Do conservatives really not believe in man made global warming because Al Gore has a private jet?

Question

Is there a scientific objection to global warming or is it essentially the conservative spin machine and ad homimem attack against the messengers?

Answer 1

what is wrong with you people??? global warming is NOT about politics!! seriously, are u all living under a rock or something? it's called science. Marie is actually right about the big oil companies!!

if you would do some research on your own, instead of getting all your fact from the talking heads on tv, you would know that exxon mobile has admitted to funding certain denier organizations. they may not admit their TRUE intentions but they cant hide where their money goes.

this is not opinion...this is fact. unfortunately most of ya'll are basing your opinions on other opinions.

p.s. Al Gore DESERVES the Nobel Prize.

Answer 2

You obviously have been drinking the kool-aid.

The scientific objection to global warming is that it is not man-caused as it is being purported by the liberal spin machine. Al Gore has been attacked for his use of a private jet because it is hypocritical to his own position.

Answer 3

There is tremendous scientific support for the projections that global climate change will result or is already resulting from man-made influences. There is little credible scientific argument against the possible effects of man's activity. There are tons of arguments, but not credible scientific arguments.

I read a post recently that said, "Yea, well, a few years ago the "libs" were up in arms about the hole in the ozone layer, and that turned out okay." The argument seemed to be that by extension, the warnings about climate change are over-reactions, too. What the poster was not thinking about was that we made MAJOR changes in the use of ozone-destroying gases, and moderated the problem. Had we done nothing, the result would have been different.

This is an example of the justification being used for "not believing."

Also, one of your earlier posters said that Gore's house generates power. Excellent! I wish mine generated power instead of consuming it. If all houses generated power, we would be a lot better off! I'm not trying to be mean in pointing that out. Please take it as another example of how important careful phrasing and factual checking are in the debate. In ANY civilized debate, in fact.

Edit - While I was typing, several answers were also entered. I am about out of time this morning but I'd like to address two points made in different posts. One person said that humans tend to think of things in terms of the here and now instead of taking the longer picture. I agree. Another said that the sun's projected reduced output will cause cooling on the earth. This is also true. Now put the two points together: The reduction in the sun's output is projected to take millions of years. We are not talking about a reduction in solar energy reaching the earth for the next 100 years, but the effects of greenhouse gases will be felt in the next 100 years. Part of the problem is that there is a lag between the event and the perceived effects of the event. The reason for much of the debate is that we MUST use projections as well as historical measurements. I'd like to discuss some of the "historical data" brought up in a long and civil post above, but again, time prohibits. Thank you for the question.

Answer 4

I only know this because I know a lot about science. We are in what I call a "fast food" society these days. Meaning that everything is now, now, now! What was our world like 1 year ago, 10 years ago, 100, 1000, 10,000 years and so on? We cannot base our future with only a melting ice cube and a few years of temperature recordings. The planet is millions and millions of years old, heating and cooling the whole time. How is a small group of biased scientists in just a couple years of study (if that) going to tell us that the planet is heating/changing because of insignificant little mankind? When I was a liberal in high school, it was Global Cooling and an ozone that was disappearing world wide. Now in Phoenix, we have had cooler summer days and TOO much ozone. I bought it then and I don't buy it now. I don't live my life with the collective thought process like the left does. I make up my own conclusions on our planet.


What's so bad if the temp goes up 1 or two degrees anyway? It has before hundreds of times and somewhere in there, man came along when Mammoths were walking around in an ice covered planet. Gee, the planet warmed up back then and we prospered.

Answer 5

The two points (Al Gore's hypocrisy and scientific objections to man made global warming) are separate.

See the book Unstoppable Global Warming Every 1500 Years to understand the scientific objections to the idea of man made global warming. There is a significant body of hard science showing that the current theories of the human causes of global warming, if they have an effect at all are truly marginal and at the edges of measurability at their maximum. The actual global warming that occurs is a natural cycle and no matter what we do it will happen, just as we will not be able to reverse the fall in temperatures that follows.

The comments about Al Gore center on the hypocrisy of the messenger, not the message. If Mr. Gore believes that we should all change our behavior in order to save the world, why does he not change his own behavior? He clearly believes that he is more important than us. We peons need to change our behavior while the truly enlightened get to stay with theirs. I see nothing wrong in pointing out that hypocrisy even if he was correct.

Answer 6

The private jet thing is just a way of pointing out one of the many inconsistencies in Al Gore's "Inconvenient Truth". Gore has sewn together a sort of crazy quilt of "scientific data" to make the case that humans are destroying the Earth. He also implores readers/viewers of his book/film to purchase hybrid cars and to conserve energy and waste as a means of reversing the ill effects. At the same time, he jets around in an airplane that burns more fuel in one trip tham a Hummer would in one year. This is somewhat hypocritical. It does not necessarily mean that global warming is not happening, but it does take some of the passion out of his arguments.
Scientifically, there is a much wider range of opinions than Mr. Gore presents and there is even wider controversy over the effects of global warming.

Answer 7

ok, I supply up. You win. If AlGore is the MANBEARPIG, then i assume all technology has been a fraud ! I heard that it is the sunlight inflicting each and all the warming. I agree. The sunlight is getting cooler from each and all the sunspots. it rather is why it is so chilly outdoors. The so referred to as international warming is as a results of the fact on the comparable time, the Earth is getting nearer to the sunlight, because of the fact the sunlight orbits the Earth. you do no longer quite 'have faith' the nonsense of the Earth going around the sunlight, do you? I mean any fool can needless to say see that it is the sunlight that strikes around the sky, because of the fact the Earth stands nevertheless. All scientists are frauds ! CO2 is our chum! It makes flowers improve. besides, all of us be attentive to that mere people can't influence the Earth by potential of any potential. Heck, if we basically pray real stressful, according to danger god will 'create' a sparkling planet with out 'libs'.

Answer 8

I think if Al Gore presented the POSSIBILITY that global warming might be due in some part to man as opposed to declaring it written in stone, others might take him a little more seriously. However, as it stands, he simply does not want to consider ANY other possibilities for climate change.
Had he taken the approach of evaluating ALL the factors involved in global warming and stated that the bottom line was that we all need to take better care of the planet REGARDLESS of the causes of climate change, I think people would be much more receptive to his message.

Answer 9

The media machine of the right has a momentum of its own, and many of them have begun to believe their own lies. I suppose they view that as a victory.

Isn't it amazing the way Gore is being flayed? And he's not even running. But his success is a threat to corporate greed, a threat to the Right's version of non-science, the twisted view of Earth as being able to support an infinite number of people with no danger of pollution or environmental change.

This was the real reason for the Nobel, a political statement to emphasize the larger world's view, so as to combat local propaganda.

So Gore will be attacked relentlessly, and the original reason will be obscured.

Answer 10

I guess who are we to be so arrogant as to think we are the only cause for global warming ? It WILL happen weather we are here or not.

It has already been proven that the planet goes through climate cycles every so often. Why is there limited focus on this ? Hey, I have no problem with alternative fuels. I use solar power myself and would love nothing more than to get off of fossil fuels. But to me, I see no solid proof that we are the sole cause.

To me, Al Gore has done nothing but very effectively, add fuel to the fire of political propaganda and media furver in the effort to further himself and his party.

Answer 11

This is just one:

http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/education/reports/hansen/HansenTestimonyCritique.pdf

It's not cut and dry. Yes, the Earth is warming. Thermometers over time tell you that. It's hard to refute.

Is it part of a natural cycle? What impact do humans have on it? These are the fuzzy points.

And Gore has latched onto this as his last gasp hope at a legacy. "We are dooming ourselves to global catastrophe!!"

Meanwhile, he flies around in his jet (alot), has numerous mansions that have carbon footprints the size of Texas, he makes millions off of owning shares in a company that trades in "Carbon credits," and people on the left wonder why he is the object of disdain from the right.