As I have said, Gore doesn't matter at all. He's not a scientist. So, going after Gore is a way to deflect from the science.
Ya, the sex poodle is a joke, and ultimately serves to demonstrate how much of a joke the whole concept is.
And yes, in part is key, but no, it is not equal to background noise.
Let's put this all into perspective : CO2 is in the 0.0X% of the total volume of the atmosphere... mans contribution to that is about 0.0X% of the total... and SOMEHOW, that 0.00X% of the CO2 in question (which ultimately cannot be measured as in 'this co2 is from the ocean' and 'this co2 is from car exhaust'... unless you're measuring from the source.) is something that will account for catastrophic climate change... that's as much of a joke as Al Gore. I dont remember the number of papers I've read on the subject that state either directly or implicitly that the sun's influence is negligible to the point that it's considered a constant, or not even considered.
Meanwhile, the SUN... well, the if you live in the northern hemisphere, winter time comes when the earth is closer to the sun, but because the rays hit at a different angle makes the difference between winter and summer weather... AND, even better, in the morning it's coolest BEFORE the sun rises, then it warms up throughout the day, and begins to cool before the sun has set. So, OBVIOUSLY, the sun is a great influence on climate.
The facts are that we do not understand the intricacies of the environment and climate more then enough to predict a matter of days ahead... anything further is simply a guess.... maybe an educated guess, but still. Let's not fool ourselves into thinking we can truly predict these things.
The whole of the scientific coimmunity complately disagrees with you on that, and state so clearly. Pretendning otherwise is the real joke. A sad, sad joke play by and on deniers.
Yes, but you don't get it... there are flaws like measuring temperatures recorded close to heat sources, 'padding' data, or using studies that get into such ridiculous levels of CO2 that would literally be fatal on it's own merit to conduct experiments... one study I saw said they were using 5000ppm CO2... which would be fatal if it could get to that point. Then there's factors like natural cycles that we don't even KNOW ABOUT that are going on that actually does influence CO2 levels... Plus, the fact that these guys were busted... yes, I know their buddies gave them a pass, but any real scrutiny of those letters, which wasn't SIMPLY the admission of the protocol to run the numbers through an algorithm that padded the data... it was discussing ways to prevent opposing viewpoints from appearing in respected journals, and other admissions of fraud. There's also a ton of mundane discussion, but honestly, the only way they were completely vindicated is if they were reading choice emails from the batch... which, it just so happens MSM media outlets were aware of this in the area of 3-6 months before being forced into reporting the discovery... think about that.
So, because the main SOURCE for data from the UN was the CRU, every other study is rendered bunk because the source data is completely unreliable, and all data coming out must be independantly verified. THEN, I might start giving it some credibility.
If you wanted to say fossil fuels are bad, you could point to the more problem gases; carbon monoxide, sulfurs, benzene coming off the tires (in very minute amounts), you could discuss policies of herbicides, pesticides, residential chemicals, industry waste procedures, ensuring that any pollution is captured and dealt with...
So, if we made it so the exhaust of your car released nothing but water vapor and CO2... I'd be absolutely impressed.
It's also been proven that people that buy green products are many times more likely to act immorally elsewhere.
So, finally, it's not the democratic position that 'most people say X' so X is correct... just objectively look at the information... a good place to start is the MSDS sheets...
Universal Industrial Gases, Inc. ... MSDS Gaseous Carbon Dioxide - CO2
Carbon Dioxide is a powerful cerebral dilator. At concentrations between 2 and 10%, Carbon Dioxide can cause nausea, dizziness, headache, mental confusion, increased blood pressure and respiratory rate. Above 8% nausea and vomiting appear. Above 10%, suffocation and death can occur within minutes
Now, what's the current atmospheric CO2 levels average?? 400-450 ppm??? So, until CO2 concentrations get above around 2000ppm before we'd start seeing any effect?? (though, I imagine at that levels you would quickly adapt to the thicker air) So... being a minute contributor to this trace gas, we're somehow going to somehow nearly fivefold increase naturally occurring levels of this gas???
So, NOT ONLY is global warming a proven fraud (not by me by their own admissions)... it is more and more showing itself to be a form of 'antihuman cult' where human activity is viewed as the enemy. Just like the book I keep sourcing as THE SOURCE document about global warming while the media was still panicking over the next ice-age that hasn't quite started yet... apparently. The club of rome document 'the first global revolution' (search that in google and you can easily find exerpts), but the one key quote is that in the beginning of the document makes the declaration
'The common enemy of humanity is man. In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy then, is humanity itself.'
What went along with that crazed man that took over the discovery channel's global warming intentions?? He wanted to see more global warming issues being promoted... and what do you know, he advocated mass population reduction.
Again, Charlie Manson, what does he want?? He wants a world government to pull off mass population reduction.
Then there's bill gates speech where he says that he will reduce the birth rate up to 15% through vaccines and that CO2 =
PEOPLE * activities * co2 generated per activity.... and 'ONE OF THESE' will have to be reduced to near 0.
Can you see a trend here??
Let's go further... you got me in rant mode.
Only-Child Myths Persist As More Parents Choose One Kid - TIME
Birth Control: For Zero Growth - TIME
Then Obama's science czar, Holdren, what does he advocate?? Putting sterilants in the water supply and have parents get the antidote through an application process... for the earth.
Because the inner-doctrine of church of climateology is now coming more to light about the true intentions behind this huge push towards 'action' on global warming. So, yeah, I don't doubt that we'll see more and more people who buy into this who will just go out and kill themselves.... or trying to engage in violence in order to 'exterminate the weeds' or whatever verbiage they might use.
If you go and add in the 'side-effects' of prozac / ritalin type SSRI drugs, that's reaching epidemic proportions... you're going to get some people with a bad trip that will go and kill themselves and their families because it will be 'good for the earth'.