Global Warming and Al Gore

I am not a scientist. What I know about scientific theory could fit into a thimble with plenty of room left over for an elephant. So, I, like most people, depend on real scientists to tell me the scoop on such phenomena as Global Warming through MSM. It's nice if they use terminology we laypersons can understand, but that's not absolutely vital. I'll look up what I don't know or recognize when the subject interests me.

And then along comes Al Gore who preaches about the adverse effects of Global Warming like his hair's on fire and may be one underlying cause. He attracts all kinds of attention, writes a book that for some odd reason people adopt like it's the Holy Scripture of Global Warming Doom, and next thing we know he's made a movie, been nominated for an Academy Award, AND the Nobel Peace Prize panel is considering him for its big prize.

Al Gore believes the group of scientists he hangs out with when they assure him humans are destroying the planet Earth. Given his position in the grand scheme of things, he has the public exposure necessary to rub our noses in his scientific theories whenever the mood strikes him and MSM is willing to give him additional space. There's just one little problem with all Al Gore's warnings and pumped up rhetoric. It's theory. Not fact.

The thing Al Gore and others using his scare tactics fail to mention is:

"A scientist makes certain assumptions and then produces a theory which is only as valid as the assumptions."

Dr. Timothy Ball, writing for The Canada Free Press explains scientific theory behind Global Warming this way:

The theory of Global Warming assumes that [carbon dioxide] is an atmospheric greenhouse gas and as it increases temperatures rise. It was then theorized that since humans were producing more CO2 than before, the temperature would inevitably rise. The theory was accepted before testing had started, and effectively became a law."

He goes on to say, "We are wasting time, energy and trillions of dollars while creating unnecessary fear and consternation over an issue with no scientific justification. For example, Environment Canada brags about spending $3.7 billion in the last five years dealing with climate change almost all on propaganda trying to defend an indefensible scientific position while at the same time closing weather stations and failing to meet legislated pollution targets."

So, what it comes down to for me is this...

Do I believe Al Gore who didn't know the difference between Michael Jordan and Michael Jackson but who is very good at mucking up issues with incendiary rhetoric, OR do I believe a credentialed scientist who can tell the difference between scientific theory and hard cold fact? Or how about this... I believe George Carlin who once noted that human beings simply do not have the means to destroy the entire planet with carbon dioxide. If George Carlin gets it, that's good enough for me.

I go for the hard cold fact every time. It will be interesting to see what the Nobel Peace Prize Committee and the Academy Of Arts and Sciences decide where to hang their views.