning at the margins and growing
inland, with a small overall mass gain." In late 2006, researchers at the
Danish Meteorological Institute reported that the past two decades were the
coldest for Greenland since the 1910s.

Gore claims the Antarctic ice sheet is melting because of global warming.
Yet the Jan. 14, 2002, issue of Nature magazine reported Antarctica as a
whole has been dramatically cooling for decades. More recently, scientists
reported in the September 2006 issue of the British journal Philosophical
Transactions of the Royal Society Series A: Mathematical, Physical, and
Engineering Sciences, that satellite measurements of the Antarctic ice sheet
showed significant growth between 1992 and 2003. And the U.N. Climate Change
panel reported in February 2007 that Antarctica is unlikely to lose any ice
mass during the remainder of the century.

Each of these cases provides an opportunity for Gore to lead by example in
his call for an end to the distortion of science. Will he rise to the
occasion? Only time will tell.

Answer 8

All I have to say is watch an Inconvenient Truth, look at the scientific data and the charts from the movie, then ask this so called scientist to watch the movie as well.

Answer 9

Perhaps.

It's been almost 60 years since God first embarrassed his parents...

Answer 10

Nope, He speaks to democrats!!!!