An Inconvenient Truth

If I think old Ms. Fonda should be imprisoned as a traitor and Susan should just shut up half the time, does that mean I am still part of the left? I think the whole global warming debate poses an interesting question. Is the issue of man made global warming going to become politically polarized? It is an interesting question. I know of quite a few Republicans that believe in man made global warming, but would they do nothing about it because of their party line? I guess that is basically what Bush is doing. He said he believes in man made global warming, but doing anything about it that would affect the American economy is out of the question. That seems a bit crazy wouldn't you agree? If he believes in it and does nothing about it, what kind of economy will be left? I am sure there will still be an economy, but it couldn't possibly be better off. Looking at New Orleans tells me this. I consider myself a fairly conservative person on most topics, but if I believe in man made global warming does this mean I will be viewed as an ultra liberal?

It should not mean you should be viewed as an "ultra liberal". I might add that being on the "other side" should not cast one as "anti-enviromental".

Free mittons and ear muffs to the first 100 people!

tripleb, no earmuffs or mittons are needed inside the theater. but bring a covered dish and good cheer.

Woke up this very early morning and it was 2 degrees in STL, so I had to deice the car and dig it out. Sure hope that Global warming thing is real..... BTW normal average temperature is 45 degrees at this time up here...

I saw it when it premiered at the barely reopened Canal Place Theatre in New Orleans. Maybe it was the crowd, but I found it remarkably moving. Watching that movie, in that city, at that time was an experience I'll never forget.

The movie didn't really seem offer up a lot of opinion...it was fact, backed up by scientific evidence. My brother, a geologist who is conservative and works for a big oil company, even vouched for the authenticity of ice core sampling. As he put it, no objective scientists really doubt global warming at this point.

Al Gore is an easy target, but maybe it would be more productive to use some of this energy to scour the internet looking for academic/scientific information that debunks his points about CO2 levels, the effect of CO2 levels on the temperture of the Earth, and the effects of increased temperatures on weather patterns. And as for private jets, he makes a point about buying carbon credits to offset the travel he does giving the lecture.

Seriously, even the current administration is now admitting global warming exists and that consequently polar bears are now a threatened species.

There is definitely global warming occurring at the current time. Just like there was global cooling between roughly 1940 and 1980 and warming in the 1920's. Ever hear of the little ice age that occurred several hundred years ago. Global warming is what got us out of the little ice age and it wasn't due to CO2 or other chemicals produced by man. There was also a major cooling in medieval times. And, what about the last ice age that ended about 10000 years ago when ice sheets covered most of North America? The ice sheets retreated during a period of major GLOBAL WARMING before mankind had a chance to impact the environment. Most doomsday global warming fanatics avoid discussing this INCONVENIENT TRUTH.

Warming and cooling cycles are a natural part of the rythym of the world and universe that God created. Man probably has a very minor impact on the current warming period we are in, but most of it is due to the natural cycle of the planet. There are just as many scientists that believe the warming period we are in is 100% natural as there are who believe it is due to mankind. Many, many scientists actually are convinced that our warming and cooling periods are almost 100% tied to cycles of activity on the sun. Doesn't it make more sense that fluctuations in the sun throughout history have created the periods of warming and cooling versus the theory that man is solely responsible for this period of global warming. Remember, many of the scientists espousing global warming are the same ones warning of a new coming ice age in the 1970's.

Don't believe all the propaganda that comes out of Hollyweird. Do some major research before believing either side of the debate.

Many of those who depended on corporate mass media and in particular Fox News for their information were more likely to be cheerleaders for the invasion of Iraq and to vote for ?W? not just the first time but also the second.

As it turned out both were disastrous decisions. In a democracy the stakes are too high to have a misinformed electorate.

Surveys show that those that watched / listened to PBS/NPR are better informed. They were more skeptical of attacking Iraq and were less likely to vote for ?W?.

If you consider a news source that is more factually accurate biased then you have a peculiar view of reality. But then again ?W?s grasp of reality seems a little shaky too.

By the way you might want to check your spelling of ?bipartisan?.

NPR is just as "factual" as the New York Times. What makes you believe that NPR is more factual and less biased? Every news organization and reporter (actually every darn one of us) has a bias.

What surverys and how were they better informed?

Also, some of us don't believe the invasion of Iraq to be disastrous. Saddam, a ruthless dictator, was toppled. There is a lot of work to be done in Iraq and they may never become a democracy, but some good did come out of the invasion. By the way, the men and women actually doing the fighting in Iraq and seeing what is really happening (not seeing it through the lens or pen of a reporter) voted overwhelmingly for W. I would dare say that those on the ground in Iraq are better informed than any of us over here including anyone that listens to NPR.;-)

http://www.usatoday.com/weather/climate/2007-01-09-warmest-year_x.htm

TOP 10 WARMEST YEARS IN U.S. HISTORY

Rank Year Average temperature (F)
1. 2006 55.01
2. 1998 54.94
3. 1934 54.91
4. 1999 54.53
5. 1921 54.49
6. 1931 54.34
7. 1990 54.24
8. 2001 54.23
9. 1953 54.18
10. 1954 54.13

Source: National Climatic Data Center

By Patrick O'Driscoll, USA TODAY
DENVER ? Last summer's deadly heat wave and a balmy December helped make 2006 the warmest year ever recorded in the USA, federal climate officials announced Tuesday.

The National Climatic Data Center says factors include the El Ni?o climate pattern and "the long-term warming trend" of climate change, due in part to greenhouse gases. The center says drought in the Plains and parts of the West also played a role. Wildfire agencies say warmth helped make it the worst wildfire season ever, with 9.8 million acres burned.

"There's no denying that climate change is occurring, and warmer winters and warmer years are more common for that reason," says Jay Lawrimore, monitoring chief for the center, which keeps the nation's weather records. "What we're seeing (in 2006) is just becoming so much more common."

New York City, still without snow this winter, last week broke a 129-year record for latest date for the first snowfall. In the Northeast, ski resorts report little snow and temperatures too warm to make artificial snow.

Temperatures were above normal even in Colorado, where major snowstorms before Christmas and New Year's paralyzed Denver and socked the Great Plains. The city's average reading for December was still 1.4 degrees warmer than usual.

A side benefit: Residential energy demand for heating was 13.5% lower than normal for October through December, the center said.

An average national temperature of 55.01 degrees pushed 2006 past 1998 as the warmest on record. Fifteen of the years since 1981 rank among the 25 warmest since national record-keeping began in 1895.

The climate center says the current El Ni?o, the periodic warming of Pacific waters, is the biggest factor for 2006, and global warming is "a contributing factor." This is believed to be the first time the annual temperature report mentions climate change as a cause.

It was the warmest year ever in New Jersey, and five states had their warmest December ? Connecticut, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New York and Vermont.

During last summer's heat wave, record highs from South Dakota across the Plains taxed water supplies for crops and livestock. Heat was blamed for at least 140 deaths in California.

The year's warmth wasn't just about extreme highs. Lawrimore says more than 40% of the USA had higher-than-average overnight lows last summer, compared with 10% in a typical year. Daily records for the highest overnight low were tied or broken more than 3,000 times last summer in hundreds of cities and towns, especially in the West. About 100 locations recorded their all-time highest lows for any date, from 88 in Cedar Butte, S.D., to 102 in Death Valley, Calif.

So, what. I'm sure the last ice age ended with lots of years in a row with record highs and no people were around to influence the climate then.

Also, remember, we have only been keeping temp records for about 100 years out of 4 billion.

Dude you are just striking out left and right here. I have actually seen the film the Inconvenient Truth, and the data used on the film is from 3,500,000,000 years ago. They got the data from ice cores taken at both poles. These core samples reveal data as far back as the first ice age because there has always been some ice at the poles. If you don't believe that, then you probably don't believe in carbon dating either, or better yet gravity or relativity. Which means that you obviously can't believe that scientists put rovers on Mars, or that dinosaurs existed. As for saying you have a life, I have to question that. Look at how many posts you have on this message board.

No there has not always been ice at the poles.

Sorry, but "The world's top climate scientists (according to who?) said..." is not scientific proof! Now I see that the hottest years on record (since 1850's) fall after 1994. Earlier in this thread, the top ten hottest years on record were given. The rankings showed that only 4 out of the 10 years listed were after 1994. The 1930's remain the hottest decade on record.

Scientist projections, opinions, ideas etc.... isn't scientific data. I agree, the data seems to show warming but the J U M P from that to "its our fault" isn't scientific at all. Lets face it though, you don't really think its our fault. You think its "big oil", the gluttonous USA and of course conservatives because they don't "care" as much as you do.

We have a devestating tornado last night in FL (it was referenced earlier) so it was due to GW (implied). Hurricane projections for this past fall were ominous but no major storms. I sure this is due to GW too, I just haven't figured out the angle. I must go now and see if there is still snow in my backyard

Remember, most of the manmade chemical emmissions occurred while our government was controlled by the Democrats. But, of course, W is responsible for Katrina, the tornadoes, and all of the other environmental/climate problems occurring in the world today. I got that info from NPR.

iceage, welcome to the fun. of course there are opposing sides to any argument or research, and everyone is entitled to their own. mr. gore has made a movie based on his beliefs, just as you could make one based on your own. just like npr, you have the freedom to not listen. and, you can not see the movie.

your argument holds some weight, sure there is ebb and flow to the earth's temperature, we'd be screwed without. mr. gore freely admits the same, and he also points out how extreme things are now. his numbers go far beyond natural ebb and flow.

what i don't believe i've seen in this thread, is anyone who discounts mr. gore's argument take into acount that there are a good deal more humans on the planet now than there were before. surely these additional people and their footprints are contributing something.

what a. zalace has stated above is that even if we're(the treehuggers) wrong, is the contribution of everyone who attemps to conserve hurting things by doing so? we as a nation produce and consume more than anyone else on the planet. i don't think anyone on either side of the fence can argue against that. i for one, hope we can lower the numbers a bit, and if the movie causes just one person in each viewing audience to reduce their footprint, that's a good thing in my book.

Mr. Gore, IMVHO, has hit a stride in his life where he has, for the most part, given up aspirations of high public office. Anyone who knows the Gores (being a Tennessee Sheep and a politico of Middle Tenn) also knows they have had vast ambition since the days of Albert Sr Sr Sr. Truly, I think he is fukkin' done with it. No one puts on the pounds like he has and expects to be Prez of the PTA much less USA.

Not to say he hasn't been a nasty-nasty, he grew up in a family that made its gamillions of $$$$ from Occidental Ptroleum, Armand Hammer and the sale of the precious Elk Hills and the multi zillion $$$ gas and oil reserves in this "no longer conservation" land.

But the street word in Carthage is that he has had it and if there is any due course, it is time that he repay for his sins, his father's.

We could both be wrong, though, I doubt it. My next pass thru Carthage, I will stop by and see, walk as I have in the past, right up to the Gore's front door. Push thatg comforting little yeller button and hear those welcoming words.

"There is a damn sheep ringing the bell, get the prod!"

:shock:

How many houses does Mr. Gore have? How big are they and how much energy do they use each year? I bet he and his family don't all drive nice little electric cars, and I bet he flies as often as possible on fuel guzzling private jets. If he believes what he says, then he should be the leader you take him to be. But, alas, he does not put his money where his mouth is. Nope, Mr. Gore is a hypocrit of the highest degree.

How many houses does Mr. Gore have? How big are they and how much energy do they use each year? I bet he and his family don't all drive nice little electric cars, and I bet he flies as often as possible on fuel guzzling private jets. If he believes what he says, then he should be the leader you take him to be. But, alas, he does not put his money where his mouth is. Nope, Mr. Gore is a hypocrit of the highest degree.

I don't care how many houses he has- he is making us think and talk. Have you accomplished that on a national or global level? If so, spill it and tell us why we should listen to you.

iceage, welcome to the fun. of course there are opposing sides to any argument or research, and everyone is entitled to their own. mr. gore has made a movie based on his beliefs, just as you could make one based on your own. just like npr, you have the freedom to not listen. and, you can not see the movie.

your argument holds some weight, sure there is ebb and flow to the earth's temperature, we'd be screwed without. mr. gore freely admits the same, and he also points out how extreme things are now. his numbers go far beyond natural ebb and flow.

what i don't believe i've seen in this thread, is anyone who discounts mr. gore's argument take into acount that there are a good deal more humans on the planet now than there were before. surely these additional people and their footprints are contributing something.

what a. zalace has stated above is that even if we're(the treehuggers) wrong, is the contribution of everyone who attemps to conserve hurting things by doing so? we as a nation produce and consume more than anyone else on the planet. i don't think anyone on either side of the fence can argue against that. i for one, hope we can lower the numbers a bit, and if the movie causes just one person in each viewing audience to reduce their footprint, that's a good thing in my book.

JR--we humans are clearly impacting our environment in many, many way. Heavy metals, pesticides, chloroflourocarbons, etc, etc. I just don't buy into the notion that the major cause of the current global warming cycle is humans. I believe we are way too small compared to the oceans, atmosphere, and especially the sun. I believe wholeheartedly in conservation, recycling, etc. although I won't say that I do everything I can to help the environment. We do need to try to stop the damage we are doing to our environment. However, how many of you arguing about the environment have bought an electric car, converted your home to solar or wind power, stopped buying anything with plastic, stopped using all pesticides, detergents,and fertilizers, etc, etc, etc. We all love our cushy way of life way too much to really put an end to the damage we are doing. Plus, there are just too many humans to put an end to the damage. Our footprint is too big. But, every little bit helps so we should all try to do something every day to help our environment.

I don't care how many houses he has- he is making us think and talk. Have you accomplished that on a national or global level? If so, spill it and tell us why we should listen to you.

Mr. Gore has found a way to make a name for himself after the debacle of 2000. He is reveling in the glory and making a killing and who knows, maybe setting himself for another political run. I do not believe Mr. Gore is doing anything but seeking his own glory.

Mr. Gore has found a way to make a name for himself after the debacle of 2000. He is reveling in the glory and making a killing and who knows, maybe setting himself for another political run. I do not believe Mr. Gore is doing anything but seeking his own glory.

In this day and age, who would want this kind of glory? I think Mr. Gore may be wrong for the presidency, and he knows that, but may be better for the "higher callings" of educating the masses about being good global citizens, a la Jimmy Carter.

i don't think anyone is making an EV that would fit into my industry. when an all elcertic or a hybrid ranger is produced, i'll happily be the first in line. does offsetting my emissions count? i'm pretty sure windpower is not viable around here, not enough sustained winds, and the house i inhabit does not face the correct direction for solar. does changing my bulbs to CFL count? when i offset my flight emissions, does that count? small, in the big scheme of things, i know, but i'm attempting to put my own best foot forward.

i'm glad to see that we're in agreement on some things with regards to consumption, and polution, etc. it just makes me nervous that there are others in your camp that are still going along on their merry way. the primrose path is quite nice.

i would be happy to be proven i'm wrong in regards to my beliefs on global warming. but what if not? then all our pleas will be for naught, and we'll be past the turning point. what then? i'll have used up all my sunscreen.

In this day and age, who would want this kind of glory? I think Mr. Gore may be wrong for the presidency, and he knows that, but may be better for the "higher callings" of educating the masses about being good global citizens, a la Jimmy Carter.

Yes, just like the anti semite Jimmy from Jawga.

When did humans begin emitting huge amounts of greenhouse gases. It would seem in the 1980's based on the recent global warming trends. In fact, we began spewing ever increasing amounts beginning in the late 1800's. So, why then, was the period 1940-mid 1970's a period of cooling. If humans and our greenhouse gases are primarily responsible for global warming, then why would we experience a marked period of cooling as greenhouse gas emmissions were ramping up higher and higher. Common sense says that the major culprits for warming and cooling periods are the sun and other natural factors with man playing a minor role in climate change.

When I see very bright people arguing two sides of an issue, I tend to go with common sense and God (nature to those of you that may not believe in God) is much, much bigger than man.

When did humans begin emitting huge amounts of greenhouse gases. It would seem in the 1980's based on the recent global warming trends. In fact, we began spewing ever increasing amounts beginning in the late 1800's. So, why then, was the period 1940-mid 1970's a period of cooling. If humans and our greenhouse gases are primarily responsible for global warming, then why would we experience a marked period of cooling as greenhouse gas emmissions were ramping up higher and higher. Common sense says that the major culprits for warming and cooling periods are the sun and other natural factors with man playing a minor role in climate change.

When I see very bright people arguing two sides of an issue, I tend to go with common sense and God (nature to those of you that may not believe in God) is much, much bigger than man.

Quit being a cheap twit and go out buy the movie, then WATCH IT! You might actually learn something that is if you can keep from flapping your gums for two minutes and listen.

Maybe if you would educate yourself before you develop an opinion, you might actually come up with a good one, as opposed to developing an opinion and then searching in vane for ways to support it.

Every scientist on earth is in agreement that man has deeply impacted the health of the planet, only the politicians are in doubt. The build up in CO2 has risen geometrically over the centuries. We are now at a point were deforestation, along with the burning of fossil fuels has lead us to where we have surpassed any known historical level of atmospheric CO2 in the last 600,000 years.

I hope and pray that it is not true, but if it is, then what am I going to tell my children about why I did not do more to stop it.

What are you going to tell your kids? Screw the politics and the politicians, we are talking about the future of our children and grandchildren.

Quit being a cheap twit and go out buy the movie, then WATCH IT! You might actually learn something that is if you can keep from flapping your gums for two minutes and listen.

Maybe if you would educate yourself before you develop an opinion, you might actually come up with a good one, as opposed to developing an opinion and then searching in vane for ways to support it.

Every scientist on earth is in agreement that man has deeply impacted the health of the planet, only the politicians are in doubt. The build up in CO2 has risen geometrically over the centuries. We are now at a point were deforestation, along with the burning of fossil fuels has lead us to where we have surpassed any known historical level of atmospheric CO2 in the last 600,000 years.

I hope and pray that it is not true, but if it is, then what am I going to tell my children about why I did not do more to stop it.

What are you going to tell your kids? Screw the politics and the politicians, we are talking about the future of our children and grandchildren.

Although I am not a scientist (are you ), I am educated on the subject of climate. I was very interested in pursuing climate and meterology in college but decided to take a different route after spending some time in meteorology, climate and other science classes. I have been interested and kept up with climatology since college.

I suggest you educate yourself and not put all your faith in a propoganda movie. Go do some serious research on the subject and you will find that thousands of scientists around the world disagree with the subject of the Gore movie. Also, if you will closely read my posts, I agree that man is having an impact on our environment. I just don't believe that we are the main cause of the current period of global warming.

Remember, most of the manmade chemical emmissions occurred while our government was controlled by the Democrats. But, of course, W is responsible for Katrina, the tornadoes, and all of the other environmental/climate problems occurring in the world today. I got that info from NPR.

Would you make any of your assertions if the politics of the opposing sides were reversed. You seem very angry at the messenger, more so than the message. It diminishes your argument.

I watched An Inconvenient Truth last night. Wow, what an epiphany! Al, my man, explained everything with such clarity. I am a true believer now.

NOT!

What a joke. The movie should have been called the Al Gore story. There was almost as much time spent in the movie talking about Al Gores life as there was time spent discussing global warming. I stopped counting the use of the word ?I? when he hit 100. His whining about the 2000 election was pitiful?poor, poor Al. It was a partisan hack film with not so thinly veiled references to W and his administration. Al and Bill C were in office for 8 years, why didn?t they do anything to stop the global warming. I also noticed Al driving a big old GM SUV a few minutes before he began talking about how we need to sacrifice in the US and start driving more fuel efficient vehicles and noticed him flying in private jets in several sequences. Hypocrit. I thought the movie was supposed to be a slam dunk analysis of the scientific facts behind mans 100% impact on global warming. Wrong. Old Al was more intent on talking about Al.

Enough of the Al show. Now lets look at his facts.

He stated that the most vulnerable part of our environment is the atmosphere. Wrong?it?s our fresh water supply.

He talked a lot about the naysayers and skeptics and how they are wrong. However, he never ever addresses what it is the skeptics say. Nor does he try to refute any of the evidence provided by the skeptics.

He focused only on CO2 emissions and their impact on global warming and cooling. He failed to even once discuss the even bigger impact that activity on the sun plays on global warming and cooling.

When discussing glaciers disappearing in the Alps, he fails to note that during other periods of warming, the glaciers pretty much also disappeared in the Alps. He makes it sound like there have always been glaciers.

His big old graph in the early stages of the movie that compared CO2 emissions and temperature changes was interesting but he failed to point out some key facts. In between the 3 most recent ice ages, temperatures were even warmer than they are today when we have a lot more CO2 in the atmosphere. Huh?he CONVENIENTLY left that fact out.

His graph also depicted that temps are actually flattening out in the most recent period of time even though CO2 is increasing. He CONVENIENTLY left that fact out.

He used the term EVER over and over again when saying things like ?these were the highest temps EVER recorded? and ?the most rain EVER recorded?. Well the EVER he is referring to is since the time records have been kept which in some of the countries he is referring to has only been 50 years or less and only about 100 years in the US. He CONVENIENTLY forgot to mention that this EVER represents only 50/4,000,000,000 of the history of the earth.

His focus on Katrina as being so devastating made it sound as if it was the most powerful hurricane ever. Wrong again. Not even close. This hurricane just happened to hit the most vulnerable city in the US. If the 1935 hurricane or Camille or Hugo or others (these hurricanes happened long ago) had hit NOL, the results would have been much worse than Katrina. Just more misinformation.

No, the documentary, I mean the Al Gore biography did not sway me in the least bit.

HE?S PLAYING ON OUR FEARS! Wait, I?ve heard that quote before. Where was that?oh yeah, that?s an Al Gore quote about W. Well, Al baby is doing the same thing.

What a bunch of trash.

All of that said. I do believe we are harming our environment in many, many ways. I do what I can and will continue to try to do more. My next car will be a hybrid and my next house will be green. I recycle. I have low flush toilets. I eat as much organic food as possible. We do need to work on cutting down on pollution and noxious emissions and chemicals and pesticides and lots of other things. BUT, that film was trash.

go to this site for a short list of the many prominent scientists that deny man has a significant impact on global warming.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_global_warming_consensus

Excerpt from a good article on the global warming debate with facts to back it up. The full article can be found at
http://www.reason.com/news/show/34939.html


To show how hard answering that question can be, let's take a little closer look at the two reports mentioned above. The Arctic Council report is based on the observations and deliberations of 300 scientists from eight countries and six groups of indigenous people over the past four years. They find that the Arctic region is warming at twice the rate of the rest of the world. They further find that the sea ice that covers the Arctic Ocean is thinning, and could almost disappear in the summer months by 2100.
But University of Alabama at Huntsville climatologist John Christy, a climate expert on whom I have relied for years, makes some interesting observations about the Arctic Council's report. "If you look at the long term records, the Arctic has been as warm or warmer than it is today," says Christy. He cites temperature data from the Hadley Centre in the UK showing that from 70 degrees north latitude to the pole, the warmest years on record in the Arctic were 1937 and 1938. This area is just slightly above the Arctic Circle.
Furthermore, those same records show that the Arctic warmed twice as fast between 1917 and 1937 as it has in the past 20 years. After 1940, the Arctic saw a big cool-down and climatologists noted sea ice expanding in the northern Atlantic. Christy argues that what he calls the Great Climate Shift occurred in the late 1970s and caused another sudden warming in the Arctic. Since the late 1970s there has not been much additional warming in the region at all. In fact, on page 23, the Arctic Council Assessment offers very similar data for Arctic temperature trends from 60 degrees north latitude?the area that includes most of Alaska and essentially all of Greenland, most of Norway and Sweden, and the bulk of Russia.
Interestingly, the recent increase in temperatures in Alaska and Siberia seem to have coincided almost simultaneously with a shift in the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) in the late 1970s. Could this be part of Christy's Great Climate Shift? Swings in the PDO occur on 30 to 40 year time frames, and the most recent one brought warmer currents flowing north to the coast of Alaska. The Assessment does note that "several important natural modes of variability that especially affect the Arctic have been identified, including the Arctic Oscillation, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, and the North Atlantic Oscillation. Each of these can affect the regional patterns of such features as the intensity and tracks of storm systems, the direction of prevailing winds, the amount of snow, and the extent of sea ice."

Quit being a cheap twit and go out buy the movie, then WATCH IT! You might actually learn something that is if you can keep from flapping your gums for two minutes and listen.

Maybe if you would educate yourself before you develop an opinion, you might actually come up with a good one, as opposed to developing an opinion and then searching in vane for ways to support it.

Every scientist on earth is in agreement that man has deeply impacted the health of the planet, only the politicians are in doubt. The build up in CO2 has risen geometrically over the centuries. We are now at a point were deforestation, along with the burning of fossil fuels has lead us to where we have surpassed any known historical level of atmospheric CO2 in the last 600,000 years.

I hope and pray that it is not true, but if it is, then what am I going to tell my children about why I did not do more to stop it.

What are you going to tell your kids? Screw the politics and the politicians, we are talking about the future of our children and grandchildren.

:roll:

In this day and age, who would want this kind of glory? I think Mr. Gore may be wrong for the presidency, and he knows that, but may be better for the "higher callings" of educating the masses about being good global citizens, a la Jimmy Carter.

excellent point and very well said.