Al Gore is wrong on global warming

At a time when the people of the world are lauding his work as an environmentalist, 1 leading SCIENTIST is laughing at the whole thing.

"ONE of the world's foremost meteorologists has called the theory that helped Al Gore share the Nobel Peace Prize "ridiculous" and the product of "people who don't understand how the atmosphere works".

Dr William Gray, a pioneer in the science of seasonal hurricane forecasts, told a packed lecture hall at the University of North Carolina that humans were not responsible for the warming of the earth.

His comments came on the same day that the Nobel committee honoured Mr Gore for his work in support of the link between humans and global warming."

www.smh.com.au...

He goes on to explain that in certain periods of time, there were many more hurricanes than what are being linked as increases due ot global warming.

Although, his mentioning of the salinity content of the worlds oceans' as being directly related to the number of hurricanes is a new theory to me...I firmly believe we are lying to our youth, as the good doctor goes on to say. Global warming might be going on, but there is no one out there that can PROVE to me it is caused by humans. In fact global warming looks like this........warming, cooling, warming, cooling, warming, cooling.....get the picture??? Cycles, cylces everywhere....Like all cycles, this one too will runout of gas and a new one will begin. Can't wait for all the global cooling theories..... they should be fun!!!!!

[edit on 15-10-2007 by traderonwallst]

Phew! thank god for that! I can now ignore the other 98% of the worlds established scientifc opinion and take my 911 turbo for a spin, before coming home and relaxing under my patio heater and book a long haul flight to the Maldives! I'm with you pal, screw the Polar Bears!

reply to post by traderonwallst


So... Basically all the chemicals we release into the atmosphere on a daily basis from our vehicles, our factories, and from piles of trash people still burn all the time are doing nothing to our atmosphere or the climate. The fact that the poles are melting has nothing to do with what we, as humans, have done to the planet. I agree that the earth goes through cycles of warm and cool periods, thus the ice ages, but to say that what we are doing to our planet on a daily basis has no effect is arrogant. It's like constantly eating fatty foods and then saying that it had no effect on your cholesterol levels.

The debate of whether we are or are not the main cause of global warming is getting truly irritating.

The point, I think, should be what if we are and what if we could have done something about it?

Would it not be worth making some sort of effort for the sake of our children, our children's children, etc... ?

Originally posted by Fang
Phew! thank god for that! I can now ignore the other 98% of the worlds established scientifc opinion and take my 911 turbo for a spin, before coming home and relaxing under my patio heater and book a long haul flight to the Maldives! I'm with you pal, screw the Polar Bears!

98% ???? Really?

If you start throwing cr*p like that around...please cite something, otherwise you look kind of foolish. Nothing of what you makes sense. I am not debating global warming....It is currently happening, but wait a while, we will be debating global cooling next. Here is what I am saying....GLOBAL WARMING EXISTS.....its natural and part of the earth cycle.

What I am saying, is WE ARE NOT CAUSING IT. You show me any proof...and I mean any PROOF...that it is caused by humans. Don;t give me the line, we contribute to it, that don't wash with me. Cows do too by farting. Volcanoes contribute a whole hell of alot more than any human does.

Go ahead. Cite your 98%.....then prove to me that we cause it!!!! I dare ya!

Originally posted by traderonwallst
Don;t give me the line, we contribute to it, that don't wash with me.

You're saying all the pollutants that we pump into the atmosphere are NOT contributing to global warming?

Originally posted by uv777bk
The debate of whether we are or are not the main cause of global warming is getting truly irritating.

The point, I think, should be what if we are and what if we could have done something about it?

Would it not be worth making some sort of effort for the sake of our children, our children's children, etc... ?

I am so totally with you on this, every single word including the smiley (or is that a frowney?)

Posted this article link before, I'm going to post it again in case some other ATS'er missed it.

Are we asking the wrong questions about global warming?

Public discussion over global warming is often caught in a vortex of misinformation perpetuated by extreme forces who say it’s all just a big hoax.

This often causes the most relevant scientific questions to get lost, suggests Washington state climatologist Philip Mote, who has been working for years to understand climate changes brought about by human activity.

What we should be talking about when we talk about climate change, Mote suggests, is no longer if it is occurring but how and where. Further, what lasting impacts climate change will have upon individual regions like the Pacific Northwest, and most important, what can we do about it"

TraderOnWallSt: This is specifically for you:
Less Than Half of all Published Scientists Endorse Global Warming Theory

Byrd has covered your challenge.

To finish it off, read my sig.

NO...what I am saying is contributing is not the same as causing. People scream and yell that we are the cause of GLOBAL warming. Its just not the case. Farting "contributes" to it. Should we tax the cows every time they fart? Should we tax the farmers. I am just tired of that line....."CONTRIBUTING"

What doesn't contribute to glabal warming? Solar power? People use solar power to generate electricity to power items that cause pollution. Isn't that ironic???????

If we could take the whole "contributing cause" out of the global warming arguuement....what would we be left with?

A "HOLE" lot of quiet!!!!!!

Let me get a kidney shot in here while the crowd is running over Coma's always helpful links.

From my end of the spectrum.

Also, just you know I'm not wasting your time..

Your whopper is doing more harm than your car.

If they're going after the auto and meat industries, I don't really think you can discredit it with one article.

Originally posted by traderonwallst
What I am saying, is WE ARE NOT CAUSING IT. You show me any proof...and I mean any PROOF...that it is caused by humans. Don;t give me the line, we contribute to it, that don't wash with me. Cows do too by farting. Volcanoes contribute a whole hell of alot more than any human does.

Go ahead. Cite your 98%.....then prove to me that we cause it!!!! I dare ya!

There is lots of evidence that humans are contributing to the current warming trend. The IPCC is the place to see it. But it is sufficient to know that CO2 is without question a GHG to understand we make at least some contribution. That's before we take into account other human-sourced impacts.

I'd like to see the evidence that volcanoes produce more GHGs than human do each year, or even over the last 100. Volcanoes produce about 100-200 million tonnes of CO2, a quick search of human emissons will put this into context. This is about 150 times smaller than human CO2.

Or in picture form for the last 100 years:



ABE: I like the problem you have with people pointing out the strawman issue you raise. We are causing warming, we are contributing to warming, we just aren't likely to be causing 100%. I guess we should say 'yah, we are causing 100%' just to provide you a straw-based quarry.

[edit on 15-10-2007 by melatonin]

Originally posted by uv777bk
The debate of whether we are or are not the main cause of global warming is getting truly irritating.

The point, I think, should be what if we are and what if we could have done something about it?

Would it not be worth making some sort of effort for the sake of our children, our children's children, etc... ?

What is irritating is when people do not have the education or scientific understanding needed to even evaluate the data, and yet form not only conclusions, but alarmist conclusions just because people like Al Gore make wild claims.

Before you make any judgments about global warming, please examine this chart a friend sent to me. Can you debunk this data?

It's really very simple:

Cows cannot choose not to fart.

People on the other hand can CHOOSE and ACT to reduce the harmful things they put into the air.

One example being reducing beef consumption (which is not not necessary) so that there are not inordinate amounts of cattle on the planet who will inevitably "rip nasties". In this case, people DIRECTLY control, through demand, that there be X amount of cattle on the planet to support the world's fascination with red meat. Don't get me wrong - I LOVE HAMBURGERS- but I also like living. If i had to give up my burgers, I would gladly do so, they are really doing so tremendous work with soy.

I cannot even believe there is debate on global warming.

The fact that you cannot believe there is a debate only shows that you have used few, if any, unbiased resources to form your opinions.

Say for the sake of argument that the average temperature will increase 3 degrees in the next 100 years. Now please tell me what percentage of that increase will attributable to human technology, and what percentage will be attributable to solar heating? Is it 50/50? 90/10? Do you have any clue how to even calculate the answer to this question?

I am incredibly surprised that people on a forum such as ATS that is devoted to conspiracies are not the least bit suspicious when the United Nations and Al Gore are awarded the Nobel Prize, which caused the NY Times to promptly declare this means all of the global warming hysteria has been validated.

Originally posted by uv777bk
The debate of whether we are or are not the main cause of global warming is getting truly irritating.

WEll .. buck up. It needs to be discussed so that the truth of the matter may be gotten to.

A guy got an Oscar and the Nobel Peace Prize for pumping out WRONG INFORMATION about global warming.

MORE proof of Al Gore FALSELY getting awards on his global warming crap.

The IPCC......they championed the hockey stick theory. Oh wait, they used incorrect data. DEBUNKED!

CO2? Isn't that carbon dioxide? What do we produce by breathing? Should we all stop breathing? Oh wait. Without CO2, plants would not get what they need. Then they will die, and won;t bea ble to produce oxygen for us. Wow, now thats a conundrum. Lets save the world.....lets all stop breathing. Without us and without plants, it will tuly be a beautiful place to live.

Sorry, just buying any crap today. Not in a good mood.

reply to post by traderonwallst


Hmm. 'Crap' and 'foolish' I'm devastated but I'll try and struggle on. But it's difficult to know where to begin, as I can't find one respected National/International Scientific body which claims that the current warming is entirely a natural cyclical phenomena. So I expect 98% is something of an underestimate, which thankfully means that the number of 'scientists', hacks and loonies in the pockets of vested interests are fewer than I thought. Huzza!

I assume that you accept Co2 does have a role in global warming and that we are producing a hell of a lot of it (1.3 million tonnes annually from N.American car use alone). But you suggest this is of no significance and claim that the forces in-play are part of a natural pattern which will soon reverse itself and everything in the garden will be lovely again. Have a look at the recent Report from The Scripps Institute of Oceanography. Their study is based on surveys of historical ocean temperatures, not air temperature and the oceans capacity to store heat. It's an interesting read and one which effectively removes your comforting picture of all this being a historical and self correcting event. But that's not what you want to hear, is it.

The IPCC......they championed the hockey stick theory. Oh wait, they used incorrect data. DEBUNKED!

CO2? Isn't that carbon dioxide? What do we produce by breathing? Should we all stop breathing? Oh wait. Without CO2, plants would not get what they need. Then they will die, and won;t bea ble to produce oxygen for us. Wow, now thats a conundrum. Lets save the world.....lets all stop breathing. Without us and without plants, it will tuly be a beautiful place to live.

Sorry, just not buying any crap today. Not in a good mood.

[edit on 15-10-2007 by traderonwallst]

I guess maybe my view on this is relatively simple.

YES - the earth shifts its climate naturally.

YES - there are MILLIONS of factors involved with the the atmosphere, water temps, carbon ratios etc...

YES - Al Gore can be dramatic

But I also know that car emissions are not good for the air, water, land or people - mainly the atmosphere.

I know that burning certain things are really bad for the planet.

I know that 1000's of planes flying around at any given time, burning MILLIONs of gallons of jet fuel everyday is bad for the atmosphere.

So is it so FREAKIN' wrong to look into ways that might reduce this a little?


I can't tell why people are so stubborn about this. Is it because they don't like Al Gore, or is it because they are to proud to admit that they are wrong?

Either way - get over yourselves.

reply to post by TruthWithin


Want us to reduce all the carbon burning? Let us finish buring all the crap up already. As soon as we are done, we can all live a nice pollutant free life.

Sorry....had to say it....feeling a little evil today

Originally posted by traderonwallst
The IPCC......they championed the hockey stick theory. Oh wait, they used incorrect data. DEBUNKED!

Except that the NAS and NRC both essentially validated Mann's work, so do several other multi-proxy reconstructions.

Not 'debunked' at all.

CO2? Isn't that carbon dioxide? What do we produce by breathing? Should we all stop breathing?

You can if you want.

Learning about the carbon cycle might be a good idea. The CO2 emitted by fossil fuels has been locked up out of the carbon cycle for millions of years. Releasing it all in a few hundred years, which took millions to store, can't be a good thing, no?