Do you think An Inconvenient Truth is correct in saying man is cause of global warming?

Question

So how come even after calling on everyone to conserve energy by reducing electricity consumption at home, Gore used nearly 221,000 kWh - more than 20 times the national average (the average householdconsumes 10,656 kWh per year). How come since the release of An Inconvenient Truth, Gore’s energy consumption has increased from 16,200 kWh per month in 2005, to 18,400 kWh per month in 2006. Why is he talking the talk, but not willing to walk the walk?

Also, how come more than 17,000 scientists (including 2,660 physicists, geophysicists, climatologists, meteorologists, oceanographers, and environmental scientists who are especially well qualified to evaluate the effects of carbon dioxide on the Earth's atmosphere and climate) signed the Global Warming Petition saying "There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere..."?

Answer 1

just like no one believed we could cure diseases , land on the moon and all of the other great scientific advances we have made...answer me this....if a tree falls and no one hears it, does it make a noise?... global warming is gradual and if you pay attention, more and more scientists are starting to believe the global warming theory...

Answer 2

Not correct at all and here is why:

This year has been the coldest April in 113 years.

Ironically last year (April 2006) was the very hottest

April on record ever.

http://www.agweb.com/get_article.aspx?pa...

Since carbon dioxide levels are about the same, what

else could be causing this?

Well according to skeptics of CO2/Global warming

theories, Earths climate changes are directly related

to solar activity and sunspot levels more than CO2

levels.

See this site for background info:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/natur...

So based on that, I thought I would take a look to see

how the solar activity and sunspots levels from April

2006 (the hottest April on record) compares to the

current solar activity and sunspot levels from this

April 2007. Here is what I found:

April 2006 (the warmest April ever on record):

http://www.dxlc.com/solar/old_reports/20...

April 2007 (so far the coldest in over 100 years)

http://www.dxlc.com/solar/indices.html

Notice a pattern in sunspot activity???????

Pretty amazing isn't it.

Answer 3

Yes.  Because of the vast body of scientific data, not because of anything in the movie.  You may dislike Al Gore, but he has absolutely nothing to do with global warming science.

Very short version:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Clima...

The best summary of the data available:

http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf

Scientists have seen much stranger things than global warming (like Einstein's relativity or quantum mechanics) proved to be true by data.  So the data, not "logical" arguments, is what they go by.  The data is why why the vast majority of scientists agree that it's real and mostly caused by us.  Data about that here:

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/fu...

The "Oregon Petition" is of dubious validity.  Many of the signatures are clearly fakes (celebrities names, etc.) and there are other irregularities.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Peti...

http://www.desmogblog.com/node/1067

"In April 1998, Robinson’s Oregon Institute, along with the Exxon-backed  George C. Marshall Institute , released a petition on global warming and the Kyoto Protocol that was so misleading it prompted the National Academy of Science to issue a news release stating that: "The petition project was a deliberate attempt to mislead scientists and to rally them in an attempt to undermine support for the Kyoto Protocol.”"

Answer 4

The entire debate on Global Warming is an interesting scientific debate which will go on and on for generations. During this debate we will restle between the Earth and its normal fluctuations and Human Beings and our impact. Other important parts of this debate are being sidelined in the process.

Economic considerations should be taken into account during the arguement about sustainable energy. The oil wells of the world will run out. The Sun will not. The wind will not. The tides will not. Geothermal will not either. As oil comes closer and closer to running out, it becomes more and more expensive to use. Economics will eventually dictate that the other sustainable energy sources must be mined. If every home in the United States were to have a solar array capable of generating 1500 kWh per month their would be no need to build new electric plants for some time. Their woudl be no need to build additional capacity into the nation's electric grid. Their would be greater redundencies built into the safety of our electric grid by default. Now this can only work during the day when the sun is shining, but when is our electric demand the greatest? Our electric demand is the greatest during the hot summer days when the sun is out in all its might and the mercury tops 90 or more degrees. During this time, our electri grip is stretched to capacity and then some. We can either increase our electric grid capacity at the cost of many millions of dollars or we can reduce the need for the additional capacity by adding solar arrays on all new construction and retrofitting older structures with solar arrays as well. Will this eliminate our need for oil? No. Will it reduce our need? Yes. This is just what can be done with Solar arrays, Immagine what can be done with a combined array of Solar, Wind and Geothermal. We could nearly eliminate the need for foriegn oil. What woudl this do to our national economy? To our individual economies?

Political Considerations play an ever bigger part in our energy needs. The oil which countries like Russia, Canada, Saudia Arabia, Iran, Iraq, Venizwallia and other countries import to us are not all politically friendly towards us. Right now their is a stand off between Iran and the rest of the world reguarding Nuclear enrichment. If the US or any other nation carries fourth any military action against Iran, the energy implications for the world must be taken into account. With a far greater reliance on sustainable energies such as stated above, this woudl not be a consideration nearly as big as it is now. If it were not for Energey considerations, the Monroe Doctrine could nor fully be implimented in reguards to Hugo Chaves. Right now, we need what he sells --- oil. If we do not want to be at the mercy of OPEC like we were in the early and mid 70's we had better develop alternative sustainable energy resources which can be home developed. Unless we do this, we will find ourselves back in the days of anternate gas days and much higher prices for what we can get. If the sticker shock of alternative energy 's initial outlay is great, what will it be when gas is $10 a gallon? Their are a great deal more reasons why we need to impliment global warming solutions other than just global warming. It needs to be done and not just because 100 years from now New York City might be underwater, but because at any time Chavez and Iran could put a choke hold on the world oil supply and what could we really do about it but freeze in the winter and roast in the summer?

Answer 5

Why does Gore do that?

I don't care.

17,000? Is that all? There are 6 Billion People on this planet, and you could only find 17,000 experts who would disagree? Is that supposed to be an impressive number? Do you know what a tiny percentage that is? Do you know what an abstract term 'convincing' is?

As far as the tobacco lobby is concerned, there's no convincing evidence that smoking is directly related to cancer. And 20 years ago, you could have found well more than 17,000 specialists that would say so. Just in the United States.

Again, I bring up the point.. Even if there isn't a unanimus 'concensus', all signs point to 'Caution' and we just hit the gas and keep plowing on ahead. As much as you can find people that aren't convinced, you aren't finding anyone who say 'It just ain't so'.. except for people who aren't qualified.

As much as there are 17,000 qualified people.. I am still laughing at this number.. who say they aren't convinced, you'll noticed none of them are risking their careers on the gamble that 'human carbon emissions are not having an adverse effect on the ecological structure of the planet'. When you get 17,000 qualified scientists to say that, let me know.

Because I want to know who's going to be unemployed in 10 years. :D

Answer 6

No, the first earth day in 1970 the crisis of the day was global cooling, it's all hype.

The dirty little secret is this is a back door tax on the west by the UN. the Kyoto cuts in CO2 are so sever there is no way any country will meet them. what will the penalty be, you ask???

why of course we will have to pay the UN a substantial amount of money to by our absolution.

I think the Catholic Church used to do that, pay for your sins in hard cash and you will get into heaven.

Answer 7

From what I have read and heard, the vast majority of the scientific community agrees that human activities are contributing to global warming. And I think that is the semantical difference. Maybe we are not CAUSING global warming, but we are accellarating it. And then again, maybe we are causing it. However I think that is the point that is not agreed upon.

Global warming is a reality, no matter the cause.

Answer 8

Man is the cause of speeding up global warming. The atmosphere will have a larger amount of carbon dioxide, but we're putting so much of it into the atmosphere every second.

Ever wonder why Mercury is the closest planet to the sun but it's not nearly as hot as venus, which is further? Because Venus has a thick atmosphere with tons of Carbon Dioxide, so it traps all the heat and radiation.

However this process on earth is most likely natural with time as well. We just really put the pedal to the metal on it. Just look at the statistics. Before the industrial revolution we didn't use all of these energy sources extensively like heating, a/c, cars, factories, cuz we didnt have em.

It's not natural. Animals don't come up with this intelligence. If we lived like cave men we'd have a cleaner earth, but shorter life expectancy.

However there's also the process of the ice age, and climate change in regions around the world. Barren cold regions can become tropical warm, vice versa, through 10 000's of years or so.

Answer 9

No, but it is a good way to scare those who are ignorant, or will not think for themselves, as well as to sell something. The sheep have been made afraid, now to herd them in the direction we want them to go. While that may sound cynical, it is the truth, and has been the way the people have been treated for centuries.

Answer 10

If Gore is a hypocrite, that doesn't mean he's actually wrong about global warming. He could be a bad guy and the Earth could still be in hot water, so to speak.

The information in your second paragraph is highly misleading, or an outright fabrication.

Answer 11

to a great extent yes

there is a lot of evidence of man made climate change .and there are many reasons to hide the truth

scientists who work for politicians ,get paid by these politicians and they have downplayed the facts because solutions are expensive and means change and change effects many peoples incomes,and upsets profit margins,so most of the world is kept in the dark of the real things that are going on.for political and economic reasons

Global warming is a very complex collection of many effects

this text only covers some aspects of global warming ,mainly agriculture i.e.effects of deforestation and subsequent man made desertification

water and air polution such as caused by

industrial contamination ,the contaminating effects of the cities(the internal combustion engine) ,are other stories,

and all of these are also man made ,such as the high industrial chimneys pumping contamination into the clouds and the burning of tires,some of this polution has been found in the ice in the polar regions

there are natural cycles in the planets life

but a lot is influenced by mans existance ,and this is increasing with overpopulation,putting strains on Natural resources and increasing contaminations as well as destructions of essential componants the ensure living conditions for all life forms

climate change is caused in great parts by desertification ,and most desertification is caused by man

the thinner ozone layer helps to speed this up.and this is caused mainly by air polution ,also as a result of mans actions

DEFORESTATION

in the past

the Building of the Spanish Armada deforrested Spain

the Phoenician trading fleet turned Lebanon in a dessert

Ganges Khan put everything to the sword and torch, then filled the wells with sand,

the sun finished of the job and whole countries turned to wastelands.

Today ,

Slash and burn destroys the protective vegetation (which helps to form the soil ),

leaving it open to the Sun ,and then ,wind and, water erosion.

The Plough turns the soil ,killing micro-biotic life (essential to soil building) and accelerates the drying out .

Pressures of the :vehicles, cattle and rain impact brings the salt to the surface.

Mono cultures ,aided by chemicals Exhaust and pollutes the soil .

Adding to this the effects of overgrazing has resulted in large scale desertification.

and there is less and less water (because of deforestation),to irrigate this production ,Farmers

are overpumping deep carbon aquifiers

and plowing more and more unstable lands going into the jungles and onto mountain slopes

expanding populations and expanding farming ,that has to keep pace with the expanding populations are very strong forces that encroach upon the rainforest's

clearing them for farming and settlement areas .

Rainforest's always are in third world countries and always in third world countries corruption and the need for money s highest

in North Africa,India,Mexico ,millions of people are effected by land loss and desertification and some have died as a result

,the Sahara is growing by 7 kilometers a year

and most of the desserts we know are a results of mans actions ,and they are increasing ,not getting less ,in the dinosaurs days ,there were no desserts.

collectively this planet is drying up ,

each degree rise in temperature means 10%crop loss

and there is less and less water (because of deforestation),to irrigate this production ,

and there are less and less farmers to do it..

Arable lands and their farms are lost all over the globe. Many farmers sons abandon farming and head for the cities.

Northern China is drying up, what once were millions of food producing people, are now hungry refugees ,running for their lives from the all consuming dust storms.

This will have a great effect on world food prices when they start buying at what ever cost, to feed their people. .

The farmers that are left have to feed some 70 million more people than the year before but with less topsoil.

Over the last half century,

Population growth & rising incomes have tripled world grain demand from 640 million tons to 1,855 million

In the near future the global farming community will not be able to feed every body ,food prices will continue to rise. .

RISING SEAS

The northpole is melting ,and we will know it without ice in our life times.

this does not affect the sea level because it is ice that is already in the water.but the melting ice from Green land and the south pole ,are another matter

Global warming could be slowed down to some extent,but it will mean global co operation between all countries ,and taking into account human nature and the world politics ,it is unlikely that this will happen,

At least not untill we are all in the middle of planetary disastres and it becomes a battle for the survival of humanity every where,instead of just some third world countries Source(s) here are a 100 ways to help

http://www.eco-gaia.net/forum-pt/index.p...

http://www.greenpeace.org/international/...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/natur...

Answer 12

No, I think it's Al Gore's only way he can get anybody to pay attention to him.  I've read both sides of the story and I feel the evidence is stronger for the side that understands that mankind is not causing global warming.  It should be obvious to others, but just like most doctors who feel they are helping people by giving them drugs, many scientists would like to believe that the work they are doing is somehow helping mankind.  They are both sadly mistaken.