NOTE: I wrote this after Rat Rod's last reply, considered not posting it, did some work, then decided to post it.
I'll go on ahead and make a somewhat educated argument that's more or less opposite of what's been said so far.
Al Gore is only one of many spokespeople for global warming. He's getting most of the attention (good and bad) having to do with efforts to inform, and efforts to stop global warming because of this. It's the same idea as looking at McDonald's as the example of fast food, and Wal-Mart as the example of discount all-in-one shopping. What needs to be realized is that there are thousands of other people making plenty of noise about global warming on a less than international level. Gore is simply an easy target just as McDonald's and Wal-Mart are.
This does not mean I believe Gore to be a good person. I don't know the guy so I can't comment in this respect. I do respect people who make lots of noise on controversial topics, but don't respect those who then live outside of the ideas they make noise about. If you're going to build yourself a castle, why live in the shed next door?
Fuel consumption does not always correlate with carbon emissions. If it does with Gore's plane, has he taken reasonable measures to reduce the plane's carbon output? Get a plane or engine(s) which are more efficient? Or any of these could be in the works, they just hadn't pulled through yet? Some call this benefit of the doubt, I call it understanding.
Have you read the book, which recommends thatching your roof? Have you tied to follow the reason why he might have recommended such a technological throw back? More importantly is this current advice, and does he still agree with it? Just because he recommend(ed) thatched roofs doesn't mean he thinks house's should be one room with a sheet for a door, no windows, and a dirt floor.
GLOBAL WARMING: the time between the sun coming up, and going down...............DUH
You're talking about temperature change on a small time scale. Global warming has to do with average temperature change over longer periods of time (years). Or you are being sarcastic.
The picture of your parents playing outside or Christmas day makes for good anecdotal evidence. I'll go on ahead and assume this picture was taken in a northern area where it gets cold most Christmases. That is one day out of many winter days from many years. I'd say ask if that is normal. But their answer will be notoriously unreliable and weighed toward the bias of the questioner.
Another fallacy with using that picture is that there are always extremes from year to year. The studies and data supporting global warming has to do with trends which extend for thousands of years, with particular attention being spent to the last 150 years or so.
The differences in climate that are being cited as data are a matter of a few degrees in some places, and fractions of a degree in others. You have a gift if are able to subjectively describe those changes as warmer and colder. If you look for it to be colder, it will feel colder. If you look for it to be warmer, it will feel warmer.
Because people can't subjectively differentiate a one-degree difference doesn't mean the basic biological processes that every organism carry out aren't affected. The intricacies and contingencies at the fundamental levels of life are astounding, and many variable environmental factors are in what appears to be a perfect balance for these processes to occur. Temperature is one of those environmental factors.
I do not know enough about global water and air currents to comment on how they are effected by temperature change, but I will say this: Anything naturally occurring has more influencing it than a first appraisal reveals. In fact, many well-studied natural phenomena are only sorta kinda understood.
Whether or not global warming is real isn't a belief, it's a fact. On average the Earth is getting warmer than it ever has, faster than it ever has. However, what is causing this spike is unclear. There is also a similar spike in atmospheric carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. As often happens this correlation has been used as a cause and effect. It makes sense that an increase in greenhouse gases would lead to an increase in global temperature. But is this really the cause or is there something else influencing the rise in one or both of the spikes?
If nothing else the global warming has brought the concept of environmental stewardship back from the depths and is making people at least consider how they are impacting their environments. Whether it turns out to be as catastrophic is some predict, or as wasteful as others argue, it has at least made people consider their actions on a scale larger than themselves.
End rebuttal.
All that said I'm pretty sure the original poster just doesn't want to be perceived as following trends, and likes to stir the pot. He doesn't want to follow what's perceived as a trend of environmental conscience and stirred the pot with the possibility of his "Global Warming is a Hoax!" sticker.
