Is Man Made Global Warming A Hoax Now?

That simply isn't true. The overwhelming majority of independent scientists agree about global warming. Al Gore would not have gotten the Nobel Prize if it was dubious.

 

Al Gore uses more carbon in one month than the average household does in one year.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vWkW37wfQQo

 

I guess that explains why the US President who just committed to more troops in the war in Afghanistan, a country that never attacked the US, constitutes the reason for confering the Peace Prize on him. The Nobel Prize means nothing anymore except the 1 million + the recipients receive. Mr. Gore set the precedent.

 

He invented the internet he should be granted Sainthood without question.

 

The CO2 levels right now are higher than they've been in atleast 650,000 years and up to 20million years. Since all the variables are interrelated how could that not effect temperature?

 

OK, I admit that Obama isn't the most deserving person this year, but he does have significant accomplishments.

And by the way, you can say that about Iraq, but it's a bit of a stretch to say we are not fighting people in Afghanistan who attacked America. Come on -- everyone agrees we had the right to go in there in 2001. But W made a mess of it and now Obama has to do some cleanup.

Don't change the subject.

 

That's just coming from hate. It's irrelevant as long as he is being effective in saving the world, which he is. That's why he got the Nobel Peace Prize.

 

I would guess you think you have mother nature all figured out. Explain to me wy the scientists had to lie to make their case?

 

That is such an exaggeration that it amounts to a lie. You are trying to make it sound like ALL scientists lied and falsified data.

"The e-mails at the heart of the so-called Climategate scandal show that climate scientists are guilty of anger toward global warming skeptics, but they do not support claims that climate change is a vast conspiracy, according to the Associated Press, which reviewed the 1,073 messages in question." -- Associated Press

 

The evidence is still unchanged.

 

I never thought about it but that farce was also a peace prize wasn't it? It wasn't for science,,, that should have been a wake up call for all of us.

Al Gore save the world?, thank god he wasn't elected his vice president would have been Lieberman. Lieberman would have been for saving Israel but I doubt he would have considered saving anyone else.

You want to save the enviornment ask Israel about Dimona? Ask them how they are going to deal with that toxic waste?

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/israel/documents/reveal/index.html

 

Why were there Afghanis on those planes, was the Afghani public polled? Most Afghanis didn't even know what had happened on 09/11 until their country was invaded they don't have mass media or even easy access to TV. Bin Laden is not an Afghani and he was not found in Afghanistan. Bin Laden is/was a Saudi.

I don't agree and never have that invading Afghanistan was right and just...it was simply adolescent style retaliation. Seemed to make some puff up with patriotism and pride, but it accomplished nothing but a huge long term debt.

 

That's like saying the Enron memos and emails were irrelevant. The AP wasn't exactly on top of their scam either.

Or like with Iraq say it often and strident enough and everyone will believe the sky is falling and Iraq had WMD, even though sane UN inspectors kept telling us they didn't.

Maybe you still believe in the tooth fairy and Santa Claus? Or perhaps you believe Goldman Sachs executives deserve bonuses for their contribution to our national stability.

 

The carbon footprint of any one person is unimportant. What matters is what millions of people do. That's why it is important to work on public policy issues. Voluntary efforts of scattered individuals will never make a dent in the problem.

The e-mails in question involve a relatively small group of people. There is a world-wide scientific consensus on the existence of global warming.

Bin Laden was in Afghanistan at the time that we invaded, and his friends in the Taliban are still there. We would follow Bin Laden into Pakistan if they didn't have nuclear weapons, but they do. We're doing what we can to make the situation better.

 

So as individuals we can keep on doing what we like?

The scientists writing these emails weren't part of the scientific consensus? Can we be sure there aren't more out there?

I thought his friends were Al Qaeda? Doesn't the US give Pakistan Aid money every year (the Associated Press reported that between 2002 and 2008, only $500 million of $6.6 billion in military aid meant to help Pakistan fight militants was actually spent on its intended purpose.), weren't they considered part of the coalition against terrorism? You mean we've been afraid of them all this time because they have the bomb, yet we send them money?

 

Ha. Well, if you want to put your faith in the Nobel Peace Prize committee then that's your problem. I would prefer to see some more scientific evidence and less politically-motivated pseudoscience.

First, what we have is a correlation between CO2 levels and temperature levels; any first year philosophy student can tell you that correlation does not imply causation. Second, arctic ice core samples have not been proven as a reliable method of measuring temperature. And third, the correlation of the CO2 and temperature levels really depends on which data sets you're matching up; there are many that are a lot less compatible. Those graphs are usually combinations of the data sets that match up the best.

 

I don't believe in man-made global warming, but I wish it was true...

I'd make sure to pollute as much as possible.

I'd love for the global temp to go up a couple degrees.

 

If he believes that Global Warming is such a pressing issue, wouldn't he practice what he preaches?? The top three carbon producers on this world are Rotting Forestation, Forest Fires, and Volcanoes....I do believe that we pollute a lot more than we should, but I don't believe the issue is as drast as everyone is making it out to seem. The people making the biggest deal about it are making money from it....

 

In my opinion, it would make no significant difference, except for the way that it makes you feel about yourself.

When the Taliban was in power, Al Qaeda was free to operate as many bases and training facilities in Afghanistan as they wanted. If the Taliban were to return to power, we have no reason to believe that things would be any different next time. Both groups have similar theological views, and they get along well.

Our relationship with Pakistan is extremely complicated. Pakistan hates India, which is also a nuclear power, and we are trying to get along with both of them. Pakistan also wants to control radical Islam within its borders, but does not want to stir things up too much and possibly trigger a civil war that could result in a new radical government with control over nuclear weapons. I don't think anybody knows exactly what to do about Pakistan. Fixing that situation makes unscrambling an egg look simple.

Any competent physics lab staff can prove that CO2 traps solar energy better than the current mixture of gasses in our atmosphere. And an extreme example of what CO2 can do is the planet Venus. It is closer to the sun than we are, but not enough closer to result in a 900 degree average temperature. So we are not relying on correlations to prove anything.

I know you're probably joking, but if you have a favorite beach, you're not going to be happy when it goes under water.

Those sources give us our normal levels of CO2, which gave us our normal average temperatures for hundreds of years (at least). That's what we need to get back to. If we found some way to get rid of all CO2, including that produced by natural sources, we would go into an ice age.

 

Well, once again, you believe the simplified science. Earth's climate is way too complex to reliably trace something like temperature increase to a single variable like CO2.