Al Gore: Nobel Winner

[franko]

So he has won an award and is top o' the heap. And richer, of course. However . . .

What has Al Gore done for world peace?

Damian Thompson

So Al Gore is the joint winner of the Nobel Peace Prize. Admittedly, he has to share it with the United Nations’ climate change panel - but, even so, I think we need to declare an international smugness alert.

The former US Vice-President has already taken over from Michael Moore as the most sanctimonious lardbutt Yank on the planet. Can you imagine what he'll be like now that the Norwegian Nobel committee has given him the prize?

More to the point, can you imagine how enormous his already massive carbon footprint will become once he starts jetting around the world bragging about his new title?

Just after Gore won an Oscar for his global warming documentary, An Inconvenient Truth - in which he asked American households to cut their use of electricity - the Tennessee Centre for Policy Research took a look at Al's energy bills.

It reckoned that his 20-room, eight-bathroom mansion in Nashville sometimes uses twice the energy in one month that the average American household gets through in a year. The combined energy and gas bills for his estate came to nearly $30,000 in 2006. Ah, say his defenders, but he uses rainwater to flush his lavatories. Is there enough rainwater in the world, I wonder?

There are so many reasons why Gore shouldn't have won the peace prize for his preachiness. Alas, it is too late to influence their decision, but I'd have liked to refer the judges to a ruling by Mr Justice Burton, a High Court judge who has criticised the Government for sending out An Inconvenient Truth to schools without a health warning. The reason? It's full of errors and unsubstantiated claims.

the rest, from the Telegraph

[franko]

Oh . . . the disputed claims?

The nine alleged errors in the film

• Mr Gore claims that a sea-level rise of up to 20 feet would be caused by melting of either West Antarctica or Greenland "in the near future". The judge said: "This is distinctly alarmist and part of Mr Gore's "wake-up call". He agreed that if Greenland melted it would release this amount of water - "but only after, and over, millennia"."The Armageddon scenario he predicts, insofar as it suggests that sea level rises of seven metres might occur in the immediate future, is not in line with the scientific consensus."
  
  
• The film claims that low-lying inhabited Pacific atolls "are being inundated because of anthropogenic global warming" but the judge ruled there was no evidence of any evacuation having yet happened.
  
  
• The documentary speaks of global warming "shutting down the Ocean Conveyor" - the process by which the Gulf Stream is carried over the North Atlantic to western Europe. Citing the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the judge said that it was "very unlikely" that the Ocean Conveyor, also known as the Meridional Overturning Circulation, would shut down in the future, though it might slow down.
  
  
• Mr Gore claims that two graphs, one plotting a rise in C02 and the other the rise in temperature over a period of 650,000 years, showed "an exact fit". The judge said that, although there was general scientific agreement that there was a connection, "the two graphs do not establish what Mr Gore asserts".
  
  
• Mr Gore says the disappearance of snow on Mt Kilimanjaro was directly attributable to global warming, but the judge ruled that it scientists have not established that the recession of snow on Mt Kilimanjaro is primarily attributable to human-induced climate change.
  
  
• The film contends that the drying up of Lake Chad is a prime example of a catastrophic result of global warming but the judge said there was insufficient evidence, and that "it is apparently considered to be far more likely to result from other factors, such as population increase and over-grazing, and regional climate variability."
  
  
• Mr Gore blames Hurricane Katrina and the consequent devastation in New Orleans on global warming, but the judge ruled there was "insufficient evidence to show that".
  
  
• Mr Gore cites a scientific study that shows, for the first time, that polar bears were being found after drowning from "swimming long distances - up to 60 miles - to find the ice" The judge said: "The only scientific study that either side before me can find is one which indicates that four polar bears have recently been found drowned because of a storm."That was not to say there might not in future be drowning-related deaths of bears if the trend of regression of pack ice continued - "but it plainly does not support Mr Gore's description".
  
  
• Mr Gore said that coral reefs all over the world were being bleached because of global warming and other factors. Again citing the IPCC, the judge agreed that, if temperatures were to rise by 1-3 degrees centigrade, there would be increased coral bleaching and mortality, unless the coral could adapt. However, he ruled that separating the impacts of stresses due to climate change from other stresses, such as over-fishing, and pollution was difficult.

[Skilly]

Add to that that the graphs he used were wrong ...

NASA calculations on global temperatures have recently be deemed incorrect and the warmest year on record is actually in the 1930's (not 1998-2005), so the graph should have had a huge spike there.

[Polarice]

I think he was a great pick to win, anyone who can bring so much attention to such a good cause like the environment like he did, deserves some recognition.

BTW Franko who is this "Judge"?

[BadCompany]

I think it's a lousy choice, regardless of where you stand on the global warming issue.

Alfred Nobel wanted the peace prize to be awarded to:

"to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between the nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses".

What has Gore done to promote peace?

Polarice, the judge was in England, and he was being asked to rule on whether or not "An Inconvienient Truth" was acceptable as teaching materials for high school students. Can a book/movie be used to educate teenagers, if it contains factual errors?

[franko]

polarice said:

I think he was a great pick to win, anyone who can bring so much attention to such a good cause like the environment like he did, deserves some recognition.

BTW Franko who is this "Judge"?

I don't mind Gore's bringing attention to the issue. I do mind his hypocrisy and the exaggeration of claim stated as fact.

First, let's face it: it's all political.

Stewart Dimmock, a Kent school governor, tried to block the Government's plan to screen An Inconvenient Truth in more than 3,500 secondary schools in England and Wales. [article]

The judge is Michael Burton of the British High Court, who heard the case and said that while there were errors in the film it could still be shown.

[franko]

Another interesting thought on Gore's prize: Climate change is a threat to the environment, not to "peace"

[Skilly]

franko said:

Another interesting thought on Gore's prize: Climate change is a threat to the environment, not to "peace"

Agreed. We aren't fighting over the environment .... yet.

Now anyone who gets the troops out of Afghanistan and restores peace there, or the Americans out of Iraq ... now thats Nobel worthy. Gilles Duceppe/Jack Layton are more worthy of the Nobel Peace Prize than Al Gore.

[Polarice]

skilly said:

franko said:

Another interesting thought on Gore's prize: Climate change is a threat to the environment, not to "peace"

Agreed. We aren't fighting over the environment .... yet.

Now anyone who gets the troops out of Afghanistan and restores peace there, or the Americans out of Iraq ... now thats Nobel worthy. Gilles Duceppe/Jack Layton are more worthy of the Nobel Peace Prize than Al Gore.

Perhaps, but with the environment being a hot topic at the moment I can see why he was chosen.

[CentreHice]

badcompany said:

I think it's a lousy choice, regardless of where you stand on the global warming issue.

Alfred Nobel wanted the peace prize to be awarded to:

"to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between the nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses".

What has Gore done to promote peace?

Polarice, the judge was in England, and he was being asked to rule on whether or not "An Inconvienient Truth" was acceptable as teaching materials for high school students. Can a book/movie be used to educate teenagers, if it contains factual errors?

Thanks, BC. This was exactly my thought when I heard the news in the car today. "Peace Prize.....?"

Gore said he's going to donate his share to further the cause. Good for him. I wonder how much of his speaker fees go to further the cause.

I found Gore's speaking fee from a Q and A interview on-line from Arizona State University, where he appeared on April 2nd of this year.

Q: How much did it cost to bring Al Gore to ASU?

A: Since Al Gore is coming to ASU as a private citizen and will being giving essentially a “lecture” on global warming, he charges a speaker fee of $100,000 plus expenses.

Expect that to double or triple now that he's won the Nobel. His booking agents are wetting their pants. And people will pay....

And Damian Thompson is correct....the carbon footprint he's preaching against (albeit strewn with inaccuracies) will also double or triple with his globetrotting. I wonder what picks him up from the airports and drives him around town. A gas-guzzling limo...or a Prius.

[Cranky]

Al Gore deserves the Nobel prize for "peace" as much as my left nut. This is politics pure and simple. Next, the US presidency.

Bush is disliked by the left, the right absolutely hates Gore. In fact, Gore will do nothing but add to the polarization of US politics. Secondly, his self absorbed grasp for relevence from pseudo science will finish off of whatever is left of Amercian industry.

Time to suck up to the Chinese. Their wet dream is for Gore to become president and finish handing whatever is left of American industry. And in case anyone wants to celebrate THAT, just remember that over 50% of Ontario and Quebec's GDP is trade with the US.

I never thought that the Amercians will become a second rate power within my lifetime but now, I can see it within 10 years.

[Cranky]

badcompany said:

I think it's a lousy choice, regardless of where you stand on the global warming issue.

Alfred Nobel wanted the peace prize to be awarded to:

"to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between the nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses".

What has Gore done to promote peace?

Polarice, the judge was in England, and he was being asked to rule on whether or not "An Inconvienient Truth" was acceptable as teaching materials for high school students. Can a book/movie be used to educate teenagers, if it contains factual errors?

When I was going to University, half the "professors" were communist sympathizers. Now half the teachers are eco zealots. Their position creates a superiority complex over EVERYONE. When I talk to my friends and his wife (both teachers) about Gore joke of a movie, their simpleton response is that "you don't know the facts". When I ask them about the facts, their response was that I wouldn't understand. When I ask them to at least try to make me understand the facts, after all, a masters degree in engineering and several patents point to a teeny weeny bit of technical knowledge, well, their response is that I wouldn't grasp the social significance, the so called "bigger picture". In the end, just like my endless arguments with University professors, it was never about the facts or the results, it was about circular arguments and "believing in the cause". The only problem with all of this is that they are not spewing their cause to adults, but rather to young, fragile minds.

Soon, just like Nazi Germany, we will have hotlines where children can snitch on their parents for any climate criminality.

[Cranky]

Somewhere between the soaping and the rinse cycle when I was washing my car, it finally occurred to me why Gore received the Nobel prize. This is nothing more then a blatant attempt for that committee to influence American politics. Do you remember Lach Walesa? Do you remember Boris Yeltsin? Those people were embraced by Western leaders not because they were some outstanding politicians or deep thinkers, but rather, by embracing them, they became more powerful and more relevent to their own people. Same thing with the Nobel Prize and Algoro.

[ropoflu]

Just to put a little more oil on your fiery bush HA, Gore was in fact co-recipient of this year peace Nobel prize along with your favorite eco-sectarian-nazi-fascist-pseudoscientific group: the IPCC.

Now where is that extinguisher...

[Cranky]

ropoflu said:

Just to put a little more oil on your fiery bush HA, Gore was in fact co-recipient of this year peace Nobel prize along with your favorite eco-sectarian-nazi-fascist-pseudoscientific group: the IPCC.

Now where is that extinguisher...

The IPCC is annoying as hell but Al Gore as President is the Jim Jones of he American economy. The world will rejoice if the Americans burn down their economy fighting eco ghosts. Unfortunatly, we will go down with them.

People need to UNDERSTAND....86.6% of Ontario exports are going to the US. 59.1% of Ontario GDP is based on exporting. Bottom line, 51% of our Ontario AND Quebec economy is based on trade with the US. Without them we are the economic equivilant of Rwanda and those living standards are going to follow. And NO, even if the rest of Canada was made up of 8 Alberta's, there still would not be enough demand to keep Ontario and Quebec working. 303 million people in the US can buy a hell of a lot more then 33 million Candians.

Stark black and white reality......

www.2ontario.com/welcome/ooit_303_us.asp

www.2ontario.com/welcome/ooit_314.asp



BTW, companies that I am dealing with have already made up their mind to shut down most of their manufacturing early in the new year in Quebec and Ontario and throw thousands of people out of jobs. It's so serious that I may be looking at shutting down and retiring.

[MC Habber]

skilly said:

Add to that that the graphs he used were wrong ...

NASA calculations on global temperatures have recently be deemed incorrect and the warmest year on record is actually in the 1930's (not 1998-2005), so the graph should have had a huge spike there.

Let's not blow that out of proportion. As I recall, there was an error in the calculation for one year. It doesn't really change the overall trend.

badcompany said:

Can a book/movie be used to educate teenagers, if it contains factual errors?

It shouldn't, but they always have been.

[MC Habber]

BTW, I'm not exactly a fan of Al Gore, but this is (exceprts of) a good speech by him, though not related to climate change: 'We the People' Must Save Our Constitution

[Skilly]

machabby said:

skilly said:

Add to that that the graphs he used were wrong ...

NASA calculations on global temperatures have recently be deemed incorrect and the warmest year on record is actually in the 1930's (not 1998-2005), so the graph should have had a huge spike there.

Let's not blow that out of proportion. As I recall, there was an error in the calculation for one year. It doesn't really change the overall trend.

That one year does prove that it isnt caused by increasing CO2 levels though, since they were less in the 1930 according to St. Al ....... and it also goes to show that the cyclical nature of, well, nature could also play apart in this.

[Cranky]

skilly said:

machabby said:

Let's not blow that out of proportion. As I recall, there was an error in the calculation for one year. It doesn't really change the overall trend.

That one year does prove that it isnt caused by increasing CO2 levels though, since they were less in the 1930 according to St. Al ....... and it also goes to show that the cyclical nature of, well, nature could also play apart in this.

It actually hammers the entire foundation of "direct and proportional human link". But hey, why botherwith the facts that don't fit?

[ropoflu]

habsaddict said:

skilly said:

That one year does prove that it isnt caused by increasing CO2 levels though, since they were less in the 1930 according to St. Al ....... and it also goes to show that the cyclical nature of, well, nature could also play apart in this.

It actually hammers the entire foundation of "direct and proportional human link". But hey, why botherwith the facts that don't fit?

Guys, Earth temperature not accounting for human activity was never considered a constant. It varies. We all know that.

Now, if quite a few scientifics and climatologists identify a positive relation between human activity and global temperature is still a positive relation even with if there are some exceptional years.

Basic stats.

Now stats are just indications, limited in all sort of ways (and they get manipulated quite often). There are not meant to be universal truth. Just food for debate. And when the debate is over, we still don't have universal truthes but hopefully, generally accepted ideas.

But if every sides of the debate turn to demagogia. Then we're all stuck. All losers.

[Skilly]

ropoflu said:

habsaddict said:

It actually hammers the entire foundation of "direct and proportional human link". But hey, why botherwith the facts that don't fit?

Guys, Earth temperature not accounting for human activity was never considered a constant. It varies. We all know that.

Now, if quite a few scientifics and climatologists identify a positive relation between human activity and global temperature is still a positive relation even with if there are some exceptional years.

Basic stats.

Now stats are just indications, limited in all sort of ways (and they get manipulated quite often). There are not meant to be universal truth. Just food for debate. And when the debate is over, we still don't have universal truthes but hopefully, generally accepted ideas.

But if every sides of the debate turn to demagogia. Then we're all stuck. All losers.

Exactly.

The same data can be explained by solar spikes. It is a cycle. But it doesn't fit the environmentalist viewpoint.

I am willing to look at the environmentalist stance, and have. As an engineer, I have asked the question of how can CO2 levels be contributing to global temperatures when the CO2 levels are higher after the period of warmth? The answer always given is "isn't it better to err on the side of caution?" That's not the debate ...

Statistics only show correlation, they do not show cause and effect. So if basic stats show that "quite a few scientifics and climatologists identify a positive relation between human activity and global temperature is still a positive relation even with if there are some exceptional years" then why can the other side of the coin see that basic stats also so that "there are other direct positive relations that have absolutley nothing to do with human cause or CO2 levels"

There are scientists out there predicting we are in the start of a global cooling that will stretch until the middle of this century ... they have stats as well ....

... what irks me is that it is only the politically correct environmentalist (hands out for money) group that gets heard.

[MC Habber]

skilly said:

As an engineer, I have asked the question of how can CO2 levels be contributing to global temperatures when the CO2 levels are higher after the period of warmth?

I'm not a climate scientist, so this is just speculation, but it's not hard to come up with an explanation for that: rises in CO2 cause increased temperature, which causes more rises in CO2, and so on, until something else breaks the cycle. So you would expect CO2 levels to be higher after periods of warming.

As an engineer, you should know that your statement that "That one year does prove that it isnt caused by increasing CO2 levels though" is totally false. One year doesn't prove anything. It doesn't mean there isn't a correlation. Nobody said you can't have unusually hot years when CO2 levels are low. Science is complicated - people should stop trying to pretend that it's simple. If I get pain in my joints when I'm older and my doctor tells me it's because of my age, I won't say he's wrong because I once had a sore shoulder when I was 15.

[Skilly]

machabby said:

skilly said:

As an engineer, I have asked the question of how can CO2 levels be contributing to global temperatures when the CO2 levels are higher after the period of warmth?

I'm not a climate scientist, so this is just speculation, but it's not hard to come up with an explanation for that: rises in CO2 cause increased temperature, which causes more rises in CO2, and so on, until something else breaks the cycle. So you would expect CO2 levels to be higher after periods of warming.

As an engineer, you should know that your statement that "That one year does prove that it isnt caused by increasing CO2 levels though" is totally false. One year doesn't prove anything. It doesn't mean there isn't a correlation. Nobody said you can't have unusually hot years when CO2 levels are low. Science is complicated - people should stop trying to pretend that it's simple. If I get pain in my joints when I'm older and my doctor tells me it's because of my age, I won't say he's wrong because I once had a sore shoulder when I was 15.

I would argue that first point. When gases go into the atmosphere they in essense block out the sun and cause cooling. Not warming. Just like a nuclear winter. What reaction is given off in a bomb exploding? I can guarantee you one thing - H20 and C02 are probably in that chemical equation.

The heating of the earth in that late 80's and early nineties was blamed on ozone (O3) depletion, taking something from the atmosphere. That makes sense to me ... now we are saying adding something is causing it ... I question that.

One year doesn't prove anything? Maybe , maybe not ... but since it has only been discovered this year, it shouldn't be shrugged off like it never happened ... more analysis is needed and thats all we've been saying.

[Cranky]

machabby said:

skilly said:

As an engineer, I have asked the question of how can CO2 levels be contributing to global temperatures when the CO2 levels are higher after the period of warmth?

I'm not a climate scientist, so this is just speculation, but it's not hard to come up with an explanation for that: rises in CO2 cause increased temperature, which causes more rises in CO2, and so on, until something else breaks the cycle. So you would expect CO2 levels to be higher after periods of warming.

The problem is trying to use empirical temperture data to establish "facts"......

*We can not establish accurate enough data from empirical evidence on earths temperture. the further back we go, the larger the range of inaccuracy.

*Oceans contain 50 to 60 times more carbon the in the atmoshpere. Oceans currents and tempertues have a huge impact on earths CO2 level.

*CO2 levels in ice core samples have a degree of innacuracy in readings and regions.

By definition, by use of empirical temperture data and lack of knowledge of ocean CO2 effects, we can not establish direct corrolation between CO2 levels and causes of global warming....or cooling. Do the oceans currents change and create more CO2 in the air which in turn creates a green house effect and warms the oceans? Or does CO2 level have very little bearing on anything and there is a natural solar cycle that earth follows and CO2 is just a byproduct of ocean changes? We have speculation, but no answers. Note, humans are not impacting either scenario.

The earth is in constant state of weather changes. Sometimes with rapid and radical variances. Only in the last several years have certain people found cause to assign "blame".

Anywho....see answer below.

[Cranky]

ropoflu said:

habsaddict said:

It actually hammers the entire foundation of "direct and proportional human link". But hey, why botherwith the facts that don't fit?

Guys, Earth temperature not accounting for human activity was never considered a constant. It varies. We all know that.

Now, if quite a few scientifics and climatologists identify a positive relation between human activity and global temperature is still a positive relation even with if there are some exceptional years.

Basic stats.

Now stats are just indications, limited in all sort of ways (and they get manipulated quite often). There are not meant to be universal truth. Just food for debate. And when the debate is over, we still don't have universal truthes but hopefully, generally accepted ideas.

Was never condidered a constant? It varies? Quite a few scientists? Quite a FEW? FEW SCIENTISTS? Instead of scientist all agree? Do you realize how far you have travelled to the dark side? It's a long road but in the end....you will be deprogrammed!

THE major player in atmospoheric CO2 level are the oceans. What we really need to do is a world wide study the ocean currents/temprtures and the effect of carbon levels that has. If you establish the base line effect that the ocean have then you can measure if human activity has any effect. NASA is already launching a program in that direction. The problem is that it takes at least a decade to establish any usefull data.

Are you willing to put aside the debate and "action" for a decade in order to establish a true correlation? If you say "no" then you are demanding changes without a solid scientific foundation of all causes, but rather, based on articles of faith. If you say yes and there is a distinct correlation between human activity and global warming excluding oceans effects, WE ALL start changing the world right there and then at whatever cost. I'll even be a card carrying member of the Green Party...whish for me is qequivilant to a chain saw castration.

Deal or No Deal?


~~~~~~~~~~~

Storing something interesting. This is a site that is desinged to "fight" FOR the "human cause" for global warming by supplying ammo to skewer the skeptics....or "deniers" or "unbelievers" as some want to think.


(Part of the How to Talk to a Global Warming Skeptic guide)

Objection: Over the last 600 million years, there hasn't been much correlation between temperatures and CO2 levels. Clearly CO2 is not a climate driver.

Answer: While there are poorly understood ancient climates and controversial climate changes in earth's long geological history, there are no clear contradictions to greenhouse theory to be found. (By definition, there is no CLEAR support either! LOL! )


What we do have is an unfortunate lack of comprehensive and well-resolved data. (My argument about inaccurate and far too broad empirical ancient temperture readings.) There is always the chance that new data will turn up shortcomings in the models and unforeseen new aspects to climate theory. Scientists in the field are working hard to uncover such things -- every scientist relishes the thought of uncovering new data that overturns current understanding. But it makes no sense to reject CO2 as a primary driver of climate change today because it looks, through the foggy glasses of time, like CO2 has not always completely controlled climate changes in the past.(No kidding! We don't even know the effects the oceans play in CO2 readings and they consume or emmit a hundreds more times more then humans do.)

The climate system is complicated -- even the configuration of the continents has a big effect -- so one can not expect complete correlation on all timescales between temperatures and any single factor.(A complete stab to the heart ot "human caused global warming" by a pro-global warming site. At least they are honest! So, let's look closer at what the oceans do to climate (I will take bets that we will find that it's THE most important driver of the climate. NOT CO2). Let's look closer at what the sun does. Let's look closer at cloud cover. Let's look closer at earths orbit and the long term effects of that. BUT, none of those fits the eco-zealots demands of IMMIDIATE social engineering.)

[Habs_fan_in_LA]

The Nobel Peace Prize has been taken away from Albert Gore and awarded to George "W" Bush by the US Supreme court following a recount of the votes and verification of Dopeing tests.

[ropoflu]

habsfaninla said:

The Nobel Peace Prize has been taken away from Albert Gore and awarded to George "W" Bush by the US Supreme court following a recount of the votes and verification of Dopeing tests.

Nice, I got W in my pool!

[franko]

ropoflu said:

habsfaninla said:

The Nobel Peace Prize has been taken away from Albert Gore and awarded to George "W" Bush by the US Supreme court following a recount of the votes and verification of Dopeing tests.

Nice, I got W in my pool!

I think with genetic modification you can weed such things out of the pool for the next generation.

[MC Habber]

skilly said:

I would argue that first point. When gases go into the atmosphere they in essense block out the sun and cause cooling. Not warming. Just like a nuclear winter. What reaction is given off in a bomb exploding? I can guarantee you one thing - H20 and C02 are probably in that chemical equation.

The heating of the earth in that late 80's and early nineties was blamed on ozone (O3) depletion, taking something from the atmosphere. That makes sense to me ... now we are saying adding something is causing it ... I question that.

Again, it's not about whether it makes sense to you or me. Do you really think that climate scientists don't have an explanation for such a simple argument?

[Skilly]

machabby said:

skilly said:

I would argue that first point. When gases go into the atmosphere they in essense block out the sun and cause cooling. Not warming. Just like a nuclear winter. What reaction is given off in a bomb exploding? I can guarantee you one thing - H20 and C02 are probably in that chemical equation.

The heating of the earth in that late 80's and early nineties was blamed on ozone (O3) depletion, taking something from the atmosphere. That makes sense to me ... now we are saying adding something is causing it ... I question that.

Again, it's not about whether it makes sense to you or me. Do you really think that climate scientists don't have an explanation for such a simple argument?

I haven't heard or read the answer .... and until I do I will question it. And if it is such a simple arguement then why were climate scientists claiming that in the 1970's were we going to experience global cooling because of .... wait for it ... increased levels of gas (and I believe they said CO2 - but dont quote me). All I would require from the climate scientists is a simple (heck even a complicated one - I am an educated man) answer .... but the fact that I havent heard one makes me think that they dont know themselves.

If it keeps heat in, then logically it has to keep the sun rays out .... and in my mind, that would cause cooling. The heat is obviously dissipating, because we still have harse winters, but the CO2 levels apparently don't take a break for those winters.

Unless, it gets explained to me that CO2 is somehow natures heat filter (heat can travel in, but not escape out) ....

I am not a religious man ... but I have to think that the Good Lord would not have us breathe out something that would cause harm to the balance of the world. 6 billion people breathing out CO2, trees been clear cut, overpopulation of animals on earth andin the oceans (well except cod. ) ... and CO2 levels are up ... the dickens I say.