Is Al Gore right about Global Warming?

Question

I was watching some of the things Al Gore has said about what is going to happen to the world (shows, lectures, internet), he calls Global Warming. He has many valid points.
However most of what he calls Global Warming results, are actually results from people building there communities in areas not safe for humans.
Most places he says will perish in the future are places were people have built cities, towns etc, that are built on fault lines (earth quake zones), near active volcanoes, near mudslide areas, in areas below sea level, in hurricane zones, tornado zone areas etc..
Take New Orleans for example, most of New Orleans is below sea level, people built levees and and reduced wetland areas there, which further increase the chances of New Orleans to flood. New Orleans sinks "3 feet per Century". Even when the early settlers started to live there, they were told it was not safe to build a city there!
Most places Al Gore states will be effected by Global Warming are actually places that should not have cities or towns there!
Al Gore is right pollution is a big problem, something must be done, pollution has results such as acid rain, smog and living things dying off.
Is Al Gore right to blame Global Warming? Should Al Gore change the name from Global Warming to something more appropriate?

Answer 1

yes well at least some parts anyway

Answer 2

Al Gore is a Super-Rich Marxist Democrat. He is wrong about EVERYTHING. If Gore really believes in "Global Warming," then he should give up his luxury car, private jet and mansion. Even so, come, Lord Jesus!

Answer 3

The impacts of GCC will be felt greatest in areas like New Orleans, and you are right in saying that the area is fraught with problems to begin with. It's far more than the actual location, it's the design of the levees, etc.



But the entire globe will be affected, as Gore states in "An Inconvenient Truth." Drought and extreme weather patterns could make agriculture an even riskier proposition than it is today. Figuring out what crops to grow where is going to entail a crystal ball! But if "they" get it wrong, the ripple effect from ruined crops will be horrific.



The information stream on climate change has improved since Gore pulled together his book/movie. It continues to improve, but there will always be uncertainty and error in trying to make educated guesses as to what the future climate will be, and when. We're learning on the job, so to speak, and what Gore did best was to help mobilize politicians and the public. A new treaty will be forged by the end of the year in Copenhagen, and if the developing nations are included we as a planet have a good chance of meeting the challenges GCC will present in the decades to come.

Answer 4

grandmac38

"When has Al Gore been right about anything? Can you just imagine what would have happened after 9/11 if he had been President?"



You are so right, If Gore had been in charge something silly might have happened like not invading Iraq, you might done something really silly like go straight after Osama instead and caught him. You might not have locked up so many without trial in Gitmo which has had a significant effect on your international reputation. You may not have spent 620 Billion dollars on the mentioned war in Iraq for WMDs that were known not to exist before the war started.

While you will probably call this Bush bashing liberal talk, even his own party avoided him during the recent election this says more than any liberal ever could.

Answer 5

When has Al Gore been right about anything? Can you just imagine what would have happened after 9/11 if he had been President?



Bash Bush all you Liberals all you want, but thank your luck stars that Gore wasn't the president at the time. I sure do.



As for his agenda on Global Warming, I guess it has made him some money from his lectures and such as there are still a lot of people who think he should have been president.

Answer 6

you are perfectly right in one thing - people have intruded

into areas which were not made for human use. the basic

problem is that mankind is almost exploding in numbers.

more people,less reserves,less room, less water,more destruction,

more dangers and so on.



climate changes have existed as long as this planet exists,

but never have humans contributed so much due to the

above facts.



i also was very skeptical on this whole issue, i am no longer,

not since it was found out that the alps have begun to

crumble due to melting of ice trapped in the rocks and

the same thing is happening in the rockies too. i am

beginning to imagine what will happen when a lot of ice

melts in the lower levels of the himalaya and those mountains

will begin to crumble.



i really am convinced that we should not concentrate on which

politician is for which side of the coin, but should join all

our efforts and try to solve the basic problems.

Answer 7

One of their key claims of rising sea levels is the city of Venice in italy. then you investigate and find the city is sinking because of where, why and how the city was built 1000 years ago and more.



http://www.classbrain.com/artmovies/publish/article_204.shtml



Venice, the Sinking City of Italy



Venice is sinking. The city is built on top of millions of wooden piles that were sunk into the marshy ground about a thousand years ago. The marsh is the problem. The wooden posts have been sinking at the rate of approximately seven centimeters per century. Although that doesn't sound like much, it adds up. At that rate, it would have sunk 70 centimeters over the years. A recent study by an American group, however, estimated that it sank a whopping 24 centimeters in the last century alone! Although the Venetian government believe that study is inaccurate, their own recent study shows that the city is going to sink between 20 and 50 centimeters by 2050. That sounds as though Venice's rate of descent is increasing.



Why does reason not prevail with people any more. The city was built 1,000 years ago upon logs posts pounded into a marshy bog. What usually happens to logs driven into a bog after 1,000 years, they rot that’s what. And something built on those rotting piling is naturally going to sink is it not. These people wringing their hands and bemoaning global warming need a decent skeptical engineer to solve their problems not an AGW priest waving his incense ball while chanting the Co2 is evil mantra in the same way the locals chant their hail marys!

Answer 8

Global Warming was invented to sell cars. I've heard many people say that we need to get away from fossil fuels because it’s harming the environment. Now I agree we need to get away from fossil fuels, but not because some say it’s causing the environment to get warmer.



I especially love the people who drive the hybrid cars and think they are doing their part. It’s very satisfying to inform them the battery inside most hybrids is a nickel based battery which is mined using sulfide mining, which creates sulfuric acid when exposed to water and oxygen. That, in turn, contaminates rivers, lakes and groundwater so severely that it actually creates dead zones around the mine. I digress.

First of all the belief that we are the cause of climate change is premature at best. We are basing this belief solely off the data received from General Circulation Models (GCMs) and if the information they provided was accurate and consistent than the belief would be fairly well founded.



The problem with GCMs is the uncertainties in the physics that informs the GCMs. As it turns out uncertainties in the energetic responses of Earth climate systems are more than 10 times larger than the entire energetic effect of increased CO2. So if the uncertainty is larger than the effect, the effect itself becomes moot no?



Also when you look at a reliable figure that shows the global temperatures in the future take a look at the fine print, many times it will say “50-70% of the time the temperature will fall in that shaded area. So 50-40% of the time the temperature won’t even be what they think it will be or even close to what GCM predicts. When those figures get out to the public 90% of the time they don’t even have the shaded region anymore instead they narrow it down to the average and make it a defined line giving the impression that temperatures are rising. Now you have a figure that’s 99% inaccurate.



Another interesting fact is not all GCM’s predict the same thing. In fact the majority of people don’t even know about any GCM aside from the Hadley and the Canadian models, which happen to agree on temperature getting warm. They don’t agree on anything else aside from that. Hadley predicts that rain will decrease and water levels will fall, while the Canadian model depicts massive rains and floods. Other GCMs predict the temperature will fall or not rise at all.



Lets think of it this way, suppose I had a computer model of common arithmetic that said 2+2=5±0.1. Every time I ran the model, there was a 68% chance that the result of 2+2 would be within 0.1 unit of 5. My shaded region would be ±0.1 unit wide. If 40 research groups had 40 slightly different computer models of arithmetic that gave similar results, we could all congratulate ourselves on a consensus. Suppose that after much work, we improved our models so that they have 2+2=5±0.001. We could then claim our models were 10 times better than before. But they’d all be exactly as wrong as before, because with exact arithmetic proves that 2+2=4. This is the critical difference between precision and accuracy.



GCM’s are about imprecision and not accuracy, we can not base assumptions upon them until they are accurate, which they are not.

Answer 9

Global warming has already been changed to something more appropriate. Since it is apparent the earth is not warming, the name has been altered to "Climate change". It's the same scandal modified to keep the believers pulled in.

Answer 10

No, Al Gore has never been legitimate in any quest, but he found a nice where he can't prove his claims and where the other side can't prove the other extreme. I would call this brilliant politicking.

Answer 11

Al gore could look at a sunny day and say that its going to be sunny today and still miss it.

Answer 12

If hes that worried about it why does he have a fleet of stretch limos waiting with the engines running and AC going to haul his fat *** around at a moments notice?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P5-6MMUBo0w

Answer 13

Thomas Malthus was right. Al Gore is nothing more than a talking head.