Defending the Truth

The whole point of An Inconvient Truth is to bring Global Warming into the spot light. Even if it is somewhat politically motivated, If you believe we are contributing to CO2 levels then we should hope all elected officials do what he is doing. If changes are eventually made (changes that won't be made by our oil connected government) because of his invovlement, than his burning jet fuel is worth it. Someday maybe we will finally do something about aircraft pollution, and possibly because of his actions. Seems very justifiable to me. Flying commercially makes sense, if practically every person in the world didn't know his face. He would be swarmed on a commercial flight.
Here we are, talking about this, because of what Gore has done to bring attention to this issue. Seems like it is working to me.

And what "Cult of Global Warming" would that be?

Would it be the vast majority of scientists who understand our planet's climate better than you do?

The "human element" of Global Warming is VERY MINOR when compared to global temperature cycles, and other factors.

Even if there were NO HUMAN BEINGS ON EARTH we'd still be in a warming cycle.


As for Gore flying commercial... Why are you making excuses for him? All he would need is two security guards.

It's the cult that you are OBVIOUSLY immersed in.

And despite what mantra you chant, there is NO consensus on Global Warming - neither its reality nor its supposed causes. It's little more than all the political rage right now.

Do you actually think an airline would allow, or needs, such a disruption?
Why are you so bitter about Al Gore, Jeff? I am giving legitimate reasons why it would be impossible for him to fly commercially and you claim I am making excuses. I think the real problem doesn't lie with people defending him or making excuses for him, it lies in you apparent hatred of the person.

As for the Human Element being minor, not true. Much evidence exists to show the contrary. Not Al Gore's presentation either. Please check out this link on the ice core samples taken from Antarctica:
NOVA Online | Warnings from the Ice | Stories in the Ice

Well, three primary "factors" that appear to determine Earth's global surface temperature are the Earth's orbital position from the sun, the amount of radiation emmitted by the sun, and the Earth's atmospheric chemical composition.

So, if two of these things aren't changing in any significant rate of change right now (Earth's orbital position from the sun and the sun's radiation output), then what do you suppose is changing Earth's global surface temperature at the rate that it is changing?

(Earth's surface composition *does* play a supporting role in how it handles radiation.)

Not to mention the higher surface temperature data found in the US during those 3 days that airlines were grounded in the US after 9/11 that some scientists attribute, consequently, to a lowering of "dimming" gases.

(I believe it was you who pointed this out earlier on this website.)

First of all, you can refer to me as Mr Jefferson.

And I hate the HYPOCRISY of it all.

Is there something about that you all cannot understand?

We are in a global warming trend - much as happened almost exactly 1,000 years ago.

The funny thing is, 30 years ago all the environmental hype folks were screaming about Global COOLING!

Funny how rapidly things can change when we need a new craze.

You calling the recent warming a "trend" doesn't really mean anything since this doesn't describe what's causing this "trend."

I described three primary factors that appear to drive Earth's average surface temperature. And two of those factors don't appear to be changing in a rate right now that could account for this current increase in average global surface temperature. So then, what is the only factor left that might be causing Earth's current warming?

(Thirty years ago-or so-scientists were describing the current interglacial period that Earth is in and they were projecting a possible future for Earth...based on the data that they were looking at. But, clearly, the data has changed...thus changing future predictions. Such is the changeable nature of science...unlike theology, in general.)