Al Gore's movie is coming out and it is called "The Inconvenient Truth."
It is pretty much turning into a Michael Moore gig filled with the same lies, slander, and misdirection.
If you really care to know what 'greenhouse effect" and 'global warming' really are then you really have to read a great article at JunkScience.com It is extremely involved but it really lays it all out. Global warming has garnered alot of mind share over that past few years. But it has gained this mind share due to innaccuracies and some distortion.
If you can't take the time to read it, here is the synopsis:
- The temperature effect of atmospheric carbon dioxide is logarithmic, not exponential.
- The potential planetary warming from a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide from pre-Industrial Revolution levels of ~280ppmv to 560ppmv (possible some time later this century - perhaps) is generally estimated at less than 1 °C.
- The guesses of significantly larger warming are dependent on "feedback" (supplementary) mechanisms programmed into climate models. The existence of these "feedback" mechanisms is uncertain and the cumulative sign of which is unknown (they may add to warming from increased atmospheric carbon dioxide or, equally likely, might suppress it).
- The total warming since measurements have been attempted is thought to be about 0.6 degrees Centigrade. At least half of the estimated temperature increment occurred before 1950, prior to significant change in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels. Assuming the unlikely case that all the natural drivers of planetary temperature change ceased to operate at the time of measured atmospheric change then a 30% increment in atmospheric carbon dioxide caused about one-third of one degree temperature increment since and thus provides empirical support for less than one degree increment due to a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide.
- There is no linear relationship between atmospheric carbon dioxide change and global mean temperature or global mean temperature trend -- global mean temperature has both risen and fallen during the period atmospheric carbon dioxide has been rising.
- The natural world has tolerated greater than one-degree fluctuations in mean temperature during the relatively recent past and thus current changes are within the range of natural variation. (See, for example, ice core and sea surface temperature reconstructions.)
- Other anthropogenic effects are vastly more important, at least on local and regional scales.
- Fixation on atmospheric carbon dioxide is a distraction from these more important anthropogenic effects.
- Despite attempts to label atmospheric carbon dioxide a "pollutant" it is, in fact, an essential trace gas, the increasing abundance of which is a bonus for the bulk of the biosphere.
- There is no reason to believe that slightly lower temperatures are somehow preferable to slightly higher temperatures - there is no known "optimal" nor any known means of knowingly and predictably adjusting some sort of planetary thermostat.
- Fluctuations in atmospheric carbon dioxide are of little relevance in the short to medium term (although should levels fall too low it could prove problematic in the longer-term).
- Activists and zealots constantly shrilling over atmospheric carbon dioxide are misdirecting attention and effort from real and potentially addressable local, regional and planetary problems.
Here is great open letter to Al Gore.
And here is his hypocrisy
And some more hypocrisy
The cusp of the whole issue is that certain politicians and far left enviromentalists want to blame the prosperity of the USA as the main factor of the planet being destroyed. I do not and will not believe that our prosperity will be the cause of the end of the world. We are the cleanest nation in the world because of our technology. I just don't beleive that humans (other then nuclear war) can change the temperature of the globe. More CFC's were emitted from the Mt. St. Helen's eruption in 1980 then all of human history (yes even the 80's when bangs were huge and it took about a third of a can to keep the hair up). It is just like the BS that enviromentalist were spewing after the Valdez crashed at Bligh Reef about how the area would never recover. PFFT!!! Check this out. The area is just fine. While it was a bad thing to happen and there is still some oil persistence, the enviroment is just peachy. Or what about the Alaksan Pipeline that enviromentalists say would kill the land 2 to 3 miles near this pipeline. PFFT!!! Look here. The Alaskan Pipeline accounts for 25% of the USA's yearly oil. What if they actually thwarted the construction of this pipeline? What would gas prices be today? It is funny that the same people who bite Bush's back on oil prices are the same people who want no new refineries, no new drilling, and they also want to punitively tax the oil companies. This is just getting silly now. Follow the money people. How about this little group that has syphoned off money from Exxon and who knows what else. These far left enviromentalists are making so much money keeping all of us worried about the earth and how the USA is such a horrible country. Most of these far left enviromentalists are also staunch socialist and communists. They would like nothing better then to cripple the United States in the global community and markets. Hating America is not cool.
