Do You Think Global Warming Is Fake? Do You Think Al Gore Is a Nutjob just trying to get attention with it?

Question

I do not believe in one single bit of it. Al Gore is just trying to get famous after losing the 2000 election.

Answer 1

Yes

Answer 2

It's very possible Al Gore will soon publish a book entitled,"Inconvientient Truth Global Cooling". One must stay current you know!   james the hollow earth man

Answer 3

Al Gore has figured out a way to make money by scaring people and not contributing anything useful to society. Al is the new Pope of the global warming cultists.

Answer 4

YES and YES. I refuse to be brainwashed by these wackos.

Answer 5

This theory comes from scientists, thousands of them and was around well be before gores documentary and well before the 2000 election.

Answer 6

The thought has crossed my mind, though I've come to realize that Al Gore only plays a minor roll in global warming.  He is simply presenting the research and spreading the word done by educated scientists that really have no fame (or much of anything else for that matter) to gain from this whole situation.  Perhaps Al Gore is trying to gain some popularity, a quick buck, or whatever else, but the fact of the matter is that the evidence still stands when Al Gore is eliminated from the equation.  In fact, there has not been this much collective agreement among scientists over a controversial issue probably since evolution.

Check out the evidence for yourself, but don't let some power-hungry politician turn you off from the truth.

Answer 7

Whether or not you think Global Warming is actually occurring, one thing is certain: Al Gore is and always has been a "nut job"!!!!

Answer 8

My problems with the AGW theory:

1) The process - they didn't follow the facts where they led and just ended up arriving at AGW - they started out to prove AGW and fit the facts into the pre-conceived theory.  The charter of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is to "assess ... the risk of human-induced climate change" - - not "to examine climate change and determine whether there is any human involvement."   Or, as it should have been chartered, "to discern if the climate is in fact changing in an extraordinary way relative to the climate history since the last Ice Age, and if so and only if so, whether humans are involved."  

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/art...

They put the cart before the horse.    

Can you see the difference there?    Digging up facts and following them where they logically lead is very different from starting with a conclusion and mining for facts that substantiate it, the latter of which is what the IPCC has done.    We know of instances where, when the facts were contrary, they were rewritten.  What rocks weren't turned over because they might reveal contrary evidence?   We will never know.

2) We don't understand the climate system and all its factors, and how those factors interact.   Yet a lot of AGW is based on a computer simulation that assumes that we do know all of the factors and precisely how each interacts with all the others - - it's not the direct effect of the CO2 itself, but the "feedback mechanisms" that drive the predictions of dire runaway warming.

3) That lack of understanding is part of the reason why the models keep spitting out wrong predictions.     They've been right only in a very general sense - overall the 2000s have been slightly warmer than the 1990s though not as warm as the peak temperatures in the 1990s.   The 1990s were in turn slightly warmer than the 1980s.     Generally that's been the pattern since the last Ice Age - intermittent multi-century warming and cooling - after 120 years of warming, a few more decades of warming would be consistent with the pattern.    Beyond that, none of the predictions have come true.   Every year, the next year is supposed to break the record set in 1998 - and every year fails to do that.    

http://www.energytribune.com/articles.cf...

4) We know that it has been warmer, or at least about as warm, during other multi-century periods, when CO2 levels were lower and/or were not rising.   There have been similar warm periods.    And species lived through it, and the runaway warming didn't occur.  More importantly, we don't know what caused all of those prior warm periods, so we don't know that whatever caused them isn't what caused the modest 20th century warming.

5) The efforts to mitigate 4) by re-writing the climate history based on a poor proxy (bristlecone pine tree rings) detract from the credibility of those on the AGW side of the debate.  

And that's precisely what the IPCC did.   The MWP and HM aren't concepts dreamed up by some Oklahoma Senator to disprove AGW.   They were the universally accepted climate history from the time they occurred until the climate had become a political issue on which the existence of those two warm periods got in the way of an agenda.    Their existence was exhibited by countless events from around the globe, events that have never been explained as having happened for any reason other than warmer temperatures, most of which couldn't happen now because it's too cold.

And the IPCC re-wrote them out of the climate history without explaining a SINGLE one of these events.  

6) The myriad contadictions in the predictions.     Boston will have the climate of Atlanta; the Northeast US, Northern Europe and North Atlantic will actually be colder because the THC will slow down; those areas will have extremes at either end - - which is it?   Seems like whatever's happening now.    Hurricanes will be worse or more frequent, less or less frequent, and now they'll be earlier - again the story changes seemingly to fit what's actually happening at the time.    Once it happens, your saying "this is what's going to happen" doesn't mean you know what you're talking about.

7) The misrepresentation of the inability to prove it's something else as the elimination of other causes.  

8) The exaggerations.    The case for AGW is no greater than it was five years ago, yet they just declared victory.    The case isn't proven and it's no warmer than it was ten years ago, yet they say "we need to act now."    They say "we've got ten years" - they said that three years ago.    Doesn't that mean we've got seven years?     They insist that they need to be empowered right now - but all the plans are to reduce emissions over 50 years........    

And the sinking islands and "climate refugees" - there's no basis for any of those claims.

http://nzclimatescience.net/images/PDFs/...

9) The simple fact that yes, the warming has leveled off for basically a decade now.    That isn't a short-term trend - that's substantial given that we're talking about only a quarter century of warming.

10) Motive - the fact that a lot of the pro-AGW advocates have for countless other reasons made the same "shut industry down" / "shut energy usage down" / "tax consumption" / "limit consumption" / "the American lifestyle is evil" arguments.    UCS, Greenpeace, PIRG, Sierra Club, the UN, etc.....    Yes this is valid - if $19MM spent by "Big Oil" discredits its recipients, so does billions spent by governments and non-profits who have long argued for the restrictions now being sought to "fight global climate change."

These are groups that not only have an agenda and a motive to advance AGW, but have never conceded being wrong on most of the other environmental scares.    Ehrlich was WRONG and Simon right.   Veblen was WRONG and Schumpeter was right.    Malthus was WRONG and Ricardo was right.    

And it's just all too convenient - - there's a tentacle of the theory to address everything about the American lifestyle that they don't like - - even red meat!    Guns - they haven't come up with a theory that guns exacerbate global warming - but I'm sure they will.  

And for many of them, nuclear is "not the answer."    Right.    It's all about CO2 but nuclear's not the answer?    No, it's about forcing their lifestyle choices on the rest of us - it's about forcing everyone to use compost toilets, squeeze into tiny cars and ban strip malls, plastic shopping bags, bottled water and a whole host of things.       If it were about CO2 then nuclear would be a big part of the answer, there would be no debating that.

There is NO scientific basis for the conclusion that "nuclear isn't the answer, the only answer is to rein in our lifestyles" (meaning for them to rein in mine).  

At the end of the day, yes, CO2 traps heat - but it's a weak GHG and none of the "spiraling feedback effects" occurred during prior similar warm periods; the increase has been 1/11,000th of the atmosphere; it's been warmer when CO2 levels were lower and, further back in the Earth's history, much colder when CO2 levels were much, much higher.

Simply put the closest thing you have to evidence of causation is the cooling upper atmosphere - but that's not completely aligned with where the CO2 ends, and it's also of very recent vintage - - meaning that even if that were irrefutable proof of man-made warming, man would be responsible for ONLY the warming from 1980 to today - net what, 0.4 degrees F?

It's their burden of proof and causation remains unproven.

Answer 9

This started a long time ago, Congress refused to act upon it, nearly 38 years have past and now we are in a race against ourselves and our world, or at least our part of it.

Our greed, and need for ridiculous and constant convenience has been at the root of the problem. A throw away world,  in a paved paradise. It's time for change all right, we need to change and we had better hurry up.

Answer 10

I think global warming is real, and while humans are to blame for it, the earth does naturally warm and cool. l believe that if we do not want the earth to be a complete dump in another 25 to 50 years that we will have to act fast and make drastic changes in our lifestyle.

Answer 11

global warming is happening and undeniable... only multinations are in denial because of hurt interests due to anti-global warming policies

Answer 12

yeah i believe him i mean why would be more rain and wetter some months than dry other months.

Answer 13

no way man i blevive him

Answer 14

Al Gore never saw a mirror he did not like.  He is the ultimate ego-maniac.  Creating hysteria, and shrieking like a little girl, it's no wonder Bill Clinton couldn't stand him.

Answer 15

well there is such a thing as global warming...i just dont believe we are the cause...the earth has warmed and cooled  continually over millions of years...they said the earth was way to warm when the dinosaurs died..and then after that there was an ice age...we cannot gage the temperature of the planet based on 50-100 years....however having said that we need to do a much better job taking care of this place that we live...resources here are not limitless and its our job to protect the jammy setup we have here...

Answer 16

Taking a scientific approach, I researched several scientific databases. After reading the NASA data where they talk about how the surface temperature of all nine planets in the solar system is rising in direct relationship to their distance from the sun (except Jupiter which is also warming from it's own internal heat), and how they measured that - I don't worry about global warming anymore.

I can't change the heat output of the sun nor the solar cycles, nor can I change the surface temperatures of the other planets. These things are simply beyond my power to even influence.

Answer 17

Global warming is not a fake, it is real.  Virtually every major scientific organization agrees with that.

Al Gore is essentially irrelevant to the reality of it.  It would be like calling football fake because you think John Madden doesn't know what he's talking about. Scientists do the science, not Al Gore.  Separate your personal feelings about Al Gore from your beliefs about global warming.

Answer 18

That may be true, but Al Gore does not equal global warming. If you ignore Al Gore, the science supporting global warming is just the same.

It's unfortunate how so many people refuse to look past politics and conspiracy theories to the actual science. If you have a scientific base for you skepticism, then, that is different.

I personally don't agree much with Al Gore, but I still think that global warming is happening. Actually, I really don't like him.

Answer 19

Neither he is helping the liberals of the world move towards one large world government.. if global warming is indeed a global issue.. then only a world government can save us...

his goal.. and the goal of most leftists is a world government that will make decisions for all of us poor uneducated people in our best interests.

Answer 20

algore is doing it to make money ,and get power

Answer 21

Question #1    

Yes

Question #2    

No -- he is crazy like a fox!  Watch how much money he can make from this scam . . . We got trouble right here in River City!

Nobel Prize $1M is just the tip of the iceberg . . .  pun intended!