Public support on the issue of global warming is now at an all time high. In fact 85% of the American people believe that global warming is happening according to a recent TIME/ABC/Stanford University Poll. And 60% of that group believes that it is man-made and will threaten future generations. Don’t get me wrong. I have everyone from my science teacher’s to the local/nation news telling me global warming is happening. I am just sick of hearing that my use of society’s technology is killing the very planet I love so dearly.

The problem: Are CO2 levels rising due to human activity and if so how much of an effect are they having on the atmosphere and temperature?

Scientists are in a consensus when stating that CO2 levels are on the rise. Research taken at Mauna Loa, a climate research facility in Hawaii, shows that since 1958 CO2 levels have risen almost 40%. This rapid increase, according to popular opinion, can be linked to the burning of fossil fuels as well as deforestation. In addition to natural processes such as forest fires started by lightening and volcanic eruptions.

So knowing that what effects do these have on the climate? Well CO2 is a polar molecule, the science behind that statement is very stale, but what that means is that the molecule is capable of absorbing infrared radiation. In a prefect world with no CO2, energy is emitted from the sun towards the Earth, the Earth absorbs some of the energy, but reflects some of it which should be able to pass through the ozone layer and back into space. However, CO2 is capable of absorbing this emitted radiation and keeping it in the atmosphere to, theoretically, heat the Earth. This is the chemistry behind it, and if you search no deeper than this level, you whole heartedly believe every time you step into a vandy van, you are killing the human race and Earth.

So the chemistry given above is the main argument global warming proponents use. In addition, the unusual weather patterns we have been experiencing over the past few years have also raised doubt. Katrina, one of the most horrific natural weather events ever recorded, gave rise to a stronger and more easily persuadable public. So who is the first to check-in on this great crusade? Al Gore naturally.

One of Vanderbilt’s own. His mother was one of the first women to graduate from Vanderbilt Law and Gore would later return to Vandy for religious studies, but ultimately drop out without a degree to run for congress in 1976. Now if you take a quick look at Gore’s resume (strangely enough all over the internet) you will soon find that he never pursued any degrees in environment, let alone the sciences. So my question is simple, what gave him the right to become the face of global warming?

I believe….nothing. Just a small sampling of critics view’s of Former V.P. Gore’s movie:

Dr. Chris de Freitas, climate scientist, associate professor, University of Auckland, New Zealand: ”I can assure Mr. Gore that no one from the South Pacific islands have fled to New Zealand because of rising seas. In fact, if Gore consults the data, he will see it shows sea level falling in some parts of the Pacific.”

Dr. Nils-Axel Mörner, emeritus professor of paleogeophysics & geodynamics, Stockholm University, Sweden: “We find no alarming sea level rise going on, in the Maldives, Tovalu, Venice, the Persian Gulf and even satellite altimetry if applied properly.”

Dr. Paul Reiter, Professor - Institut Pasteur, Unit of Insects and Infectious Diseases, Paris, France, comments on Gore’s belief that Nairobi and Harare were founded just above the mosquito line to avoid malaria and how the mosquitoes are now moving to higher altitudes: “Gore is completely wrong here - malaria has been documented at an altitude 2500 m - Nairobi and Harare are at altitudes of about 1500 m. The new altitudes of malaria are lower than those recorded 100 years ago. None of the “30 so called new diseases” Gore references are attributable to global warming, none.”

Dr. Gary D. Sharp, Center for Climate/Ocean Resources Study, Salinas, California: “The oceans are now heading into one of their periodic phases of cooling. … Modest changes in temperature are not about to wipe them [coral] out. Neither will increased carbon dioxide, which is a fundamental chemical building block that allows coral reefs to exist at all.”

Just these four simple quotes, out of the many that have been voiced, prove that the movie is a sheer FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, Disorder) tactic to gain attention to something that has little relevance, let alone evidence to support itself. Gore reassures his viewers by using research provided by scientists. A quick look over of the movie’s research will show that not a single paleoclimatologist is cited in the movie. That can’t be. They are the true experts who deal with climate change before there were even records of it. Now why would he not have any of them in his movie…

Dr. Tim Patterson, a Professor of Geology and Paleoclimatologist, Department of Earth Sciences, at Carleton University in Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, is a leading researcher in the field of CO2 and its effect on the climate. He has over 118 peer-reviewed articles and has yet to receive a single dollar in funding from industry or public relation firms. Why is this important? It proves that he’s more than credible and isn’t being told by anyone what to prove. So what are his thoughts?

In 2005, "US paleoclimatologist Tim Patterson told a congressional committee ... that ‘there was no meaningful correlation between carbon dioxide levels and Earth's temperature during this geologic time frame. In fact, when carbon dioxide levels were over 10 times higher than they are now, about 450 million years ago, the planet was in the depths of the absolute coldest period in the last half-billion years,' Patterson said."

In addition some proponents of the Global Warming Theory cite the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) and their famous hockey-stick graph. I’m sure you have seen it, it shows global temperatures ramping up rapidly within the last ten years. A scary thought, however, the IPCC has even come forth in stating that they had forgotten to place data on the graph that would change its appearance dramatically. What data is this? All of the climate points that relate to the Medieval Warming period where temperatures were 5.4 deg. Fahrenheit higher than they are today were deliberately disregarded. In case you weren’t following that would mean we are within normal ranges and that the earth is in fact in a cycle.

I leave you with a statement made by Alfred P. Sloan, Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT:

"First, let's start where there is agreement. The public, press and policy makers have been repeatedly told that three claims have widespread scientific support: Global temperature has risen about a degree since the late 19th century; levels of CO2 in the atmosphere have increased by about 30% over the same period; and CO2 should contribute to future warming. These claims are true. However, what the public fails to grasp is that the claims neither constitute support for alarm nor establish man's responsibility for the small amount of warming that has occurred. In fact, those who make the most outlandish claims of alarm are actually demonstrating skepticism of the very science they say supports them. It isn't just that the alarmists are trumpeting model results that we know must be wrong. It is that they are trumpeting catastrophes that couldn't happen even if the models were right as justifying costly policies to try to prevent global warming. If the models are correct, global warming reduces the temperature differences between the poles and the equator. When you have less difference in temperature, you have less excitation of extra tropical storms, not more. And, in fact, model runs support this conclusion..... anti-alarmists were in the crosshairs of then-Sen. Al Gore. In 1992, he ran two congressional hearings during which he tried to bully dissenting scientists, including myself, into changing our views and supporting his climate alarmism. Nor did the scientific community complain when Mr. Gore, as vice president, tried to enlist Ted Koppel in a witch hunt to discredit anti-alarmist scientists--a request that Mr. Koppel deemed publicly inappropriate. And they were mum when subsequent articles and books by Ross Gelbspan libelously labeled scientists who differed with Mr. Gore as stooges of the fossil-fuel industry.....When I, with some colleagues at NASA, attempted to determine how clouds behave under varying temperatures, we discovered what we called an "Iris Effect," wherein upper-level cirrus clouds contracted with increased temperature, providing a very strong negative climate feedback sufficient to greatly reduce the response to increasing CO2. Normally, criticism of papers appears in the form of letters to the journal to which the original authors can respond immediately. However, in this case (and others) a flurry of hastily prepared papers appeared, claiming errors in our study, with our responses delayed months and longer. The delay permitted our paper to be commonly referred to as "discredited." Indeed, there is a strange reluctance to actually find out how climate really behaves. In 2003, when the draft of the U.S. National Climate Plan urged a high priority for improving our knowledge of climate sensitivity, the National Research Council instead urged support to look at the impacts of the warming--not whether it would actually happen. Alarm rather than genuine scientific curiosity, it appears, is essential to maintaining funding. And only the most senior scientists today can stand up against this alarmist gale, and defy the iron triangle of climate scientists, advocates and policymakers.”