Not familiar enough with the scientific theories myself, but when vast majority of the scientific community agrees on this, I would tend to think they have more credibility than a few scientists who hold the opposing view, unless proven otherwise.
No major scientific organizations in the world rejects humans effect on climate change...... except people paid by oil interests of course. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change
A good chunk of those listed... Boortz, Limbaugh, Dennis Miller, Drudge, Cato Institute, Laura Ingraham, Inhofe, WSJ, John Stossel, Michael Savage, etc. aren't even scientists of any stripe.
You are correct. I don't even know what the point is of bringing up all of those journalists, among others. But if you click on the very first link on the list, it's just a list of actual scientists. I'm guessing it's a whopping 20-30 scientists.
Do you have to be a scientist to care about the environment? Name ten famous environmental scientists you know. Gore is a great spokes person for the cause. Even if he was not correct, that would still be better than do nothing now and find out later that we are indeed destroying the earth.
I know nothing! Except I wish a cold front would come through Houston, TX Anyway I thought the Nobel Peace Prize should have gone to Hillary Clinton for her work on global villages.
If mountain ranges and forests can have a big impact on the climate/weather patterns, I don't see what's so hard to believe about burning down vast chunks of forest causing climate change?
While I do think there is credible evidence that increased CO2 levels are resulting in a warming trend, there are some points that I do not think have been proven. Namely that is the increase in CO2 levels is entirely man-made phenomenon or more of a result of other cyclical processes that shape the planet? And futhermore, that we have any true understanding of what the impact of this increased CO2 level will have, and what mitigation of this impact of any strategy to reduce CO2 levels against the short-term loss in global economics (increased poverty and hardship on those struggling to live a better life). These are points that the Gore movement simply don't address in any kind of detail. In actuallity, what Gore is doing may cause war not peace, as nations try to put sanctions on countries that do not conform to a policy formulated by the richer and more powerful nations. Peace? If these nations and people like Gore really cared about cutting CO2, why don't they advocate nuclear power? Why don't they call on the rich nations to put up a trillion dollars combined to invest into technology and science to find ways for India and China to industrialize without contributing to CO2 issues???? Why? Because there's a lot of dreaming going on here, a lot of idealism, and a lot of closed minded evangelizing, but not a lot of real, actionable, practicle thinking.
Where were all the people complaining about the peace prize being awarded for environmentalism, when it was awarded to an economist and a financial institution last year?
I don't know who is right or wrong on this issue, but I think Al Gore is a smart man who tries to do good. My guess would be that mankind's impact on global warming is overblown sometimes, but I am not sure.
I like the idea of efficient solar panels powering my house and hydrogen-powered cars, but not from a "green" standpoint. I just hate paying bills and would like to collect and apply my own energy. Unfortunately, it's still just not cost-efficient. Solar panel efficiency has been improving, however, and hopefully they'll become cheaper and better at the same time. And I would like very much to use panels to power a hydrogen generator that fills hydrogen tanks that can fuel my car. I'm looking forward to a time when this stuff will come to market.
