Cons:Al Gore just won the Nobel Prize. Is it possible that global warming could actually be REAL?

Question

Now that the leading scientists of the world all agree about the dangers of global warming,the international community is working together to combat it(without the U.S. or China of course),and Gore has just been given the world's top award for
his work against it-well,I just have to wonder.

Could it be that global warming is actually a real problem?
Is it possible that once again Bush's loyal followers have been
misled?

If you think the Nobel Prize has become a sham,can you give a reason other than it being awarded to Gore? Can you give
facts to back up your arguments?

Cookies,Anyone?-This isn't exactly the first time the documentary's factual inaccuracies have been pointed out.
I might add that since the burden of proof would lie with supporters of the documentary,since global warming is still relatively new to us,many "inconsistencies" may turn out
to bear the test of time. Glaciers have been melting and there were reports of
decreasing numbers of polar bears long
before the movie came out. I would rather pay attention to a room full of scientists than a room full of lawyers in a courtroom probably presided over by
a conservative judge.

In any case,as has been pointed out,the
important thing is that Al Gore helped
bring awareness of global warming into
the public's awareness. Unlike the writers who contribute stories on the link
you provided,most people acknowledge that now. Climate change
doesn't come from the sun,as one of their previous stories suggested.

Answer 1

The basic argument is if it's manmade or natural climate shift. It doesn't matter what this expert or that expert says. The fact remains that "something" is going on with our planets weather patterns. Isn't it better for the environment and for humanity to HOPE that is IS manmade. If it is manmade we still have some hope of reversing some of the damage. If it's climate shift we can't do anything about it but either way it's predicted that much of the earth will end up in a new ice-age. The worst thing I can say about the Global Warming theory is that it maybe gives false hope for something that is inevitable.
Mr. Gore won the Nobel Prize and deservedly so for at least bringing it out in the mainstream getting everybody talking and thinking about it.
BTW I hear so many say that Gore can't be taken seriously because he doesn't practice what he preaches. I beg to differ. Would anybody take him seriously if he lived in a hut, reading by candlelight, rode a bike and lived off the land. NO they would call him a hippy freak.

Answer 2

The fact of the matter is that I do not dispute global warming. Ironically, the people that disagree with global warming can't provide SCIENTIFIC articles to support their claims. What Gore has done to advance climate research is extroadinary; however, I am not sure how that relates to the peace prize. He isn't really brokering peace in Darfur or something like that. My opinion is that he may very well qualify for an award, but I question the award given.
By the way, the award is far from meaningless. I suggest that those of you that believe that go take a look at the past winners of the awards in all areas and figure out exactly how "meaningless" this award is.

Answer 3

There is no global warming
The earth was going into ice age in the 70's.
Maybe another ice age next year. 1 degree in last 10 yrs isn't warming or even a trend
Just a socialist plot
The award is awarded to almost anyone that hates America, is a socialist or anti Christan
It means nothing if Gore, Carter and Arafat can get one .
Any anti America socialist ot Nazislamic Fascist can get one

Answer 4

Talk about misled......

Maybe you could explain to me why the British High court found that his film can't be shown without "Guidance Note" to show the inaccurracies in his film or that a think tank is reviewing his Oscar because of it???

*Think tank: Withdraw Gore film's Oscar
Citing court ruling, compares situation to sports stars found to be 'cheats'*


"The truth, as inconvenient as it is to Al Gore, is that his so-called documentary contained critical distortions that are quite contrary to the principles of good documentary journalism," Newman said. "Good documentaries should be factually correct. Clearly this documentary is not."

"An Inconvenient Truth" won Oscars in 2006 for best documentary and best original song.

Dimmock took the British government to court after then-Environment Secretary David Miliband launched a plan to send "An Inconvenient Truth" to all British schools, announcing the scientific debate over man-made global warming "is over."

The judge, however, sided with Dimmock, who alleged the documentary breached the Education Act of 1996 by portraying "partisan political views."

The court ruled the Guidance Notes to Teachers must make clear that:

* The film is a political work and promotes only one side of the argument.

* If teachers present the film without making this plain they may be in breach of section 406 of the Education Act 1996 and guilty of political indoctrination.

* Eleven inaccuracies have to be specifically drawn to the attention of school children.

The inaccuracies, according to the court, are:

1. The film claims that melting snows on Mount Kilimanjaro evidence global warming. The Government's expert was forced to concede that this is not correct.

2. The film suggests that evidence from ice cores proves that rising CO2 causes temperature increases over 650,000 years. The court found that the film was misleading: Over that period the rises in CO2 lagged behind the temperature rises by 800-2000 years.

3. The film uses emotive images of Hurricane Katrina and suggests that this has been caused by global warming. The Government's expert had to accept that it was "not possible" to attribute one-off events to global warming.

4. The film shows the drying up of Lake Chad and claims that this was caused by global warming. The Government's expert had to accept that this was not the case.

5. The film claims that a study showed that polar bears had drowned due to disappearing arctic ice. It turned out that Mr. Gore had misread the study: In fact four polar bears drowned, and this was because of a particularly violent storm.

6. The film threatens that global warming could stop the Gulf Stream, throwing Europe into an ice age: The Claimant's evidence was that this was a scientific impossibility.

7. The film blames global warming for species losses including coral reef bleaching. The Government could not find any evidence to support this claim.

8. The film suggests that the Greenland ice covering could melt, causing sea levels to rise dangerously. The evidence is that Greenland will not melt for millennia.

9. The film suggests that the Antarctic ice covering is melting; the evidence was that it is in fact increasing.

10. The film suggests that sea levels could rise by seven meters, causing the displacement of millions of people. In fact, the evidence is that sea levels are expected to rise by about 40 centimeters over the next hundred years and that there is no such threat of massive migration.

11. The film claims that rising sea levels has caused the evacuation of certain Pacific islands to New Zealand. The Government are unable to substantiate this and the Court observed that this appears to be a false claim.

Answer 5

All I know is that Al Gore had to come up with a website and prize money to coax people into trying to "prove" that global warming is real. He turned it into a game. He made a joke out of it. He did it all on his own


LOL...I just checked the website and they raised the prize money to $125,000. Hmm, guess they're having a hard time with it. Can you save Al Gore on the "ultimate global warming challenge"?

Answer 6

Nobel Prize has become a real farce, so who cares!

...As far as global warming, No one is saying it is not happening, but as to Humans control over it is and has been the debate...heck we cannot even predict rain from day to day, or meteorites from year to year....and if this is in fact a natural cycle we might be causing harm by interfering...
...cause as what has happened in this century, we are one Volcano eruption away from a Mini Ice age, ...so then what are we going to do it we have taken steps to lower the temperature of the earth? Don't mess with mother nature! as she will get her way regardless!

...As far has preserving the earth, OK, but flying all over the countries using 200 x any other human and wanting us to use one square of toilet paper while they are the Elete using up whatever resources they want? come on, lead by example...

Answer 7

Yes and that a Muslim terrorists is also a great example of the Noble Peace Prize.

-His flim has been shown to have errors.
-He is making money off carbon credits he is selling. That alone disqualifies him from being objective
-What example does he set by flying around in private jets?
If it was as serious as he claims would he do more to set an example?
-Irena Sendler done for peace than Al will every hope to.
Who is Irena?
Read this:
http://nobel-peace-prize-news.newslib.com/story/2155-3247390/

Answer 8

Of course it is a real problem. You stated above that scientist all over the world agree.

It is like the question of evolution. 99.9% of the all scientists agree that evolution is correct but the right wing doesn't agree because of religious reason and demand "equal time". They want a "fair and balanced" reporting on this.

When 99% of the scientists agree then 99% of the reporting should reflect this no matter what EXXON says!

Answer 9

I believe it is real and that people need to listen up about it. I don't know much about Global Warming at all, but the thought of what might happen in 20 or 30 years if something doesn't happen, scares me.

Answer 10

Only idiots who have no idea what is going on in the world deny the existence of global warming, the argument from republicans is it's natural and not man made, which is a poor argument, but better than the old one of denying it's existence.