Is the debate over the cause of global warming truly over? Can algore answer all the remaining question?..?

Question

If man is solely responsible for the increased levels of CO2, then how do you explain the Ordovician Period, 440 million years ago, when the CO2 level was 16 times higher than today? Or, the Cretaceous Period, 140 million years ago, when dinosaurs ruled the Earth and CO2 was 8 times higher? Or, the CO2 levels from 95 million years ago which were about the same as levels today? How can these levels be changing long before the appearance of man?
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/column.aspx?UrlTitle=three_questions_for_al_gore_and_the_live_earth_hystericals&ns=FrankPastore&dt=07/15/2007&page=2

groundhog....dang, you just explained it all.....lol

porkod.....you're welcome....

Dennis S....I will as soon as algore stops flying on his private jets and sells off his mansions and moves into a mobil home that uses a tenth of what his mansions use.......or untill I am rich enough to BUY my carbin points so I can feel better about myself.....

to dana and ervin....
http://blip.tv/file/227958

dana...so if it goes against what YOU believe its bad science.....ok......

Answer 1

I can't explain any of that. Nor can I explain why Global Warming is occuring on all the planets in the solar system, as verified by NASA. Nor can I explain why Soviet scientists predict the beginning of global COOLING in 2012.

Responsible scientists say this is periodic increases in solar radiation, and considering that increased levels of CO2 in the atmosphere have always been the RESULT of higher temperatures, not the cause, their conclusion makes sense.

The scariest thing about the global warming debate is that the adherents are so blinded by their boy scout fervor, they don't even care about the truth anymore. Here's what one Yahoo! poster wrote: "If I'm wrong and global warming is a myth, what we will do is good for the environment anyway. Our descendants will have a better world to live on."

Is this guy crazy? Stupid? Naive? All of the above?

He talks like the steps some people are demanding to combat "global warming" are without cost. The answer is completely the opposite. These steps being proposed would cost hundreds of TRILLIONS of dollars. They would completely change the world economy, and it would devastate any chance Africa has for developing. There is no way Africa can afford "alternative" energy sources. Africa will be doomed to remain poverty stricken.

What harm will the proposals do? Some idiots in Belgium are so spooked by thought that man is creating global warming that they have banned outdoor grilling !!!!! As crazy as this sounds, they actually have helicopters flying around with heat sensors to locate anyone who does not comply with the new, heavy tax on outdoor grilling (It's like $25 to buy a permit for one grilling session in your own back yard). Say goodbye to your Sunday grilled rib eye with the neighbors. This is the kind of nightmarish idiocy you are encouraging. You want some eco terrorist nazis telling you not to even grill a steak?

What harm will it do? Tens of thousands of businesses will go bankrupt. And do you really think that poor countries will be held to the same standards as the Western world? No, it will be just like that absurd Kyoto Protocol where all the third world countries (which laughingly includes China) get a "free pass". That means these countries now have the hugest strategic advantage against U.S. businesses and overnight we are unable to compete. Do you realize the catastrophic implications? Heck even Brazil was trying to get categorized as a third world country so it could have this unfair advantage!

I want everyone to watch this movie, "The Great Global Warming Swindle". I want you to be seething with anger that idiots like Barbra Streisand (who barely finished High School, and Al Gore who nearly flunked Natural Sciences in college) try to pass themselves off as climatologists. Even if you only watch the first five minutes, you'll be heading towards the right path.

You can even watch this in FULL SCREEN mode, so it is like watching tv:

http://blip.tv/file/227958

Answer 2

Firstly, as a christian I don't believe the earth has been around for millions of years, more like 6-10,000 years, but for however long the earth has been around, one thing's for sure to me and that's the fact that we are not bigger or better than the planet at anytime or continent.

I look at the planet much in the same way as a filter live our liver, it can recuperate itself and be highly resilient, we all just need to exercise common sense and good judgment. We don't have to walk around collecting styrofoam cups and debris along the highway all day long, but 99% of us do not dump toxic waste into our ocean's or drinking water. It's actually corrupt politicians that are more of a danger to us than we as citizens.

For example, NJ (new nazi) governor coreslime passed a bill about a year ago that allows the continued breeding of geese, which are known to regularly poop into the drinking water and rivers that ventually get into the tap water of state residents.

The bottom line is that liberals and global warming extremists are are arrogant in thinking that they are somehow bigger and better than the planet and important enough that they could actually end the planet. I don't normally care for George Carlin, but I love this one line he used to sum up all this global cooling nonsense:

"The planet ain't going anywhere, it's us that's going bye bye"!!

The planet will shake us off like a cloud or a cold and move right on, long after we're all dead and buried. Just exercise common sense people and we'll all be fine.

Finally, I don't know if any of you noticed this, but Al Whore and his phone "EARTH DAY" concert agenda promoted a foundation whereby the money all went to, and the concert was a disappointment atendancewise AND the big caviatto the wole thing: All the money went to a foundation that Al Whore himself is the President. you do the math.

Answer 3

The debate is never over because there is always new science being done. The debate isn't over about gravity or evolution, either. However, the basic premise is universally accepted by the experts.

There is simply no alternative scientific explanation which hasn't been disproven - humans must be causing the current global warming:

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AikbVxYHgvkmkJ0FFHW2HzLty6IX?qid=20070711133901AAvvAXX
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=Aliro1TnOlTx1ctMwVReYOLty6IX?qid=20070711123338AAawIgY

Also it has been proven that humans have caused the increased CO2 levels by examining their isotopic ratio.

"It is always worth considering if we can test an hypothesis. Here, the hypothesis is that anthropogenic emissions of CO2 are the cause of the rise in atmospheric CO2. Can we test this? The answer is yes; there are in fact several ways of testing this hypothesis. One involves analyzing the ratios of carbon isotopes in CO2 molecules found in the atmosphere...The CO2 produced by burning fossil fuels has a much lower ratio of 13C /12C than normal atmospheric CO2. If we were adding new CO2 that had the same ratio as the rest of the carbon in the atmosphere, the total amount of carbon will increase, but the 13C /12C ratio will stay the same; so by adding new with a much lower ratio of 13C /12C, we are diluting the atmospheric ratio of 13C /12C...As shown in Figure 7.02 above, these data do show an exponential decrease beginning at about the same time as the onset of massive fossil fuel burning, so our hypothesis has passed the test"

*edit* - you were swindled by the Swindle huh? That explains a lot. The Swindle is full of bad science and misinformation. Anyone who cites it as a reference instantly loses all credibility.

*edit #2* - no, it's bad science if it takes quotes out of context, makes illogical arguments, attacks people instead of their science, lies by omission, etc. etc. These are all problems with the Swindle.

If you're open-minded about the issue, watch the following film which discusses the Swindle:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1656640542976216573

and/or read this critique of the arguments in the film by climate scientists at RealClimate.org

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/03/swindled/

Answer 4

What amazes me is that many of the very scientists that "used" to support the man made global warming debate are beginning to come out of the word work recanting.
These are scientists that the liberals used to turn to and respect 100%. Now that they are beginning to recant, they suddenly have become morons and know nothings.

Just another shining example that the dems also believe, like the repubs, that if you're not with us, you're against us.

Answer 5

Tom P, your very use of the word "believer" speaks for itself. Like a religious fanatic, deniers categorically ignore any evidence contrary to what they believe. Like a religious fanatic, deniers ignore the misdeeds of their leaders, even when they lie, exaggerate, misrepresent, or otherwise mislead. Like a religious fanatic, deniers condemn anyone who disagrees with them, regardless of the reason. Like a religious fanatic, deniers promote their agenda without providing any truth. Like a religious fanatic, deniers attack those who do not follow their beliefs by calling them names, such as believer or "goreite". Like a religious fanatic, deniers are not open to being wrong - skeptics are open to being wrong, we just need more reliable science. Like a religious fanatic, deniers do not actively try to disprove their belief. Scientific method dictates that we try to disprove theories, not look for supporting evidence, even if that evidence only comes from blog sites. I see people on both sides of the debate who make unintelligent and uninformed statements, yet you only recognize skeptics as making unintelligent statements. How many believers cite consensus as being truth which is a logical fallacy. Cite CO2 levels increased, then the temperature went up therefore CO2 caused global warming - also a logical fallacy. How many deniers ask - "haven't seen Al Gore's movie?" as if that is proof AGW doesn't exist. There are plenty of people on both sides who do not cite scientific evidence, yet you only attribute this to one side. Many of us skeptics do cite scientific evidence, which is always refuted by consensus. Deniers like to play "I have a scientist" or "My scientist is twice the age (87) than your scientists". I don't think there is any question what group most resembles a religion, and you (Tom P) support my position every time you call a supporter of science a believer.

Answer 6

Nobody said man was the only source of Co2, volcanoes also spew huge amounts of CO2 into the air, as an example of one natural source of CO2. There were many more of them in the past that were active. The cretaceous period also say dropping C02 levels as it ended. (rising again at the very end) 440 million years ago there weren't' as many plants to remove CO2 from the atmosphere.

Answer 7

It doesn't matter whether or not algore can answer the questions. He won't go on any shows that would pose the questions, he won't debate scientists with a different viewpoint.

Perhaps the fairness doc, that the left wants so much, would force him too. Nah....only applies to opinions they don't like.

Answer 8

Perhaps since the debate is "over" then maybe he can explain to all us non-scientific folk how since rising CO2 levels FOLLOW temperature increases (scientifically proven)and dont precede them; how exactly are we causing it?

Answer 9

Why do you think anyone is accusing man as the sole cause for global warming? There may very well be some cyclic natural phenomena as a basis but the fact is that man makes a huge contribution to global warming can't be denied by the informed and rational mind.

Answer 10

How dare you question the global warming messiah. Al carbon big foot al gore will have your head on a pike for this insult. You had better beg for forgiveness immediately by crushing your SUV and throwing out your lawnmower. This insolence will not be tolerated!!