GLOBAL WARMING! Al Gore and U.N Scientists win Nobel Peace Prize for there?

Question

effforts in scientific proof concerning Global Warming......What are your thought's on the idea?.....Are Scientists accurate on this account?......or do you think it's all made up?

Answer 1

Back when the concept was new and the research had just begun, I didn't believe it and I was really rude to those who did. Now I've finally begun to realize that all those scientists were right on the money and they were right the whole time and there's just so much evidence that I can't deny it anymore. I apologized to a lot of people and I changed a lot of my viewpoints about our planet. I feel like such a friggin' idiot for being so stupidly stubborn and not believing what everyone else knew was the truth. Even BUSH admitted it recently, and before HIM the PENTAGON wrote an entire report calling global warming the greatest threat to the planet in history. Even THEN I didn't believe it. Man, how could I have been that naive and ignorant? I've read a lot of the research now and AGAIN I apologize for being such a fool. To all those people who tried to tell me about global climate change and saw me laugh at them, I ask forgiveness.

Answer 2

It's funny to see how quickly people will defend something they know little about. I have been told to 'hush' many times, merely for arguing that it is by no means a proven fact. I do work in the geological and scientific profession

Scientific evidence neither proves nor disproves global warming, in fact most scientists are pretty divided. Those that support it have a vested interest as they get cash incentives for promoting alternative energy (such as nuclear) journalists also support the idea of global warming as they are specialising, and if they argued against it, they would be out of job.

The warming of the troposphere and surface of the earth was ignored by Al Gore, I think history will prove him nothing but a propaganda seeking politician. see "the great global warming swindle" by BBC4 for some more arguments, make up your own mind, but still recycle, it's good.

It doesn't look that convincing when you have all the facts, bare in mind they used to grow grapes in Greenland (now ice) in the middle ages. Solar winds and the magnetism of the poles seems more of an overiding factor.

Answer 3

I think that there is probably long term global warming but that it is part of a natural cycle. I do not believe that there is any evidence that it is man made or that if it is that man can do anything about it nor is there sufficient evidence to suggest we need to try. Certainly global warming, if true, would be great for humanity by ending hunger in the world as there would be more land suitable for farming and if it is cause by greenhouse gases that would be good for plant growth.

I do not put a lot of faith in those like Al Gore who were crying global cooling just a decade or two ago but instead will just wait for the scientist to find some evidence of global warming other than the flawed computer models they are using for their predictions. From what I read global warming will be a good thing and not a bad thing. In any case there is nothing to do but wring our hands and I have better things to do.

In Christ
Fr. Joseph

Answer 4

Here's the secret behind Al Gore's sleight-of-hand presentation. If you've seen his movie, you will certainly remember his huge, stage-wide graph of heat trends and CO2 spreading across the stage. At a glance, it appears that he is correct, the heating trend follows along closely with the CO2 trend. However, what you don't pay attention to is the size of the graph. He's condensed many thousand years onto that graph and, at a distance, it appears to be a relationship. But, what you need to do is get a close-up, expanded version of virtually any section of that graph. What you will see is this: yes, there is a relationship between the heating trends and the CO2 levels. BUT, in a closeup analysis, you will see that the increased heat PRECEDED the rise in CO2 levels, by about 7-800 years. His sleight-of-hand trick is that it's shown in a much broader scale that only "appears" to be the way he suggests.

Answer 5

there is international warming... On Mars... On Pluto... in the international... On Venus... on exceptionally a lot each and all and sundry interior the photo voltaic gadget, it should not be us people that are the reason behind it. I look to bear in mind back contained in the 70's the enormous "clinical scare changed into international colling, the planet is going to freeze" if we do not do something. (convinced, i'm that old, to undergo in techniques listening to it on the files) that they had all their charts (not exceptionally charts, like we've as we talk), showing how the temperature changed into falling, and turning out to be seasons were getting shorter. My questions are, considering each and every living component on the earth creates CO2 quicker or later in it truly is existence (no matter if though living or decomposing after dieing) how is this undesirable? considering flowers and flora thrive on CO2 would not more desirable CO2 be useful to to plant existence? And ultimately CO2 makes up purely .35% of the ambience with people accounting for below a million/2 of that volume, how is it back the way it truly is the form of drastic reason behind international warming. I do precisely like the images that GW advocates use showing thick, dense blankets of CO2 coating the earth at the same time as quite it truly is an fairly small quantity.

Answer 6

the scientists stopped debating global warming (and the role humans have on it) in the mid 90s. Politics have confused people into thinking scientists don't really agree. exactly the same thing with evolution.

for example, you can see sometimes on FoxNews, they'll get some crazy scientist that actually knows nothing about climate change, meteorology, etc, saying they're not quite convinced about global warming. it's sad.

The US is one of the only countries in the world, where politicians and newspeople actively campaign against science.

Answer 7

Yes I do think it is accurate. The consequence of doing nothing are so dire that I think it is the obligation of EVERY government to mandate limiting CO2 immersions.

Besides the fact that the oil train is going to run out very soon anyway. Does it make any sense at all to keep using it as our primary energy source.

Answer 8

Well let's see... I live in an area that is supposed to get on average 72" of snow per winter. Maybe one out of the last ten years we've hit that - and the past few we aren't even a third of that total. No it's not made up.

Why do you think the perma-frost isn't half frozen anymore?

Answer 9

I think Al finally found a popular winning horse to ride... !

Answer 10

I can't imagine thinking that global warming is somehow made up.