10 Questions Al Gore can’t answer

I’m going to post a much longer quote than usual today than I normally do because it so perfectly captures the problems that I have with the global warming alarmist crowd:

…like most conservatives, I’m open minded and could be convinced that mankind is responsible for causing global warming — but with science, not scaremongering. If the proponents of the manmade global warming theory can come up with good answers to questions like these, you can expect everyone, including me, to accept their theory:

1) The earth has warmed and cooled numerous times in the past and many of those temperature swings have been much greater than anything we’ve experienced so far. So, since we human beings don’t really understand why those temperature swings occurred, how can we be sure that the very mild warming we’ve seen so far hasn’t been caused by normal changes in our climate?

[My note: Exactly what did humans do that caused the “Little Ice Age” from the 14th-18th centuries and what did we stop doing that caused it to end?]

2) If greenhouse gasses produced by mankind are behind the roughly one degree increase in temperature over the last century, then why did the global temperature go down from roughly 1940 to 1975 even though mankind’s production of greenhouse gasses was skyrocketing during that same time period?

3) We can’t accurately predict whether it’s going to rain or not a week from now. We can’t accurately predict what the weather will look like next year (Remember that in 2005, they were predicting we’d be hammered with non-stop hurricanes in 2006 because of global warming. It didn’t happen). Since that’s the case, how can we possibly have any confidence in predictions of what the weather will be like in 50-100 years?

4) Mars has also been experiencing global warming. Since man can’t be a factor on that planet, doesn’t it suggest that perhaps a factor other than man, i.e. the sun, is responsible for the warming on both planets?

5) Back in the early seventies, the in-vogue scientific theory was that we were in the midst of global cooling that was caused by man. Now, it turns out that there was nothing much behind that except that the global temperature was getting cooler. So, where did they go wrong back in the early seventies and how do we know that we’re not making the same type of mistake today in forecasting global warming?

6) Global warming alarmists will tell you that there is “scientific consensus” that mankind is causing global warming and that only a few scientists disagree. But, there are more than 17,200 scientists who say that, “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 and disruption of the Earth’s climate.” Since that’s the case, how can anyone credibly claim that there is “scientific consensus” on the issue?

7) Even if mankind was responsible for global warming, how would the solutions that are being offered, like Kyoto or carbon credit trading schemes, fix the problem? Big developing countries like India and China are exempt from Kyoto and unlikely to sign on to any deal that hurts their economy, Europe isn’t meeting its Kyoto goals, and environmentalists say Kyoto wouldn’t fix the problem even if all of its targets are met.

8) In Bill Bryson’s book on science, “A Short History Of Nearly Everything,” (and yes, Bryson does appear to be a believer in manmade global warming), he notes that,

“For most of its history until fairly recent times, the general pattern was for earth to be hot with no permanent ice anywhere.” — P.427

That would seem to suggest that despite everything we hear about the “hottest temperatures on record,” the global temperature is significantly cooler than it has been throughout much of earth’s history. Since that’s the case, is the small change in global temperature we’ve seen so far really out of the ordinary or anything to be alarmed about?

9) As Carl Zimmer has noted in Discover, at times in the earth’s past, we’ve had considerably more carbon dioxide in the air that we do today, and yet it’s debatable whether the temperature was significantly warmer,

“During the Ordovician Period, 440 million years ago, there seems to have been 16 times as much carbon dioxide in the atmosphere as there is today–and yet, judging from the gravelly deposits it left behind, there was also an ice sheet near the South Pole that was four-fifths the size of present-day Antarctica. The second exception is even more troubling. The Cretaceous Period, when dinosaurs ruled the Earth and CO2 levels were about eight times what they are today, has been one of the most popular case studies for global warming forecasters. And everyone knows what the climate was like during the dinosaurs’ heyday: steamy. Or was it? The latest evidence, reported just this past summer by British researchers, suggests that temperatures in the tropics 95 million years ago were no higher than they are now; and while it was a lot warmer at the poles than it is today, it was still freezing cold.”

Doesn’t this suggest that there isn’t anywhere near as much of a close relationship between greenhouse gasses like carbon dioxide and the temperature as many people seem to believe?

10) Skeptics of manmade global warming have often pointed out that the rise in global temperature seems to track much more closely to increased solar activity than it does to an increase in manmade greenhouse gasses. Doesn’t that seem to strongly suggest that the sun, not mankind, is more likely to be responsible for global warming?

Bonus Question) If people like Al Gore believe their own hype and think it’s necessary for us to cut back our energy consumption, why aren’t they practicing what they preach? If a global warming fanatic like Al Gore can’t get by on less than 20 times the amount of energy that a regular family uses, how can we reasonably expect the average family to dramatically cut their energy usage?

Quite frankly, if you buy into manmade global warming, you should have good answers for these questions or, if you don’t, admit that your opinion is based more on faith and guesswork than it is on science.

For the full article, click here.

Advertisements

About stevehull

Music director in Naples, FL
This entry was posted in Social Commentary. Bookmark the permalink.

11 Responses to 10 Questions Al Gore can’t answer

  1. Nicole says:

    I have a problem with numbers 4 and 6. I think if they were to be eliminated your argument would only appear stronger…

    The reason I have a problem with 4 is that you later bring up the fact that the earth was warmer during the Ordovician period. Obviously, humans werent around to cause this global warming. How could you use the opposite argument for Mars’ warming?

    And as for number 6, I dont know what your sources are for reaching that very specific number….but seeing as the world population is 6,602,224,175, the amount of scientists who disagree with global warming being 17,200 seems as though it works against your argument more so than for it…

  2. stevehull says:

    The point re: Mars is that whatever is taking place there, it has ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with human activity!

  3. stevehull says:

    As to #6, you are comparing apples and oranges. There may be 6 billion people on the planet, but how many of them are scientists? (Hint: A much, much, much, much smaller number) The point of the 17,200 number of those objecting is that the global warming alarmists keep trying to claim that there is “consensus” among all scientists supporting their alarmist claims and that simply is not true!

  4. Taylor says:

    Many people miss the point about Climate Change. (Let’s call it the way it should be, since your numbers 3 and 5 are fair questions: No one knows exactly, but things WILL change)

    For me it’s not about who caused it, it’s about what’s going to happen. I hate finger pointing, and in the end, it’s useless. Does it matter really, whether humans or the sun caused it? No, because either way, we’ll either survive or we’ll be F***ed.

    Also a couple of your points are moot IMO (if you meant something else, please explain, and I will reconsider). #4, Mars’ situation is entirely different to Earth’s. Mars has almost no atmosphere and is really a completely different system. Atmospheres provide protection from the sun, and they trap heat. If the Sun was getting warmer, Mars would experience a much larger effect than we would, because we have that wonderful atmosphere to block much of the energy. As for #6, you might want to dig up a number of how many scientists concur on Climate Change, I don’t know this number, but I do know that there are 20,000 Reputable American Climatologists, and many more foreign ones. The 17,200 therefore makes up a pretty small number. Another thing to question is the reputability of the 17,200 “scientists” are they peer-reviewed? Are they considered reputable in the larger community of scientists? These are questions you should ask. Most scientist view the IPCC report on Climate Change as one of the most un-biased, well researched, and thorough documents produced examining the problem. It’s an interesting read.

    As for #2, this is called Lag. This can be seen across the board when studying temperature increases and other climate changes. Usually following a large disturbance or trigger, it takes 10 or so years for full effects to be seen.

    Also, lets just think for a moment about numbers 1 and 9. The animals living then were different from us, the landscape was different, and all sorts of things were changing and developing then. I for one would rather not have lived in those times. The CO2 was a biproduct of the extremely frequent volcanic activity. Remember, humanoids as we know them have only lived for 35,000 years. Would we have survived in an atmosphere so choked with carbon.

    #7: Carbon Credits are ridiculous. Kyoto is better, but won’t solve the problem. I don’t have a solution to the problem, but I don’t think that’s what we should worry about. I think we should be worrying about what to do after the Earth has settled into whatever new equilibrium it finds.

    As for the Bonus Point, Al Gore’s an idiot, and that’s all I have to say about him.

    As for me, I am a supporter of global climate change, I am not entirely sure about human induced, but I think that rather than focusing on how to stop what I see as an unstable machine, we should focus on how we can survive through the machine and try to also help our planet’s flora and fauna to adapt as well.

    Also, I don’t mean to spark an argument, rather I only mean to get people thinking, I look forward to you response.

  5. Taylor says:

    As for China…what can I say, they may be the downfall of it all if they can’t get their act together.

  6. Michael says:

    Your argument is?

    1) We aren’t causing global warming.
    2) We can’t do anything about it if we are, so why worry about it?

    Well, that seems like a bit of a cop out, but I won’t argue against you. In any case, I think you need to keep in mind that no one, Al Gore included, thinks that humans are solely responsible for global warming. I think it’s safe to assume that without our influence, the earth will see more fluctuating weather patterns throughout the future. But that’s not really the issue. What’s important to note about the global warming argument is…

    1) It seems as if global warming is happening at an increasing and unhealthy rate. Not unhealthy for people thousands of years in the future, people who are alive today.

    2) It seems that our influence on the global environment is not the sole cause of this rate increase, but a potentially strong factor.

    3) Even if it is not the case that our carbon emissions are affecting the climate in a profound way, it is certainly possible, if not probable, that decreasing carbon emissions may cause a delay in a situation that may or may not be inevitable.

    Personally, I think that, even if we are not the direct cause of an increase in the rate of global warming, it is a problem and it is one that needs to be dealt with. It doesn’t matter what is inherently responsible for global warming, humanity will be affected by it negatively and in turn, it would be in our best interest to do what we can to slow it down.

  7. stevehull says:

    My main argument is that much of what passes for “scientific consensus” on global warming is little more than collossal hype. Planet Earth has warmed and cooled many times during its existence and only recently have humans become so arrogant (deluded??) as to think we are the ones causing it all.

    As for your first claim above that “global warming is happening at an increasing and unhealthy rate”, this simply is not true. The worldwide average atmospheric temperature has not increased AT ALL since 1998. Exactly how does that qualify as an “increasing and unhealthy rate” when it has been steady for a decade? A large part of my skepticism on this stems from the fact that many of the same people who are now screaming about global warming are the same ones painting doomsday scenarios about global COOLING during the 70s.

    As for your point #2, this is where the hype comes into full flower. Human activity is thrown out as a “possible” cause without sufficient proof. Then, based on little but this speculation, we are told we have to cripple our economy to prevent the “possibility” that things might get worse unless we “do something”. This plays right into the hands of the socialists in our midst who long for government to “do something” about everything from food prices to hangnails. Too often the “cure” in these instances is worse than the “disease”!

    As for your 3rd point, carbon emissions have NOT been proven to cause climate change. At best, there is a small degree of CORRELLATION (which is NOT the same as causation.) One of the first principles learned in classic logic is the danger of the post hoc fallacy: “post hoc, ergo propter hoc” – “one came after the other, therefore is was caused by it”. Ain’t necessarily so… and any serious scientist knows this!

    My main point is that anyone who is truly honest admits that we don’t yet really know all the factors that go into climate variation. False claims of “consensus” used as a battering ram to silence all questioning and/or criticism is not science… it is dogmatism masquerading as science.

  8. David says:

    I read all of these comments with interest. I am not a scientist and thus sit squarely on the fence with regard to global warming. However your latest follow up has one factor that I would like you to show me some proofs of. That point is the one about “crippling” our economy. For instance, without deviating too far from the original argument, one could suggest that electric cars are an incentive to preventing high carbon emissions and by switching to these mankind would be helping to stem the flow of global warming. I don’t believe that this process would in fact cripple an economy. In fact I personally believe that it would stimulate it. A fact that is much harder to dispute is that oil is a limited resource. Therefore finding alternatives in fact would benefit the economy in the long run as the motor industry will exist even longer. I agree that scaremongering does little but is it not the case that much of the work done through eco-types can in fact have benefits to the economy by increasing the efficiency of systems and the reduction of waste. I also have admiration for those that see natural beauty in place s and animals on our planet and wish to preserve them. These knock-on effects of living a greener lifestyle, I believe, fuel a happier and well rounded society and do little, really, to hinder upon our economic systems

  9. David says:

    sorry for using the words “in fact” so frequently. I should have reread my comment before posting. Long day.

  10. Scott says:

    David, though you are thinking on the right track you are forgetting that electricity doesn’t just come from our wall sockets. About 50-70% of electricity comes from fossil fuels such as coal and oil. while “green” methods (i. e. solar panels and windmills) make up less than 5%. in order to generate enough energy through solar panels we would have to more than cover the whole earth and even then we would be at the mercy of constant upkeep and have an intense fear of cloudy days. Anyhow my point being, that if you increase the electric power demand the fossil fuels will needed to be drawn upon in order to meet those demands. I agree that we need to look for alternative ways to generate the energy we need to live but these ways need to be plausible. reducing our carbon emissions by increasing our coal and oil burning just doesn’t work.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s