Global Warming- How can people not see the changes?!?

Question

It makes me so angry when I hear people talking about Al Gore's work on informing people about global warming, and they're saying that global warming isn't real. That it's fake. How can they not see the changes. Hurricane Katrina might not have been so disaterous if the waters that it came into weren't so warm. If you are someone who doesn't believe that global warming is real or you ave any doubts at all that this is not something to worry about, watch Al Gore's documentary, An Inconvenient Truth. This opened my eyes to how truly devestating global warming is going to be if we don't stop, and do something about it. What are your thoughts? Have you seen this documentary? If so was it as eye opening for you as it was for me?? I WANT YOUR THOUGHTS ON THIS TOPIC!!!

Answer 1

yup i saw it, and it was depressing. people dont want it to happen, so they deny that is has. hence the "inconvenient" part. or by the simpson's movie "irritating"
quite sad really. people need to open their eyes more to let more light in, instead a squinting and guessing what the blurry lines mean...

Answer 2

Here's my thought - The science doesn't merit the media frenzy on global warming. You talk of Katrina, there were more devastating hurricanes in the past, before fossil fuels. To say that Katrina was made more powerful because of mans use of fuel does nothing but further this false science. I want you too take a look at that documentary closely and look at the research that it relies on. The whole thing started with a single paragraph from and EPA report back in the late 70's early 80's, that used the term global warming. This report also talked about global cooling, but you don't hear too much about that. Here's the kicker, a follow up report come out reversing the findings of the original report. Basically the followup said that the data used in the original report was flawed.

So, everything you hear about global warming came from flawed data.
Now let's talk about hurricanes; there weren't too many this year and none on the US coast above cat 1 or 2. Last year, pretty much the same, not much activity. Your global warming crowd wants you to believe that this is natural and doesn't change the "fact" that there is global warming. Where a couple of years ago, during an active season, the increase was all due to global warming and the evil of man. If the increase is due to global warming than a decrease is also due to global warming. Al Gore's movie, was just that a movie; a work of fiction that science is now debunking. The world needs the idea of global warming to scare people like you into believing everything you see on tv.

All I ask is that you look at the science and make your own decision; not be lead by the noise by the media.

One last question - What is bad about global warming? This whole thing is about a ONE DEGREE rise in the past 100 years. More people die each year due to cold related incidents than from the heat. A warmer climate means more food production; therefore cheaper food, and less people starving. Put that stupid movie away and learn for yourself.

Answer 3

The reason Al Gore catches so much flack for "An Inconvenient Truth" nowadays is that the basic, underlying 'fact' of his argument is flawed. For the last time people, CO2 DOES NOT AFFECT MEAN GLOBAL TEMPERATURE. No scientific study conducted thus far can prove this theory. The data sets from 2 different sources (both satellite and weather balloon), even the ice core samples that are used to 'prove' that man-made CO2 has this effect actually shows the exact opposite relationship. Geologically speaking, mean global temperatures affect the levels of CO2 within the atmosphere. As the the Earth's temperature rises, CO2 levels rise with about an 800 to 1000 year lag time. This has been confirmed not only by the ice core survey used by "An Inconvenient Truth", by several more ice core surveys, but that does not seem to matter to those who would have you believe otherwise. Pay attention to what Al Gore actually says and what sorts of wording he uses when describing these future calamities. He never says 'when' temperatures increase, he clearly says' 'if', often and repeatedly. Every elaborate climate model produced that forecasts disaster is assuming that the rate of warming we are currently experiencing is double the rate of that which is actually occuring. It shouldn't surprise you then that the results of those models are dramatic. The Earth is constantly warming and cooling with no influence from man made CO2. The mean global temperature of our planet has been much, much warmer AND much, much cooler than it is now and will continue to fluctuate without our influence. Please people, do the research necessary to make an informed decision, and certainly don't base that opinion on one politically based source.

Answer 4

Now that you have seen Al's documentary, I challenge you to see another one with a different point of view. I have watched An Inconvenient Truth and there are errors, especially about the relationship between CO2 and temperatures. This documentary explains the discrepancies:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3309910462407994295

As far as Katrina and hurricanes go, there were worse hurricane seasons shortly after the cold climate of The Little Ice Age than there are now. Hurricanes don't just develop because of warm air. They need cold air too. Tornadoes and hurricanes usually happen when warm air meets cold air.
This might surprise you.

http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/articles/V10/N27/C1.jsp

Answer 5

There's a big difference between seeing the changes and actually accepting them. Wherever you go in the world the changes are evident from the increased number of adverse weather events, retreating glaciers, abnormal ecological behaviour etc.

Up until about a year ago a large number of skeptics denied that these changes were even taking place, if you look back at the Q and A's on here you'll find numerous claims that the ice isn't melting, there are no more storms now than there used to be etc, the world is actually cooling etc. Faced with a mountain of incontrovertible evidence the skpetics have largely realligned themselves and accept that the world is changing but that it's not caused by humans. This is just one of the many shifts in attitude apparent amongst many skeptics.

What we're seeing now is the start of another shift with more and more skeptics accepting that humans are influencing the climate but they're now claiming this is a good thing rather than a bad thing. Again, this shift in attitude is clearly illustrated in the previous posts on this forum.

If you think back to when global warming first made it onto the world stage it's probably true to say that the overhwelming majority of people were skeptical. After all, the notion that driving your car could cause famine in Africa or lighting your furnace could give someone malaria seemed truly proposterous. In just 16 years over 90% of the world's population have come to accept global warming as a serious threat (a multinational survey a few months ago put the figure this year at 92%, up from 90% last year). Such a rapid change in public attitudes is quite likely, without precedent. Compare it to how long it took for attitudes to change in relation to smoking, slavery, evolution etc and what we've seen is a remarkably fast transition. I suspect in part due to the volume of evidence and the better and faster disemination of information.

You may be interested to know that every single scientific organisation in the world accepts the theory of global warming, as does every major government and every major corporation - including the oil and power companies.

Today the skeptics are few in number and isolated individuals. They're incapable of refuting the science of global warming so instead turn their attention to finding alternative explanations, no matter how bizarre they may be. To this end there have been hundreds, maybe as many as a thousand alternative explanations and excuses put forward. Not one of them stands up to scrutiny and even the skeptics fail to agree amongst themselves on an alternative theory. With so little credibility no-one really takes them seriously any more.

I guess you need to accept that, for the foreseeable future at least, there will be skeptics, there will be no end of weird and wonderful arguments forthcoming and there will be a small number of people making a lot of noise but having little impact.

Answer 6

I'm the 3rd generation living is NYC, and I'm retired. The waterlines on the piers and docks are the same, all the beaches are the same distance from the boardwalk, and when the Staten Island ferry docks in Manhattan, it still lines up the same as always. In short nothing has changed much. The only disaster I've noticed, is Al Gore floating around in limos and planes that only carry one, cluttering up traffic and wasting a whole lot of gas.

Answer 7

Using examples like Katrina feeds right into doubts that people have over GW. Sure, Katrina was bad, but what about the last two years? Nothing.

Claiming that we are going to see radical changes over the next few years or decade is hyperbole and easily countered when inevitable fluctuations cause things to "improve" for a year or two.

We are expecting a high temperature here in NC today a good 7 degrees above the previous record, but attributing it to GW would be foolish because for all I know it could snow this weekend.

Answer 8

Al Gore is a fear monger who exagerated the extent of Global Warming and its effectsin his film. Even the UN has given sea level estimates and temperature charts that are several orders of magnitude lower than those depicted in the Gore's film. And in spite of his own film, he still travells in a private jet and a large convoy of SUVs when he is on the ground.
Look, there is no doubt about the existence of global warming. What is in question is the extent and the causes of the phenomenon.

Answer 9

I’m over seventy years old. In the nineteen fifties and seventies scientists said we were going into an ice age. Man those ice ages come and go quick. In the fifties the scientists said that cranberries would give you cancer. The last one scientists did well on was that eggs will kill you but that was last week this week they are ok to eat. Give me a break I’ve been around to hear most all the BS that scientists spout. I hope this opened your eyes too.
Good question but no age behind it.

Answer 10

I love the alarmists who always say "Global warming" is not the temperature as we know it. They say just because some parts of the world are setting record cold temps it doesn't mean it's not happening. Yet, in order to back their alarmist agenda, they state that parts of the US are setting records for high temps. I wish they'd make up their minds. Of course, when your ideas are based on faulty sciences that are not proven what can you expect.

Answer 11

I believe that there is a hidden agenda in Washington to rubbish anyone who speaks the facts about Global Warming so the US government can go on doing nothing significant about it.
It isn't just Al Gore who is trying to do something. The vast majority of the countries in the world have signed up to the Kyoto agreement. I believe that history will judge the US harshly because they didn't.