An Inconvenient Truth(?)

"In the United States of America, unfortunately we still live in a bubble of unreality. And the Category 5 denial is an enormous obstacle to any discussion of solutions. Nobody is interested in solutions if they don't think there's a problem. Given that starting point, I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are, and how hopeful it is that we are going to solve this crisis. "

These are the words of former VP and current Global Warming warrior Al Gore.

It's not everyday that you get to see a leader of the global warming brigade flat out state that from their point of view the ends justify the means; lying is ok as long as you believe in the ultimate goal.

It's oddly comforting to see this admission in print since it has been my contention all along that those supporters of the "It's all our fault" global warming theory don't really have much in the way of evidence to back up their claim and that most of their arguments are based on empty rhetoric meant to frighten people into action. Now here we have one of the most well respected voices in that movement clearly stating that he supports that very thing.

I have not seen Gore's movie, and admittedly I probably won't, but I have seen him talk about man's affects on the environment and have seen him many times make claims that are in no way supported by fact.

Case in point, he likes to use the hurricanes from last year as proof of global warming, even going so far as to use a storm cloud as part of his movie poster, but every certified hurricane specialist I have seen has clearly stated that global warming, even if it does exists, would have had little or no affect on the number, or ferocity of the storms. For one, the waters of the Gulf of Mexico reach the critical temperature for hurricanes about the same time every year and even if they were to get warmer, that would have no real affect on the storms power. There is also the fact that the upsurge in storm activity in the northern hemisphere was predicted years ago but not based on any temperature increases but by recurring cycles that, while not fully understood, show a definite pattern of world wide hurricane occurrences; a pattern last years season fit perfectly. See this link for more.

Have you ever noticed how so many of the sites claiming to prove that link use the very same date range, 1880-1950? Ever ask yourself why, with all the increases in technology since 1950 would anyone pick that as a stopping point in a graph? The reason is pretty simple, by cherry picking dates you can create a believable relationship between almost any two factors (in most cases CO2 and temperature) and that's not to say they aren't related, but it's often the exploration of the anomalies (that in these cases are being intentionally ignored) that help people better understand the true nature of their connection. Again, just ask yourself, why is it that temperatures actually dropped during the periods with the greatest increase of man made CO2 if CO2 and temperature are as closely linked as Gore and his associates would like us to believe?

As I've said before in other posts and on other sites, I'm not making the claim that global warming does not exist, merely that there is very limited science creating the important cause and effect relationship with man.

The fact is that global warming is still a very young theory (only 20-30 years ago the very same environmentalists were shouting that the next ice age was upon us) and as such has not had time to be fully vetted. There may very well be some merit to the current claims that man is affecting the worlds temperature (we have managed to drastically increase the growth rates of forests due to the abundance of CO2 in the atmosphere after all) but as of yet there is little truly unbiased science to show that link. As any true scientist can tell you, a correlation does not prove causality, but that is the very argument at the heart of the global warming movement.

Global trends, the fact we are only a few centuries out of a mini ice age, improvements in measurement accuracy (just compare satellite to ground based temperature readings) , increase solar activity, etc.. are all just as viable alternatives as to why the planets average temperature has gone up 1 half of 1 degree in the last 100 years.

While I applaud anyone who chooses to move their homes over to solar/wind power, or uses better insulation or lighting fixtures to reduce electricity usage, or buys a hybrid car, I do so because all those things help a) reduce emissions and make the air cleaner, and b) reduce our dependence on oil. Any affects that those actions may have on the earths temperature are what I would consider added bonuses but not even close to my prime reason for supporting them.