Global Warming and Al Gore's Nobel Prize?

Question

Why do people disagree with this article?
http://www.2sidesmagazine.com/Articles/GlobalWarmingisaBumperSticker/tabid/56/Default.aspx

Sageandscholar-
I have been looking all over for someone who knows what they are talking about. I need to find a person capable of discrediting this article, as well as promoting the idea that global warming is leading to devastating effects. Please contact me by email through Y!Answers. This is for a printed magazine publication. Click on my profile and send me an email. You could make a difference.

Answer 1

First point: The IPCC claims 90+% probability that humans are the primary cause of the current global warming. Why don't they say it is or it isn't?

Answer: Because that's not how science works. 90+% probability is huge in science. You're never 100% sure about anything in science - it's all about probabilities and likelihoods. Whoever wrote this article doesn't understand science, so I don't know why they're writing about global warming at all.

Second point: Not all scientists agree with the consensus.

Answer: So what? There are always dissenting opinions. That doesn't change the fact that the vast majority of scientists agree about the causes of the current warming.

Third point: Temperatures were warmer 800 years ago.

Answer: This is a lie. Here are 10 seperate temperature reconstructions which show that temperatures have not been this high in the past 2000 years (and beyond).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png

Fourth Point: CO2 comprises a small percentage of the atmosphere.

Answer: This is irrelevant. It doesn't matter how much CO2 there is, it matters how much this amount of CO2 contributes to the greenhouse effect and thus global warming.

Fifth Point: Humans account for a fraction of the planet's CO2 emissions.

Answer: Technically this is true, but natural CO2 emissions are part of the natural carbon cycle. The planet absorbs as much (in fact a bit more) CO2 than it emits. Humans emit CO2 which has been stored in fossil fuels for millions of years, and the natural carbon cycle can't absorb all of it, so it just accumulates in the atmosphere and increases the greenhouse effect.

Sixth point: Most greenhouse gases are water vapor.

Answer: This is true, but atmospheric water vapor concentrations are dependent on atmospheric temperature. Additionally, going back to the fourth point, water vapor has a much smaller global warming potential than other greenhouse gases.

Thus not only can water vapor not initiate global warming (it can amplify the warming if something else triggers it to make the atmosphere warmer and capable of holding more water vapor), but again it doesn't matter how much water vapor there is, it matters how much of a greenhouse effect this water vapor causes.

Personally at this point if I didn't know anything about Timothy Ball, I'd be questioning what kind of expert he is, because this is very basic climate science that he's getting wrong. Well, it turns out that Tim Ball has lied about his credentials, and is not really a climate scientist at all.

Ball claimed to be the first Canadian PhD in Climatology. In reality, not only did other Canadians get degrees in Climatology prior to Ball, but his PhD was in geography, on a topic in historical climatology. That's a big difference from having a climatology PhD. He also claimed to have been a Professor of Climatology at the University of Winnipeg for 32 years.

In reality, Ball did not even have an entry-level PhD until 1983 (that's 24 years ago, for the math-challenged), that would allow even Assistant Professor status. During much of the 32 years cited, he was a junior lecturer who rarely published, and then spent 8 years as a geography professor. His work does not show any evidence of research regarding climate and atmosphere and the few papers he has published concern other matters.

So basically your article's main source of information is a fraud.

Answer 2

Al(manbearpig)Gore is a complete hoax!! The concept of global warming is a natural occurrence, there is a constant shifting climate on this planet that can be documented over years and centuries of science. The truth is we probably don't help the fact, we probably are contributing to the problem. But I assure you the trait will continue weather we stop polluting or continue to create these greenhouse gasses! The earth has gone through many climate changes in its past! This is just another cycle of the warming and cooling that has repeated throughout history! FYI 4.5 billion years ago the avg. temp on this earth was estimated at 210 degrees F. So I guess we warmed it up then too!! The fact is while some glaciers are receding and some ice caps are melting, others are growing. They conveniently leave that out of the "inconveinent (bogus) truth". Why? because that doesn't fit in the agenda. Al Gore winning the nobel piece prize means nothing. In fact, Yasser Arifat won it, Stalin was nominated as was Hitler!!! That prize means nothing, due to the fact it is a corrupt system that pushes global agendas. Keep paying that "green" tax, so we can keep bombing other countries without borrowing money. Making the Bush's and Cheneys, and halliburton billions of $. How about outlawing OIL!! That would help although there has never been any mention of that even considering there are many other clean ways to get power. This is an agenda that is false! It is a manipulation of fact! The temp has increased .7 degrees in the past 100 years! Hardly as much as the "manbearpig" lies about!!! Wake up people. You care so much sell your SUVs! Convert to solar powered houses. No I would rather just pay more taxes and let the government handle it, RUBBISH all of it!! One of the largest sources of CO2 nobody dares mention. Tree's dying and cut down, and any other plant life dying releases more CO2 than humans do per year. Volcanos dont come close to the amount given off by organic material. You also forget about the multitudes of ocean life, FYI Tons of small organisms and bacteria in the ocean feed on oxygen, and release guess what folks, CARBON DIOXIDE. You think cause you saw it on TV, or the News, or some government funded project, it must be true. Talk to a real scientist before you make claims to be one!!


I am sorry but they guy or girl who uses wikipedia for knowledge, is the same one who used the encyclopedia brittanica for American history!!!

Answer 3

the actuality of the undertaking is that i do no longer dispute international warming. paradoxically, the persons who disagree with international warming can't supply scientific articles to help their claims. What Gore has executed to advance climate study is extroadinary; although, i'm uncertain how that pertains to the peace prize. he's not probably brokering peace in Darfur or some thing like that. My opinion is that he could ok qualify for an award, yet I question the award given. by utilising the way, the award is lots from meaningless. I propose that those of you that have faith that circulate take a seem on the previous winners of the awards in all aspects and be certain precisely how "meaningless" this award is.

Answer 4

OK let's go through this piece by piece.
First of all the intolerance that it speaks of is far more evident among the dissenters than the mainstream. Look at the list of answers you have here accusing Al Gore of a hoax and stating as a matter of fact that GW theories are lies. When people become passionate about things they often will reject alternative theories. To pretend this is merely a problem of those supporting the consensus is nonsense.
Next the article misrepresents some of the opinions given. For instance it presents John Christy as dissenting from the theory of man made Global Warming. This is simply not true. Christy was the lead author of the 2001 IPCC report and co-authored the American Geophysical Union's statement. Both categorically support the theory of man made Global Warming. The quote Christy gives is with reference to the IMPACT, not the cause of global warming.
It presents red herring arguments that do not address the finding of studies supporting human induced global warming theory. For instance the claims that temperature have been higher in the past. Nobody denies this. The rate of warming is the concern - not the current temperatures. Also % of CO2. It is true that human activity only accounts for a small % of CO2 at present - but it does account for a shift outside the previous range of variance - even if only a small one. Our climate and environment are delicate and small changes such as this can have significant impacts.
It attributes "The Great Global Warming Swindle" to the more prestigous BBC rather than Channel 4 who actually made it. This production itself has been shown to be guilty of all the charges made by the author of this article; presenting blatant falsehoods as truth (for instance that volcanoes release more CO2 than human activity) and misrepresenting the work and opinions of "contributors" (Dr Friis-Christnesen - who's work was a key part of the argument in The Global Warming Swindle described the film as "obvious it's not accurate") and excluding data that did not support the production's premise (ie all data from after 1980).
This is a typical piece of partisan writing. It is not a scientific report published in a peer journal and does not use such studies as evidence. Rather it quotes debunked programs sponsored by interested parties and even then misrepresents them.

Answer 5

Gore took things that has been happening for eons and then blamed it on man made Global Warming. When the amount of so called Green House Gasses that man puts is about the size of a single cell to the amount that the earth it self puts out from one Volcano eruption.
there is at lease one of those things going off every day just about.

Answer 6

Man Made Global Warming is the next religion.

Answer 7

Most likely because it disagrees with what their Icon Al Gore is saying.

Answer 8

I don't. I think it's spot on.
But to true believers no amount of evidence will dissuade them from their beliefs.

You idiots. I agree with the article.

Answer 9

because if you tell a lie over and over and over, dumb people will come to believe it. That's how commies operate

Answer 10

Because their stuck of Gore.