5 Good Arguments Why GlobalWarming is NOT due to Man-made Carbon Dioxide

Current studies show proof that the current rise in temperature on earth is not due to the manmade carbon dioxide in the air causing the Greenhouse Effect. And many credible scientist support this claim.

Professor Tim Ball - Department of Climatology - University of WinnipegI do believe in GlobalWarming, but I don’t believe that humans CO2 is causing that warming.

Professor Tim Ball
Department of Climatology
University of Winnipeg

Argument 1: There were periods in time with temperatures higher than today where there were lower amounts of manmade carbon dioxide.

There were two periods in time were temperatures were way higher than today’s temperatures. This was during the Medieval Warm Period in the 1500’s and during the Holocene Maximum in 6000BC. During this period there was nearly no manmade machinery that gives of carbon dioxide from the burning of fuel. And yet the temperatures during this period were way higher than they were today.

Medieval Warm Period

Temperatures were higher than temperatures today in the Medieval Warm Period

Holoxene Maximum

Temperatures were even higher for thousands of years in the Holocene Maximum.

Professor Patrick Michaels - Department of Environmental Sciences - University of VirginiaAnyone who goes around and says that carbon dioxide is responsible for most of the warming of the 20th century has not look at the basic numbers.

Professor Patrick Michaels
Department of Environmental Sciences
University of Virginia

Argument 2: In history, the economic boom and industrialization after the second world war increase CO2 productions but there was a global temperature drop.

After the 2nd world war, after 1945, industrialization took place increasing man made machines producing large amounts of CO2 from then forward. And yet global temperatures started to drop from 1940 for more than 3 decades. Thus proving that global warming is not related to the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

Post WorldWard Temperatures with a drop during the economic boom.

During the economic boom, man made CO2 increased but there was a temperature drop for 4 decades.

Professor Syun-Ichi Akasofu - Director - International Arctic Research CenterCO2 began to increase exponentially in about 1940, but the temperature began to decrease 1940, continued to about 1975. So this is [an] opposite relation, when CO2 increasing rapidly, and yet the temperature decreasing, then we cannot say that CO2 and the temperature go together.

Professor Syun-Ichi Akasofu
Director
International Arctic Research Center

Professor Tim Ball - Department of Climatology - University of WinnipegTemperature went up significantly up to 1940, when human production of CO2 was relatively low. and then in the post war years, when the industries and all economies in the world really got going, and human production of CO2 just soared, the global temperature was going down. In other words, the facts did not fit the theory.

Professor Tim Ball
Department of Climatology
University of Winnipeg

Argument 3: Human made CO2 is not causing global warming since manmade carbon dioxide is not the main source of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

95% of the worlds greenhouse gases is mostly water vapor. And it is the most important greenhouse gas. Without, the planet will be too cold that no one can survive. Among the 5% of the rest of the greenhouse gases only a small percent of it is carbon dioxide, only 10ppm (parts per million) and this gas has only 0.054% of all gases.

With all the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, CO2 made by humans is a minute amount compared to all the sources of CO2 in the atmosphere. A single volcano emits carbon dioxide more than all factories and man made machinery from all over. And animals and decaying vegetation gives off CO2 which is a gas produced by all nearly all living things produces more 150 gigatons each year. As humans produce about 6.5 gigatons a year.

Volcano CO2 vs Manmade CO2

And the largest source of CO2 is the ocean. As the ocean heats up it gives of CO2 and when it cools down, it absorbs CO2. The contribution of human made CO2 is very insignificant and can barely affect temperature due to the greenhouse effect.

Largest source of CO2 is the ocean

Argument 4: Ice core records use by many globalwarming activist and some politicians that show that global temperature and CO2 correlate is misleading.

Although it is correct to say the amount of CO2 in the air and global temperature show a relation, it is not correct to say that the amount of CO2 is causing the rise in temperature. In fact it is the other way around.

Professor Ian Clark - Department of Earth Science - University of OttawaYou can’t say that CO2 can drive climate, it certainly did not in the past… CO2 clearly cannot be causing temperature changes, it is a product of temperature, it’s following temperature changes.

Professor Ian Clark
Department of Earth Science
University of Ottawa

Professor Ian Clark is a leading Archaeological Climatologist and with his study, he has shown that in looking in the amounts of CO2 in the ice core records, with the increase in temperature, there is also an increase in carbon dioxide but the increase is hundreds of years behind, about 800 years behind. Although there is a correlation between temperature and CO2, it is not CO2 causing an increase in temperature. It is increasing temperature that increases CO2 and is several hundred years delayed.

Argument 5: The layer of the atmosphere where greenhouse gases are found do not have any significant increase in temperature.

As the whole global warming theory of the greenhouse effect goes, IR rays hit the surface of the earth and go back to the layer of greenhouse gases in the troposphere. And then temperature should be significantly higher in this area. This area is 10,000 to 12,000 kilometers in the atmosphere. Both satellite data and weather balloon data show no such dramatic change in temperature. Thus proving that it is not even greenhouse gases causing the global warming, how much more is it from CO2.

Direct quotes of the mentioned professors were in the documentary The Great Global Warming Swindle featured here on GlobalWarming Awareness2007.

56 thoughts on “5 Good Arguments Why GlobalWarming is NOT due to Man-made Carbon Dioxide”

  1. Pingback: Synchala
  2. You might want to check out the “reception and criticism” section of the wikipedia entry for this film:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Global_Warming_Swindle

    Even the makers of this film do not seem to believe it represents a balanced handling of the subject:
    Channel 4, who screened the documentary, described the film as “essentially a polemic and we are expecting it to cause trouble, but this is the controversial programming that Channel 4 is renowned for.”[2]

  3. No my field of expertise but I have seen studies done of ice drilling in antartica that shows a consistgen rise in bad stuff since the beginning of the industrial age and a speeding up of this release in the [past few years. That stuff is caught in the frozen ice and no matter what cycles there are, the warmin g clearly has some impact from man-made co ntributions unless you can show that it has not gotten warmer consistently since the beginning of releasing fumes into the air.

  4. Why don’t you clean up the typos?

    “….And many credible scientist support this claim.”

    .
    “…has not look at the basic numbers.”

  5. Argument 1.
    There is possibility that global warming may be caused by different mechanisms. One of them may be responsible for holocene warming and other (man-made CO2) for todays global warming. So argument 1 is irrevelant.

    Argument 2.
    It is important argument, yet still greenhouse gases aren’t the only thing responsible for global warming – there could be another mechanisms responsible for temperature drop. Anyway – that argument need further research and consideration and is a good start for discussion.

    Argument 3.
    It’s not important how much CO2 is produced brutto, but how much is produced over consumption. If nature produces 150 gigatons of CO2 per year and uses 149 gigatons, then 6,5 gigaton of man-mad carbon dioxide is a HUGE addition.
    Also there’s no info on how efficient greenhouse gases are water and carbon dioxide respectively.
    Global warming isn’t a matter of total heating from different sources, but a matter of unbalanced heating. And even if greenhouse gases are only slightly important yet, they’re effect will intensify with the growth of global temperature.

    Argument 4.
    And if the mechanism of previous warmings was: it starts with slight warming, more CO2 follows warming and causes more warming? That will be autocatalytic mechanism, with CO2 playing crucial role.
    There is also possibility of global warmings with different mechanisms.

    Argument 5.
    Not neccesarily. As i wrote before – it’s not a matter of heating, but a matter of unbalanced heating which cumulates over time. Most of energy may be absorbed and emmited back to earth surface thus not altering greenhouse gases layer temperature significantly, yet increasing overal heating.

    So those arguments are not strong enough to be a proof of anything. But there are good starting point (especially arguments 2 and 5) to estimate real effect og CO2 level on global warming.

  6. Green are the new Reds. Global Warming is a major swindle to justify raises in taxing claiming its for the enviroment improvement. Its also a platform for the new left wing parties to change their angle to enviromental issues and to get to power.
    I’m not saying “lets stop caring for the enviroment”, I think a lot has changed for good since we’ve gained ecological awareness. Sorting out the trash, not littering, thinking of ways to get rid of landfills full of trash; these are the things the Greens should be worried about. Not about my Carbon footprint, where I have to pay more money beacuse I’m flying a plane often! Or because I have a bloody car! Why people should be punished for trying to make their lives easier? Or is it: only the richer are being punished? If you ride a bike, wear hemp clothes and sandals you wont have to pay more?
    They was a time when wealthier people were punished for their wealth. It was called soviet communism, maoism and khmer rouge regime…

  7. “Anyone who goes around and says that carbon dioxide is responsible for most of the warming of the 20th century has not look at the basic numbers.”

    Actually, anyone who goes saying carbon dioxide is NOT responsible for most of the warming of the 20th century has not looked at the basic numbers.

  8. I appreciate very much Gorzki’s comments. They highlighted one important thing: the overproduction of carbon dioxide, which cannot be balanced by constantly shrinking green sources. This creates “the snowball effect”, because the world lacks mechanisms leading atmospheric CO2 back to the surface of the Earth (and under surface). Only plants can incorporate this gas into their tissues and the most productive ones are microscopic seaweed. Who cares about seaweed? Who cares about ocean pollution and the limits of fishing?
    Even if CO2 was not the first to start global warming, it can support the process and increase the effect, as Gorzki wrote. This is the snowball effect, and we will never know how big the snowball can become and when will it stop rolling…

  9. well i’m just a little angry because i would really like to be able to read these 5 arguements but the website cuts off on the left side. i suggest that someone fix that so that i may be able to read the arguements, therefore i will be able to give some feedback with my opinion.

    Ally Warner

  10. Hi Ally, I know why… you are either running Microsoft Internet Explorer 6.0 or lower. This problem does not seem to appear in Microsoft Internet Explorer 7.0 and Mozilla Firefox as well as Safari and all other better browsers. But given your case, there are still some people on MSIE 6.0, I’ll see what I can do to fix it.

  11. to all the republicans: be a little more open-minded before you push away all the nature-friendly democrats who are only providing you information of the inconvenient possibilities global warming may present in you in the future, they are only informing you for you own well being. therefore, if their opinion may be decide the worlds position of existence, you might as well take it into consideration and thought, that is if you even care.

    Again, the names Ally warner, and still angry that i cannot read arguements 3, 4, and 5 completely.

  12. I think the next best thing you can do Ally is when viewing the page, hit Ctrl-A to select all, then Ctrl-C to copy. Open up MS Word and Ctrl-V to paste the text in there. If should be complete when on MS Word already. I hope that helps.

  13. What interesting reading, I am involved in delivering energy workshops to schools across the UK and am about to go to a high school tomorrow to deliver an energy day. Unusually for me, my role tomorrow is to play “devils advocate” to the more common place Global Warming / CO2 message, which will be delivered by my colleagues. My mantra, although always non political and hopefully as objective as possible, has always been on the side of “well this is what the ‘facts’ suggest”. Schools are ideal for discussing this type of issue as it is deemed right and proper that both sides of the story should be put over.

    So I will be doing just that. Will post the outcome tomorrow.

  14. @ Gorzki

    I would just like to point out how very wrong you are I have an honours degree in Geology and an MSc is paleoclimatology.

    Your first rebuttal,

    Argument 1 is NOT IRRELEVANT in fact it just points out that previous periods where warmer that today, also if you look back at the geological record there have been MUCH MUCH warmer periods when there where no ice caps and very little CO2 also there has been times when the earth was completely covered in ice (geological fact!) and CO2 has been high….

    second thing,

    “Also there’s no info on how efficient greenhouse gases are water and carbon dioxide respectively”

    I now know that you are DEFINATLY NOT a scientist as there has been significant research on the GE factors of greenhouse gasses (Ramanathan and Coakley, Rev. Geophys and Space Phys., 16 465 (1978))

    This research shows that CO2 can only possibly account for 12% of the total greenhouse effect and water vapour 36% this study has not taken into account clouds also which we now know is some where between 50 – 60% infrared absorbance.

    @ simmons

    “Actually, anyone who goes saying carbon dioxide is NOT responsible for most of the warming of the 20th century has not looked at the basic numbers.”

    This is just plain stupid, there is no evidence to date supplied by the IPCC which PROVES CO2 causes global warming where as there has been HUGHLY significant data which shows our temperature is directly related to proxy effects of the sun.

    finally the current media and IPCC spin saying that the current global alarmists view on climate change is the general consensus of the scientific community is a blatant lie. Below is a link to a website containing petition of 17,100 American scientists who oppose the current view that’s approx 32 times more scientists that the IPCC has!

    People read more on the subject then make a decision DON’T just listen to the media!!

  15. In order to put into proportion the 6.5 gigatons of manmade carbon dioxide, that is:

    How does this mass compare to the mass of our atmosphere that it supposedly is heating up?

    So much political demagoguery relies on disproportion. Sophists can either make mountains out of molehills, or molehills out of mountains, depending on their political goal.

    Many people think that all the manmade CO2 “Must be having some affect.” But how much affect? That’s the rub. Disproportionality is a trick today that con artists use as much as they used illiteracy in the past.

    When I multiply the number of square inches on the surface of the earth, 4(pi)(radius squared) in inches, times 14.7 (pounds per square inch is weight of atmosphere at sea level), I get 5.8 quadrillion tons (5.8 to the 15th power).

    This would mean that the ratio of manmade carbon dioxide to the atmosphere it would affect is:

    6.5:5,800,000

    You can check my math, but it looks like the disproportion is so absurd it reminds me of the old joke parents tell their children: “Close the door when you come inside the house! Do you want to heat up the outdoors?”

  16. The fact that temp. leads co2 on the long term data, the short term
    data and on the data from around 1800 to the present, makes
    it very hard to see co2 as causing the temp. rises. That would
    require an effect to precede its cause.

    Great site. You should, tho, get rid of the typos. Also, maybe,
    get the margins so they don’t cut off some of the text.

  17. In argument #5: “This area is 10,000 to 12,000 kilometers in the atmosphere”
    This is news, since when did the atmosphere extend that far?

  18. There are numbers to support just about any claim that people want to make on this issue. The fact is, nobody sees the whole picture. The fact is, there is a distinct possibility that carbon emissions will cause climate changes that will have a negative impact on economy, and I think you’re a damn fool if you don’t think we should at least be careful. Of course, nobody who wants to believe that global warming is a fraud really is taking the stand that we shouldn’t be careful. The heart of the push against global warming comes from those in government who have finiancial ties to energy companies. They are pressing and looking for the proper numbers to be there to support their claims. Now if that doesn’t constitute junk science, I don’t know what does. Innocent as most of you neocons are in believing the validity of these claims, you should realize that the only reason you have even been exposed to these ideas is a financial one on part of republicans in government with ties to oil and energy. If this were not true, then why would global warming be such a partisan issue?

  19. Yes, look at the money trail, quest for power and hypocrisy, but it is from the left.
    Liberals like Al Gore and Democratic congressman sound the alarm and follow it quickly with the need for new taxes (bigger govt) to “develop” new sources of energy before its too late.
    The UN, which is useless and corrupt (Oil for Food which lined the pockets of UN officials, several of European countries and companies and Saddam—and left the Iraqi people with next to nothing) ALSO wants a new worldwide Carbon tax in particular on the rich USA while certain countries whose pollution is growing are coincidently exempt???
    The Dems want more of you money and they will make sure it goes to these new programs to develop new energy sources just like they have you social Secuirty taxes in a “lock box” safe and sound until you retire—at age 45 I will never see that money or very liittle b/c back in the 1960’s they turned SS into “Pay as you go” , so they could spend it on whatever they want and worry about they ocnsequesnces later—they still think that way.
    And don’t forget all those scientists and climate experts who have been studying this impending catastrophe for all these years on mostly Govt or other grants—if htye say there is no emergency then how can they justify getting money to study the problem and come up with solutions to “save the world”?
    Liberals always resort to name calling and “declare” the debate is over, when they don’t want to look at all the facts—Republicans and Conservatives are just haters of the environment, not smart to see the danger—-I mean the UN blah blah committee said it was a pending disaster!!!??
    Did you notice we had record cold and snow in April this year???
    and so Global warming is now turning to “severe climate change”, which will cover just about anything you want.
    Again it comes back to money and power—prime example::::
    The leader of the Climate Change movement, Al Gore, Academy Award winner, preaches conservation, conservation….but flies in jests, rides in limos, has several house 20 times larger than the avg American, never mind the poverty stricken people in Africa and creates more CO2 in ayear then the avg American creates in a lifetime, but we must change our way of life and pay all these new taxes while he simply pollutes all he wants and just pays his measly “Carbon offsets” which is nothing for the money he makes especailly for each College speech he makes on “Climate Change”—about $120,000 a pop!!! He already get lifetime pension for being former VP.
    Not bad for top leader of saving the environment and one of its worse offenders at the same time!!!
    If he really cared that much he would at least do these speeches for free!!!
    But you just keep taking every single word out of his mouth as truth right off the cliff he is headed………
    The history of climate changes, temperature change, tells us most likely ther is nothing we can do about it—- the next Ice Age is almost upon us again—-then you will be begging for “global warming”—-which by the way is a good thing—-our most prosper times are during the warmer periods of earth’s history.
    By the way Mars is wrming up some too—just like the earth is—could it be the sun has some affect or are they driving SUV’s on MARS too????? Follow the money, the new taxes…..no—just trust Al Gore, Congress and the UN—they will take care of everything….now that is scarey

  20. anyone with half a brain can take the hydrogen out of water and use it as a combustable fuel with the only by-product being.. water!!!
    so were made to by oil products and pay through the tooth to clean up the by-pruduct (co2) which we’re told is “damaging the enviroment”
    so in my opinion they can stick global warming where the sun don’t shine!

  21. “You might want to check out the “reception and criticism” section of the wikipedia entry for this film: …”
    -Kevin

    I salute the schools and universities who prohibit citing it in any academic work, but Wikipedia needs to be banned from informal discussions on the internet as well. Asking someone to check out the criticisms of X-book/documnetary/movie is asking for trouble. Wikipedia is about hivemind, and if your point of view (or fact for that matter) aren’t accepted by the majority in Wikipedia then it will be deleted. Basically, any fact supporting global wrming skepticism is immeditely frowned upon. Stop degenerating yourself by citing that piece of crap.

    “Currently Wikipedia contains 2,363,950 articles, 2,177,032 of which are plagiarized from other sources. After edits from various admins, editors, trolls and vandals, only 343 of these remain more than 50% factually accurate. This leaves Wikipedia on an academic par with “Star Wars: Incredible Cross-Sections: The Ultimate Guide to Star Wars Vehicles and Spacecraft” and “My First Book of Animals from A to Z”. All reputable universities and even high schools have permabanned the use of Wikipedia in academic citations.”
    -Encyclopedia Dramatica (Ironically, a lot more factual than Wikicrapia)

    Also (ironically, *cough*) Wikipedia has no article on the newer, more scientifically oriented documentary “Doomsday Called Off”. Of course, because it challenges their instinctive hivemind, it’s better to ignore it. Either way if an article for it were to go up, it’d be vandalized with even more Marxist propaganda.

    Fun Fact: There were chicken-little scares about global cooling in the 1970s.

  22. Pingback: Ok, Check This...
  23. I’m using this post for my junior research paper and i need to properly cite it so i was wondering if i could confidentially see your credentials. You can e-mail for full confidentiality.

  24. Hello Fond Believer,

    Before citing me for reference as let’s make a few things clear. All arguments above are based on the documentary video The Great Global Warming Swindle. I suggest you watch that first.

    After watching the video, you will see all references you need to cite, direct from the people who stated their own research. Although, I as the author of this blog, has my own stand on these issues, many of the issues stated above are not my own research but are paraphrased content or direct quotes of the scientist in the video, unless otherwise stated that the content is my own personal opinion.

    I personally do not suggest you take everything written as the absolute truth but should motivate you to figure out the truth and find what is true to you.

    Now if you wish to cite me as being the author of the blog and has been compiling all these information about Global Warming, feel free to.

    Benj Arriola
    BS Chemistry 1990 – 1993
    MS Chemistry 1994 – 1998
    Quality Control Chemist- SGS Philippines 1994
    DLSU Chemistry Faculty 1994 – 1998

    I went into web and internet marketing business in 1997 and gave up my career in chemistry a year after. That was 12 years ago, my Chemistry may be rusty, but still I am aware of the full scientific method and I know what makes sense and what does not.

  25. That world temp graph is misleading because the y axis temp has no numbers this means the temperature could have only been raised by 0.002 degress celcious

  26. in response to karpacz…

    whens the last time anyone has been able to predict something 1000 years in the future. The weather channel can only do it 7 days ahead of time!!! and most of the time its wrong. The santa anna, which comes to the west coast something like every four years, is almost never accurately predicted. Scientists have even taken data from 30 years ago and plugged it into a model to see if it would produce semicorrect results and it came totally off (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,316566,00.html)
    ….
    If only jesus was our weatherman

  27. Politicians like to suppose they have some chance to control events. Maybe they don,t. My great grandfather John Cullum, Superintendant of the Valentia Observatory in SW Ireland was at the forefront of research linking sunspots with the earth’s magnetic field. A number of observatories, to this day, record the changes in the vertical component of the Earths magnetic field. Resonance beteen the Earth’s field and the changes in the Sun’s magnetic field, correlating in turn with sunnspots could explain a great deal I suggest. Changes in Earths Geo-magnetic field in turn could possibly influence tectonicity because of the rumbling effect on magnetic interior. Is it time a few more basic postulates were investigated and the greenhouse nonsence ( no barrier as in a real greenhouse!) first put about by Callender in Cambridge, is put to rest . And yes, of course, rising temperatures will tend to increase carbon dioxide because the Q10 of respiratio is higher than that of photosynthesis. Colin Leaky Ph.D. F.I. Biol Lincoln UK

  28. I have already submitted this morning and am awaitinng ‘moderation’ news. However my submission only took in magnetic effects and possible solar-geo-magnetic resonance. Of course the solar instability with flaring is already quite well understood to have earth consequences and space weather consequences even more particularly. The reasons are already quite widely discussed by others but the related magnetic effects have been perhaps neglected. c..f.Magnetic resonce imaging therory and a spinning earth with its own field responding to changes in relation to the external field being varied. Colin.

  29. ok you guys just talk nonsense and this information makes no sense at all but i mean get the facts straight! seriously! i’m doing a debate and i need good arguments so if anyone who has their facts straight, can they help me? 😀 i’d appreciate that! :)

  30. Argument 2
    The reason for temp drop in that period is due to aerosols (dust, smoke, ect) from factories. Because of reflecting and scattering, they cause cooling (negative radiating forcing). Why temp increases after that period? Clean Air Act was passed, which degreased amount of those in the lower part of atmosphere.

  31. Water-world of Carbon (I live in Australia)

    The science of global warming from man-made carbon basically an un-proven science with dire predictions of apocalyptic proportions.

    In 2000 the so called climate experts made a prediction that if Australia did not cut back on carbon emissions by the year 2005 there would be no more snow on either the snowy mountains or the New Zealand Alps. This like so many other failed predictions did not happen. I think a few weeks ago it was snowing in Auckland NZ.

    The latest scare campaign is that in 20 years time the Australian barrier reef will die from global warming from man made carbon emissions causing warmer water and higher levels of acidity from carbon. Wrong again. Coral reefs around the world that are closer to the equator and in much warmer water are extremely healthy and increasing in size.

    Many corals depend on carbon dioxide in the water to feed colonies under the skin which they feed on. Weeds and algae’s on a coral reef also need carbon to survive. As most soft calcareous rock, corals and coral sand surrounding these reefs has a tendency to send the water alkalinity higher, Carbon dioxide helps to keep the PH stable.

    When you talk about waters warming, for many thousands of years each summer millions of juvenile barrier reef fish move thousands of kilometres down the east coast in the North to South running, East Australian coastal current, and finish in our southern waters along the New South Wales coastline. Some marine aquarists and public aquariums catch these fish during the summer months. Towards winter when the waters cool most of these fish die.

    Even in a fresh water planted aquarium, fish breath out carbon dioxide, which in turn is breathed in by the aquatic plants, and in return plants exhale pure oxygen. During the hours of darkness the fish slow down using less oxygen. Plants stop using carbon and start breathing oxygen. If an aquarist wants to increase health in the planted aquarium he will add carbon dioxide, increase lighting and raise the temperature. If he lowers the temperature, cuts back on lighting and carbon dioxide the plants in the aquarium will decline.

    Even if a human being goes for a dive using only pure oxygen (without carbon dioxide) it is very likely if the diver goes below 10 meters he could pass out or even face death. If plants or trees do not receive carbon during the hours of daylight they to will decline. Even the planet helps; during the hours of darkness the ionosphere lowers causing the atmosphere to become denser.

    In hindsight pollution from carbon monoxide and other toxic emissions in our cities, not only in Australia but also around the world is a much more pressing problem. Causing health problems and killing millions worldwide. It can be addressed and fixed by our governments. Unlike climate change and global warming from man made carbon, which is ‘sheer Bunkum’.

  32. Man-Made Global Warming is Fake. You Politicians should all go eat cookies.

    [Teh Noob]

    Btw, Al Gore, go eat a GIANT cookie, Bro.

  33. Well unfortunately I don’t have much time to debate about this article right now but I do need to say that this entire thing is not based on any significant scientific facts, in addition to being completely false. “And the largest source of CO2 is the ocean”, really? The oceans are the largest CO2 SINK!

    Having just wrote a scientific paper on Volcanic vs Anthropogenic CO2 emissions, this topic is still pretty fresh for me. Recent CO2 emissions data published on USGS.gov show the highest estimate of Global volcanic emissions to be 0.26 Gigatons/year, while anthropogenic CO2 was projected at 35.0 Gt for 2010.

  34. I thought Al Gore started believing that fossil fuels contributed to global warming and instead of flying 1 person per 747 he led by example by flying a plane powered by solar panels.

    I am sure I read that somewhere.

    Now those naysayers that think it is unimportant to live your values; Al has done it. You should get on board and use similar amounts of energy as Mr Gore. Don’t you wish everybody did.

  35. As for my family; we try to live conservatively. We live 1 mile from my wife’s work and 3 miles from my work. Unfortunately we cannot ride bikes to work as that short stretch of road is dangerous. We purchased a home with thick walls to reduce energy consumption.

    But I am sure we can do more.

    Possibly

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *