Al Gore Is A Gross Alarmist

Yes, we all know that global warming is a lie, and there is ABSOLUTELY no evidence to support the claim that there is global warming. This is some sort of liberal conspiracy, nothing more.

Regards,
BiR

 

I can only hope that Dr Gray is as accurate in this years predictions as he was last year.

 

Global warming aside, I believe the intensity and frequency of hurricanes fluctuates based on millenia-old weather patterns.

I see no reason to believe hurricanes are getting any stronger. And, last year should prove that they are not necessarily any more frequent.

Strong hurricanes existed prior to 1900 and they'll continue to exist after 2900, if this world still stands.

 

I'll trust God over Al anyday.... and it may do Al good if he would stop playing chicken little, and trust God himself...

Genesis 8:21-22
(21) And the LORD smelled a sweet savour; and the LORD said in his heart, I will not again curse the ground any more for man's sake; for the imagination of man's heart [is] evil from his youth; neither will I again smite any more every thing living, as I have done.
(22) While the earth remaineth, seedtime and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and day and night shall not cease.

 

Right! Hasn't been a flood for 6000 years.

 

Yes, to reiterate: there is ABSOLUTELY no evidence of global warming. I am sure that the hole in the ozone layer was fabricated as well.

After all, it's probably a liberal conspiracy.

 

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

 

It is most certainly a socialist agenda. the problem isnt whether there is a hole in the ozone or whether the globe is warming. The problem is what is the cause and just how true are the predictions of the continuing effects.

 

I know: we should all simply ignore any warnings.

 

Might be a wise move. Al gore has never had much credibility. And has lost what he might have had left with this latest fiasco. But of course your response was simply sarcasm which has really been the last few you have made on this subject giving the impression that you really have nothing of substance to say at this time on this subject but just wisdh to make a failed attempt to belittle the views of others.

 

Yet you feel compelled to respond to me despite this?

You're right - we should simply ignore any warning signs that might indicate that this is more than simply a natural process.

 

Don't worry BIR, as soon as Rush gets concerned we'll see an about face with Pastor Tim's analysis!

 

although we are responsible for a number of tons of smog, we are not responsible for global warming and there is nothing we can do to prevent it. The sun's output has been measured as warming for at least 50 years now, and possibly longer. The most accurate measurements are taken by measuring the reflection off other planets, and not by taking direct measurements of input into the earth's atmosphere. My husband would have to explain this.

So while we should plan for the effects of this, it is not something we can correct ourselves.

But this warming IS responsible for the extremes in weather we are seeing, for as the input from the sun increases, it is the tropical waters which are actually warmed the most -- and warm the air around them -- and this produces a greater differential between these air masses and the polar air masses. Thus the 'fight' when these air masses meet and mix. The results have been plainly seen in our bizarre weather in the recent years.

 

What alarms me more than the any possible "evidence" of mean global surface temperature rise - something that's not at all conclusive to me - are the implications that something - who knows what - must be done immediately to stop or reverse the trend! I don't trust the people making the claims.

The evidence of a real sustained trend is just not that conclusive despite some peaks and some valleys. The changes are very small. The historical window is very small. When viewed from the vantage of absolute temperature and the history of the earth it isn't based on much data at all. Beyond that the connection of cause to the observed effect is very loosely constructed and could be the result of many other factors not the least of which is that big ball of fire in the sky that warms our days. In science this formulates a theory that might merit further study and evaluation but not a conclusion that merits panic to "do something now or else the end is near". Most facts in science are accepted on their merits. When there's a lot of debate it probably means the theory is a long way yet from being validated.

But, more significantly, I just know that the proposed "something" will involve a lot more control, regulations, restrictions, taxes, etc. Government rarely does anything based on scientific facts but instead prefers to deal in the realm of politics and legalism. Government avoids dealing with significant factors but rather with those subjects that are the easiest to regulate. I just don't trust them!

Get ready for another agency of your friendly federal government to make life more complex and expensive for you this time in the name of saving the planet earth. You can bet that the government payroll and granting of research funds will be expanded to accommodate the ensuing panic.

 

Sounds like a true politician's dream come true... a bigger government.

hmmmm....
We all know that the true experts are politicians!

 

When he leads by example (look at the way he lives!) he might get a little credibility.

Do we need to ignore polution?

No.

Do we need to run around in a panic?

No.

To think that we could cause this is, at the least, means we think a bit too much of ourselves.

 

So, if this is the case, then why do so many scientists disagree with the idea that we aren't contributing to global warming?

Regards Helen, hope all is well with you and your husband!!
BiR