Global warming

Global Warming is a phrase which commonly refers to a scientific theory and political proposals that would follow if the theory is accepted. The theory states that Earth's temperature and CO₂ levels are rising at a dangerous rate, and that humans need to take action against this perceived threat.

The name is inaccurate, and should be Global Climate Change, as the increasing amount of heat stored in the atmosphere has had disruptive effects leading to colder weather in some areas.

History

The scientific theory is widely but not universally accepted within the scientific community. Conservatives who are opposed to the political proposals that flow from acceptance of the theory, are properly skeptical of the motivations of the theorists, and challenge the scientific validity of portions of the theory. Many believe global warming is simply a liberal talking point, aimed at shackling profitable oil and power companies, forcing them to pursue a "green" agenda that environmentalists agree with. The phrase really includes three separate theories.

1) The theory that we are currently in a period of rapid climate change consisting of increasing temperature, which, if it were to continue, would have important socio-economic consequences well within the next century.

2) The theory that this change is caused by increasing CO₂ gasses and a resulting "greenhouse" effect.

3) The theory that this change is caused by human activity, mostly industrial emissions of carbon-based "greenhouse gasses."

Much of the discussion of climate change concerns

4) The proposal that global warming can and should be reversed by taking large-scale international action to reduce greenhouse emissions.

Point #1 has become very widely accepted in the past few decades, even by conservatives who were once skeptical, but argue that the rising temperature is due to other factors.

Point #1 is argued against by those showing record cold temperatures around the globe.

Points #2 and point #3 are more controversial, although widely accepted by scientists. Points #3 is the one most attacked by global warming skeptics.

Point #4 is what the political and international debate are about. Both climate change itself, and the very large-scale actions that are proposed to combat it, would have enormous economic effects with identifiable winners and losers, resulting in an intense debate. For example, since the industrialized nations emit most of the CO₂, if it were agreed that these emissions needed to be reduced sharply, the burden would fall much more heavily on these nations than on undeveloped nations. _{citation needed}

Al Gore and politics

This whole article is a raging joke.

Al Gore, Vice President under President Clinton from 1992 to 2000, is a high profile advocate of the full global warming theory. Promoters of this theory, including many prominent scientists, call for international treaties, like one proposed in Kyoto, Japan, to limit carbon emissions using a combination of conservation and technological innovation.

The theory is widely accepted within the scientific community because of the vast amount of conclusive evidence, though that is not to say there is unanimity.. On February 2, 2007, an international panel of hundreds of scientists and representatives of 113 governments issued a report concluding:

The observed widespread warming of the atmosphere and ocean, together with ice-mass loss, support the conclusion that it is extremely unlikely that global climate change of the past 50 years can be explained without external forcing, and very likely that is not due to known natural causes alone."

In fact, Al Gore does not even follow his own advice and actually made a lot of money with oil stocks, and uses private jets that pollute CO₂, instead of using economical flights that pollute less CO₂ or electric trains to promote his books and videos. Plus Al Gore does not have a science degree, but one in government and an undergraduate degree and not a PHD, and Gore scored low in his science tests and classes. So why is Al Gore the leading expert on global warming if he doesn't even have a degree in science or had good grades in science, rather than a certified and qualified climatologist with the ability to give an academic lecture and follows the scientific method, instead of Gore who just shows pictures. Furthermore, Gore did nothing to try and halt global warming while he was vice-president, and actually worked with Bill Clinton to reject bills and ideas that would have reduced CO₂ and pollution under the Kyoto protocols, that both rejected.

Al Gore's film An Inconvenient Truth (already available on DVD (that he has problems trying to give away)) that was reviewed by experts and in book format) has recently been challenged by an entertaining and informative documentary on Channel 4 in the UK entitled "The Great Global Warming Swindle". Details of this can be found at: http://www.channel4.com/science/microsites/G/great_global_warming_swindle/index.html

The behaviors and actions of Al Gore and other politicians seem to show a so called "political warming", based on all of this evidence.

The liberal view

It should be noted that these scientists are motivated by a need for grant money in their field of climatology, and work for pro-global warming companies and organizations staffed by liberals. Therefore, their work can not be considered unbiased.. In many cases their reports do not follow the scientific method and don't use a control and experimental group, one cannot experiment with the weather nor control it.

If global warming is a theory, there is no need to force it on others. Yet the Weather Channel and the AMS was going to decertify weather people who don't strongly agree with the global warming theory. Thus trying to force the theory on others.

The public is simply asked to read the reports and believe them; however, those in the public and also fellow scientists that analyze the reports and ask questions about them are often silenced and threatened. Some are even given death threats by pro-global warming scientists and advocates.

There are some scientists among the critics of the theory that global warming is caused by human activity. As they have sought funding from the very industries that face regulation, their bias is real and their conclusions should be suspect. For example, Dr. Fred Singer observed that "CO₂ changes have lagged about 800 years behind the temperature changes. Global warming has not produced more CO₂, but more CO₂ has produced global warming." Though, it must be said, that no scientist denies that CO₂ has lagged behind temperature at certain times in Earth's history. They maintain this doesn't negate in any way CO₂ influence on temperature. It merely means it wasn't a first cause of temperature increase at particular times in Earth's distance history.."

In fact, many scientists promote global warming to scare people into giving away millions to billions of dollars to the companies promoting global warming carbon credits, books, videos, and other products and services. It would appear many businesses are making a large fortune selling carbon credits. So this appears that profit is a motive in promoting global warming as true.

The conservative view

Just as the pro-global warming scientists are benefiting from promoting global warming, the global warming skeptical scientists have had funding from energy companies. _{citation needed} It can be said that they profit from energy stock, just as well as the pro-global warming scientists. However, the skeptics are not selling carbon credits, but they are profiting from selling alternative energy products and services. _{citation needed}

In the UK, Conservatives propose a bill that will tax flights to combat climate change. Governor of California Arnold Schwarzenegger signed the Global Warming Solutions Act to try and curb global warming. The Pentagon has told George W. Bush that global warming is a real threat. George W. Bush admits that global warming is a problem, but that there is still some debate about it.

Evangelical view

In Febuary of 2006, eighty-six evangelical church leaders backed an initative to combat global warming. This call to action acknowledges the growing body of evidence that global warming is happening and acknowledges the pledge in 2004 that humans have "a sacred responsibility to steward the Earth and not a license to abuse the creation of which we are a part." This stance is not held by all evangelical church leaders; some of whom claim that this is distracting from other social issues.

Conflicting Opinions/Data

Despite global warming scientists making claim that the globe is getting warmer, they cannot explain the colder temperatures like the Russian winters having record low temps, and perhaps Europe will fall into another Ice Age.)

The global warming theory may not be a science theory, but seems to be more of a political theory.

Using older data collected for the theory, as far back as a hundred or more years ago, scientists argued over if the globe was cooling or warming.

Global warming advocacy sites

Many web sites, forms, blogs, and other web sites exist for promoting global warming and participate in on the profit by the owners or operators or administrators owning oil stock, selling carbon credits, or selling books or videos that benefit from global warming being true. Here is a list of these web sites:

• Climate Crisis Promotes An Inconvenient Truth, makes profits off of selling videos and books on global warming.
• Stop Global Warming Sells books on stopping global warming, has a list of companies selling global warming items. Claims to be non-political but appears to be political based.
• Climate Change Blog Uses advertising to make money on promoting global warming. Links to other global warming blogs.
• Huffington Post Global Warming Blog Appears to promote news paper and advertising by promoting global warming. Parent company stands to gain a lot of money by promoting that global warming is true and debunking evidence and proof that it is false.
• United Political Debate Administrator has admitted to owning oil stock, and promotes global warming and peak oil theories that drive up his stock. Refuses to allow any videos to be hosted on his site that show evidence or proof against global warming. Argues to death anyone who disagrees with him, and calls them bad names and accuses them of working for the oil companies.