Al Gore wins Nobel Peace Prize

I agree the data indicates a rise in Earth's surface temperature. The cause and threat is less certain to me.

In Gore's presentations, he displays a long, compressed horizontal graph (40' or so) showing temps vs. CO2 levels over 600,000 years, or roughly 12 centuries per inch. He suggests that's proof of a direct cause and effect relationship. But, a closer examination of an expanded scale frequently shows CO2 lagging temps by decades or longer (from another less than scientific but illustrative 20/20 segment debunking Gore's movie last week).

As I wrote earlier, there are far more and greater actual humanitarian emergencies ongoing now that are killing millions of people worldwide. If saving humanity is the goal, why divert attention into something as speculative as human-caused global warming when other, treatable crises call for our attention today? Unless saving humanity isn't the real goal, but controlling humanity is.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(amped @ Oct 22 2007, 08:35 AM) [snapback]528840[/snapback]</div>

Care to cite your source?

Accooding to my research, that claim is a myth.

Climate myths: Ice cores show CO2 increases lag behind temperature rises, disproving the link to global warming
</span>The lag between temperature and CO2. (Gore's got it right.)
Significant Global Warming<span style="color:#000000">
Media Matters - Myths and falsehoods about global warming

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(IsrAmeriPrius @ Oct 22 2007, 04:23 PM) [snapback]528994[/snapback]</div>

His source is that paragon of journalistic accuracy, John Stossel. Stossel's main source in dissing the IPCC is Paul Reiter, a medical entomologist.

Oddly, Stossel yet again fits into the Tobacco Hazzard/Global Warming Hazzard denying mode, with choice quotes such as,

"I went on TV and said secondhand smoke kills 50,000 people a year. I believed the alarmists."

He now says that most studies on secondhand smoke were "based on people who lived with smokers and were breathing secondhand smoke day in and day out — in cars, in homes — and while some studies found it increased lung cancer and heart disease, others found no difference. But it was not clear-cut.

"The idea that you're going to get heart disease or lung cancer from being in a bar for 30 minutes is dubious," he says — even though no-smoking regulations in public places are sweeping the country. Stossel likes going into smoke-free restaurants but says laws banning smoking are unfair.
http://www.usatoday.com/life/columnist/med...media-mix_x.htm