Why does Al Gore and other people who believe in global warming say man made global warming is fact?

Question

Everytime i hear them talk they say that science is sure global warming is man made when there are still critics out there. Then they call people ignorant who disagree with them when they are really the ignorant ones.

Answer 1

Because they know that the vast majority of people are not knowledgeable and will accept authority especially if motivated by fear.

The basic scientific principles they violate:

There is no such thing as "proof" in science.

Consensus and/or reputation does not determine validity.

Correlation does not equal causation.

Computer modeling does not replace the need for empirical evidence.

A hypothesis is NOT theory without extensive, repeatable experimentation.

Debate is NEVER over.

Healthy skepticism serves to strengthen valid science, eliminate invalid science, and is always welcome.

Consequences do not determine the levels of (scientific) confidence in validity.

Here is a healthy alternative view:
http://www.lavoisier.com.au/papers/Conf2007/Carter2007.pdf

Answer 2

I'm very sorry, but the fact that you would pose a global warming question and start it with the words "why does Al Gore" shows how out of touch with reality you are and how much your judgment has been affected by political partisanship. I'm not calling you "ignorant", I'm just saying you are very biased. In much the same way that people think terrorists don't exist at all because it is what those on the right believe.

Answer 3

Because Al Gore couldn't get any attention if he went around screaming "The sky is not falling! Everything is normal!"

Kjalnot:

According to you, the "top scientists" met and evaluated 928 papers, all of which presumed Global Warming was real (in your own words, " Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position").

To anyone interested in finding the Truth, that in itself is a telltale that totally discredits any finding of the panel. The data is biased, so the conclusion is biased.

This is not how Science operates. Science doesn't ignore alternate hypotheses and theories, it considers and refutes them. That's the difference between the Global Warming Doubters and the Global Warming Alarmists. Alarmists will not acknowledge any alternative thought, Doubters will consider what the Alarmists have to say, and then refute it.

Meanwhile, the Alarmists just say "Fact! You can't refute it!" but will totally ignore the refutation.

That's the difference. The Doubters BEHAVE like scientists, the Alarmists do not.

Answer 4

If you think global warming acknowledgers are "really the ignorant ones", why don't you provide some evidence to support that claim? Saying that "there are still some critics out there" is not exactly a convincing argument.

Fact is that all the scientific evidence points to humans as the primary cause of the current global warming. Virtually all climate science experts have come to this conclusion.

Answer 5

There are still people who say the earth is flat, that men never landed on the moon, that the holocaust never happened and that the earth is only six thousand years old. That doesn't mean they're right, or that we should avoid saying it's a fact that the earth is round, etc.

The great majority of the earth's scientists are convinced that manmade global warming is real and a serious problem. Being able to find someone to argue with them doesn't make them wrong.

Answer 6

Just get real, a panel of top scientests from around the world sat down and evalutade 928 scientific reports, and their conclusion was that there is no doubt that global warming is real and that it is caused by human activities. How can you belive YOU have more information, that is better and more reliable than 928 scentific studies?

"The scientific consensus is clearly expressed in the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). [...] In its most recent assessment, IPCC states unequivocally that the consensus of scientific opinion is that Earth's climate is being affected by human activities: 'Human activities ... are modifying the concentration of atmospheric constituents ... that absorb or scatter radiant energy. ... [M]ost of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations' IPCC is not alone in its conclusions. In recent years, all major scientific bodies in the United States whose members' expertise bears directly on the matter have issued similar statements. [...]

That hypothesis was tested by analyzing 928 abstracts, published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and listed in the ISI database with the keywords "climate change" (9).

The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position. [...]

This analysis shows that scientists publishing in the peer-reviewed literature agree with IPCC, the National Academy of Sciences, and the public statements of their professional societies. Politicians, economists, journalists, and others may have the impression of confusion, disagreement, or discord among climate scientists, but that impression is incorrect.

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686

Stop fooling around with these unfunded theories!

Answer 7

Prior to 1999 and GWB, the average Earth's temperature was a constant 58 degrees F and it remained that way for that last 750,000 years. Temperature, glacier mass, solar output, albedo, water vapor, dinosaur faerts, orbit perturbation, and sea level for the entire planet remained static. Continents did not move and volcanoes were never geologically challenged like Mount Saint Hellens. It turns out that the folks from NE Siberia had to fly on Alaska Airlines from Magadan, RF to Anchorage, AK on a MD-80 to populate North America and make Clovis points because a land bridge did not exist. At that time, they enjoyed complementary mammoth cheese burgers, pommes frites, Humboldt fog cheese & crackers, goose blubber, steamed mussels, pemmican, ginger ale, and Watney's Red Barrel as part of their in flight meal. The caveman from Geico actually flew the plane. It was not until the year 2000 that Donald Rumsfeld infiltrated the secret warehouse, owned by George Lucas and located in San Rafael, CA, and stole the technical readouts to an Imperial Star Destroyer! At that time the Bush administration finally seized plans to a vehicle that could mount the 250 megawatt GWB weather machine. The fully armed Star Destroyer was built by Textron, Lockheed, and General Dynamics, with a few bits obtained by Orchard Supply and Hardware and McMaster-Carr Supply, Co. and launched from LLNL's site 300 in September of 2001. The rest is history..............ts

Thank Allah for Al Gore, if he did not enlighten us, we would all fall into the Teletubby-Custard of the Time-Space continuium!!

Answer 8

Al Gore is the smartest person in all history, he invented everything and makes Copernicus, Galileo, Newton, Einstein, Schrodinger, Bohr, Maxwell, Franklin, Buffet, Herodotus, Cassini and Huygens look like dee-dee-dees.

Answer 9

This should make it all easier for everyone to understand...

The 10 Commandments of Global Warming
http://www.wisepagan.com/article003.html

(aka: because God says so... that's why!)

Those people who "believe" in Global Warming happen to be the entire peer-reviewed Scientific community... which operates on hard science... not "beliefs".

Global Warming is not up for debate, really... neither is its anthropogenic (look it up) cause.

All of the propaganda you see that "debates" global warming is put out by the oil companies because they want to confuse you... they set up their own little "science lab" that they call the American Association of Petroleum Geologists or AAPGA... (also known as liars for profit).

Answer 10

Because of the scientific data, which proves global warming is real and mostly caused by man.

99+% of scientists around the world believe global warming is real and mostly caused by us. And any number of very distinguished people, too.

"I wasn’t convinced by a person or any interest group—it was the data that got me. I was utterly convinced of this connection between the burning of fossil fuels and climate change. And I was convinced that if we didn’t do something about this, we would be in deep trouble.”

Vice Admiral Richard H. Truly, USN (Ret.)
Former NASA Administrator, Shuttle Astronaut and the first Commander of the Naval Space Command

Here are two summaries of the mountain of peer reviewed data that convinced Admiral Truly, short and long.

http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Image:Climate_Change_Attribution.png
http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf

Theories that claim it is natural may sound "logical" but they simply don't work quantitatively (numerically). They don't match the observed data. The numbers come out wrong. That disproves them to scientists.

"There's a better scientific consensus on this [climate change] than on any issue I know - Global warming is almost a no-brainer at this point,You really can't find intelligent, QUANTITATIVE arguments to make it go away."

Jerry Mahlman, NOAA

Forget Al Gore. He has nothing to do with science.

Good websites for more info:

http://profend.com/global-warming/
http://www.realclimate.org
"climate science from climate scientists"

Answer 11

There are those who discredits scientific facts. It is clearly seen that they belong to among the skeptics. The very fact that they, just like you, never provides evidence in their statements shows that they are not critics, simply propagandists, or liars. I respect those who bring up valid points. You, or the likes of you, are not one of them. How can you believe that making statements, such as this, without evidence can show that you really have evidence? People are not stupid. Every day this is brought forth; AGW skeptics never provide established scientific data that support what they say. Another post, like this one by you, won't give any altered perception of that. Frankly, if you want to change that view why not simply provide these reliable sources? Every new post without them just prove 'our' point: you have no evidence, just propaganda.