FORMER Vice President Al Gore's latest triumph, claiming his share of the Nobel Peace Prize last week, must be pretty frustrating for people who disagree with him on global warming.
Advertisement
While many Americans may not know it, there's considerable disagreement in scientific circles with the view that humans are the major cause of global warming. The dissenters don't have Gore's profile, his ability to attract attention — but then none of them has ever won a Nobel Prize or an Academy Award, as Gore did for his global warming documentary, "An Inconvenient Truth.”
The naysayers have credible arguments. A number of climate experts think Gore exaggerates the warming threat and humankind's contribution. They take issue with the methodology of the United Nations' panel that periodically releases reports predicting dramatic climate change.
"The whole process is a swindle,” writes Vincent Gray of New Zealand, a climate scientist and member of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's expert reviewers' panel. "The IPCC from the beginning was given the license to use whatever methods would be necessary to provide ‘evidence' that carbon dioxide increases are harming the climate, even if this involves manipulation of dubious data and using peoples' opinions instead of science to ‘prove' their case.”
Strong words — ones Gore and other global warming activists usually dismiss as the rant of people trapped in denial. Polls show Gore's side is getting the best of the give-and-take. Having a Nobel and an Oscar in your pocket has its merits.
So is Gore right, or does he wield the biggest megaphone? Are humans causing global warming, or does that notion have exaggerated acceptance because so many environmentalists, activists and government bureaucracies are pushing it — with philosophically aligned, awards-giving groups like the Nobel committee and Hollywood following them?
Good questions.
Leave a comment.
Log in below or sign up (it's free).
Debate? What debate? Oh, The Oklahoman found some guy in NEW ZEALAND who disagrees with the vast concensus of scientific opinion, and now its a "debate." Sorry, but this is the same strategy the tobacco companies used, and the flat-earthers use. Find one doctor who disagrees, and suddenly its all just "one opinion vs. another." Perhaps we should pay attention to WHO it is that wants to make this a "debate." Why, it appears to be politicians and business-friendly media from the oil producing states. Hmmmmmmm.
When all our clean air and water are gone, and our ozone is so thin that it no longer shields us from meteorites, then will we still discuss if global warming is manmade or not? These last few years we've seen storm systems the likes of which we have never seen in recorded meteorological times. We need to take steps now. We need to go along with the rest of the world. We need to lead the way into tomorrow, rather than trying to bleed out as much energy profits as possible, putting at risk our planet. Let's be sensible before it's too late.
As far as the Nobel Peace prize goes, Jimmy Carter and Yassar Arafat won it too. I would say Al is in some real good company. As in the military, an award that is given for philosopical reasons rather than merit is a "denigrated award".
I could care less who won Florida. I care a lot about somebody cramming socialism and communism down my throat. Control is control, and this is an issue about controlling and exploiting people and taxing them on their use of hydrocarbons. It has nothing to do with "GLOBAL WARMING".
While I agree that conservation of natural resources and recycling is just good stewardship, as well as controlling pollution of the soil, water, and atmsophere, I am very skeptical of anything the U.N. does or endorses and I think that time will reveal that Al Gore and the Democratic Party see this as a huge opportunity to control more people, just as the socialist they are. When you are preaching to the masses conservation and sacrifice and your own greed and "carbon footprint" is hundreds of times what the normal among us is, I will not take you seriously as others will not either. I am reminded of Karl Marx, who never worked a day in his miserable pathetic life, thought that he was too good to actually be a part of his utopian mission because he was the self ordained "messenger". Be very wary of those who would whip us up into a hysteria over an issue that is largely based on assumption, prediction, unproven and unprovable theories and speculations.
Boy you guys at the DO really don't like Gore do you? This "Gore bashing" is really becoming transparent in its intent. Still pissed he really won Florida? Give us the straight scoop!
This man-made global warming stuff is bunk! I heard Rush himself say it. Besides, it's all in God's hands. If it's His will that we burn up with global warming then there's nothing that can be done to stop it. My pastor agrees. So go ahead and buy the big SUV you've been wanting, it will make no difference when we all get called home. Besides, Al Gore works for the U.N., the same agency that wants to confiscate our guns and make us drive little cars. You folks should really be careful where you get your news from.
Fred, your commentary is fair and reasonable. I don't have an answer for you regarding the ice age and I'm not, in fact, a scientist? And while it's unfortunate we don't have temperature readings from more than 300 years ago, what we do have today is probably actionable enough to warrant concern. Again, you raise good questions, but the majority of the scientific community (Heck, even Exxon today) acknowledges that the earth is warming and human activity has/does contribute to it. We don't know to what extent but we need to quit arguing and start coming up with some forward-thinking solutions. The Oklahoman and the Republican Party leadership unfortunately still want to make this a political issue, which it shouldn't be. Again, even Exxon, who formerly paid the scientist who questioned Global Warming theory, is now reversing its position and acknowledging that the evidence confirms it. Only Inhofe and the Oklahoman editorial board seem willing to continue this argument.
While I agree that we as humans need to curtail pollution and conserve what we have, and continue to develop other means of power for our homes and vehicles, I still have a problem with one small detail. Not Al Gore or anybody else on that side of the argument can tell us why the Ice Age went away over 10,000 years ago. Until they do that, I believe this is part of the wedge issue. The bar argument works both ways. We learned in grade school that the earth goes through climate cycles regularly (in earth terms, thousands of years). Which is why we got an Ice Age in the first place, and then it went away. Another problem I have is the temperature samples we have. We have only been recording accurate temp and weather data for maybe 300 years, and that is probably being generous. Since the Earth is 4 billion years old, we don't have a truly accurate picture of the earth's weather and climate.
Again, no question we have polluted our planet, destroyed species, and should work to be cleaner and more efficient with what we have left, but a simple answer to a simple question would break down the hysteria on both sides and hopefully bring everyone closer to working together on a solution.
Why take the chance that most of the World's leading scientist's are wrong ? If we can stop some of the pollution and give the planet a better chance for survival why not? After all we have been known to buy in and invest heavily in other ventures based on misleading and fearful propaganda in recent years!
Why take the chance that most of the World's leading scientist's are wrong ? If we can stop some of the pollution and give the planet a better chance for survival why not? After all we have been known to buy in and invest heavily in other ventures based on misleading and fearful propaganda in recent years!
The vast majority of scientists support Mr. Gore's position. That is a fact. That it's not unequivocally proven is a red herring. Here's a simple question: what is the harm in mankind taking steps to ensure that it is not causing further warming to the planet? Isn't that just a matter of erring on the side of precaution? This much is true: if man is partially responsible, which I believe along with the vast majority of science, but we do nothing to decrease our carbon footprint until it's absolutely proven, it will be too late. I'm not arrogant enough to say I have the final answer, but I do want my daughter -- and her children in the future -- to have a world to enjoy, and if curtailing my habits makes that more possible, I will err on the side of caution out of respect to her and her future. People need to quit acting like this is some argument in a bar in which you refuse to cede your position out of pride or ego. I couldn't care less about winning an argument; I'm interested in doing what I can to ensure our universe isn't destroyed by negligent overuse of the resources God made available to us. We have dominion over the earth, but that is a great responsibility. The least we can do to live up to that responsibility is to treat this great gift with respect. Not to mention, if the US took the lead on developing new sources of alternative energy, we could have an economic boom that would dwarf the dot-com halcyon days.
12
Again, no question we have polluted our planet, destroyed species, and should work to be cleaner and more efficient with what we have left, but a simple answer to a simple question would break down the hysteria on both sides and hopefully bring everyone closer to working together on a solution.