I read something about Al Gore making a Global Warming Film What's that all about?
544880
Just another example of an idiot in politics that has nothing better to show for any kind of platform. Al Gore is an idiot.
1103116
GLOBAL WARMING/THE ENVIRONMENT IN GENERAL\n\nAny and I mean any environmental cause or approach must be grassroots in nature. Having PhD's talk about global warming and having those representing industry interests debunk these present theories is a high level and almost an entirely futile effort. Don't get me wrong, it is great that someone with Al Gore's connections and exposure is getting the word out. However, people are people they want to see results. \n\nYes, the expression is now trite but still true, "Thing Globally, Act Locally". Watching the sky over a city, town or even a more rural area become darkened by smog has local impact, people take note and actually see A PROBLEM. A problem that can measured in terms of air quality or perhaps an AIR QUALITY HEALTH INDEX like the one that the provincial government in Ontario, Canada is in the process of implementing. You can measure results (however small) in terms of air quality and the affect it has on the health care system (those with breathing problems, doctor's visits, etc). It certainly speaks to the advantage of a UNIVERSAL health care system (however, actually implemented) as it actually makes sense to improve the environment as it keeps people healthy (a humanitarian cause) and when health care it publicly funded it affects the public coffers when people become ill therefore it even makes better financial sense to keep the environment a top priority.\n\nPlus any approach must be entire with a complete overall plan (the big picture). Including recycling initiatives, energy solutions (alternatives/renewables can now present a real potential financial threat to the big oil companies and even power companies...), government involvement at all levels, public transit, greener vehicles in general (Hybrid, Hydrogen, Conventional electric, bio-diesel, ethanol), conservation in all energy arenas, ETC!\n\nEconomic viability is the real sell as many of these solutions are just that economically sensible (ensuring we look at the entire picture). Yes as more people use solar, wind and other renewable energy sources the cheaper the technology will get. Two of the newest billionaires have earned a large portion through renewables Solar (India I believe) and Wind (China I believe). Yes in many ways developing nations and economies will be the first and early adopters of such renewable tech as they are just building much of their infrastructure.\n\nSo what do we all need to do? GET INVOLVED ! Contact your local government about improving your recycling program, contact provincial/state/federal government about the adopting of these new technologies (renewables such as solar/wind), buy gas with ethanol in it and demand it, use and demand bio diesel, buy products with less packaging and demand manufacturers to reduce packaging and to offer a price break as a result. More ECONOMIC VIABILITY! After all energy diversity just like economic diversity is the safest and best bet for good long term results and return on investment.\n\nJoe...\n\n\nKEEP IT UP MR. GORE THE POLAR BEARS NEED YOU FIRST **GRIN**.
500064
Al Gore created it. Ask him, he'll tell you.
250317
Ha Ha Ha, of course they have, there is 40 years of scientific research from scientists all over the world. They first softened the language, and started calling Global Warming, Global Climate Change. The Republicans are for business, and capitalism. They want to drill oil in Alaska. We have had record oil profits with hurricane damage in "ONE" year. The New York Times reported that, the oil companies profits they (WHAT THEY TURNED IN) were more than a country the size of America makes in taxes in "ONE" year. There is 10,000 articles on this subject, and yes it is real.
1060343
How about the guy around here who has a new theory on global warming?  I hear he's in line for a Nobel Prize!
997314
Al Gore doesn't travel in a private jet.  He flies commercially, just like almost everybody reading this.  Also, he and his wife live a carbon neutral lifestyle: they calculate the amount of carbon they generate, and since they can't reduce their emissions to 0 (no one can), they buy carbon offsets to make up the balance.  (Carbon offsets are investments in clean energy and carbon reduction projects.)  Both the book version and the film version of "An Inconvenient Truth" have been certified carbon neutral.  Gore is donating all of the proceeds of the book and film to global warming education.  Finally, Gore's business, Generation Investment, is also carbon neutral.
1093200
Not enough. I think the film deserves much more media coverage than it has gotten, whether or not if it's supported by Gore.
1172457
See Al Gore's movie..  (An Inconvient Truth),I personally saw a microburst in the state of Maine the other day...unheard of in this part of the country
1169481
As partisan and insulting a statement (not even question) as that is, there are a few aspects to be addressed when discussing global warming.\n\nGlobal warming is the term used to describe how the average temperature of the planet is going up.  No one denies that the temperature is, in fact, going up.  Therefore, no one denies that global warming is a fact.\n\nHowever, according to studies of Antarctic ice, the average temperature of the planet has been rising for 6,000 years, which is well before the Industrial Revolution of 150 years ago.  This proves that global warming is not caused by man.  In that time, however, the rate of temperature rise has increased, which means that the actions of humanity probably has worsened the situation.\n\nThe critical facts about global warming are these:\n\nWhat are the effects of global warming going to be, and how can we prepare for them?  Currently, no model of global atmospheric projection has shown itself to accurately predict to any degree the general weather patterns of the Earth (such as the number and ferocity of hurricanes).  Until we come up with an accurate way of predicting the effects of global warming, preparing for them will be difficult and based upon conjectures, which are a difficult sell to taxpayers.\n\nWhat can be done to limit the effect of humanity on global warming in the future WITHOUT putting a major damper on economic growth and development, especially in developing nations?  For example, all nations could agree to stop driving vehicles that use internal combustion engines, but to do so at once would devastate the economies of many nations.  However, other options, such as diverting tax funds to subsidize the development of alternative-energy propulsion for vehicles, would accelerate the advent of such earth-friendly technology.\n\nAll in all, because of the massive stakes involved when discussing global warming (and the subsequent misinformation flying around about it), many people are confused as to the facts about it.  I was hoping to be as informative and unbiased as possible.\n\nPlease let me know what you think!
716608
There is not a consistent policy about global warming because no country wants to limits it own industrial capabilities to prevent pollution. The US agreed to the Kyoto Accords but now finds ways to side-step their obligation. How can any group of countries punish the US? Too many factors such as the national economies of small countries depend on the US for trade to force Washington to comply. But one thing is certain and that is that there is no agreement as to global warming even amongst the scientific community. It is being used by politicians as a gimmick to sway opinions. Before Al Gore didn't much worry about global warming but found it useful to take votes from Republicans and so there was sudden attention.Are you certain that there is indeed global warming? I realize that people have been tugging at the issue for years, but there is no substantial proof that this warming effect is not a cyclical phenomena. We have no proof about the last 50,000 years from the estimated period of the Ice Age. Counting tree rings is hardly an answer and the oldest know trees are less than 3,000 years...perhaps this situation occurs every ten thousand years. Fossils date much further back and we know that some cataclysmic event, a massive volcano or perhaps even a meteorite created so much dust that the earth was blanketed and brought about the sudden extinction of the dinosaurs. That took place about 65,000,000 years ago...just days ago, Norwegian paleontologists announced the discovery of a dinosaur 'graveyard' with the fossils of ichthyosaurs and pleisosaurs (perhaps cousins of the Loch Ness Monster) on an Island about 800 miles from the North Pole. Because both types of dinosaurs were marine (living in salt water), we then can assume they died in the water...but the 'graveyard' is now situated on a hillside some distance from the sea, but also that the water level was much higher at that time...Global Warming? Island can rise and sink because of volcanic activity but the island shows no geological suggestion that that was so. Perhaps too, this is a natural event in that as the temperature increases, so does evaporation and thusly more rain, so could it be that it is a cleansing system to remove pollutants from the atmosphere? There are many far-fetched theories and one is from Australia where scientists claim that cows are a major source of pollution. Herbivores produce methane gas as they digest grasses, fodder and such, and with the vast number of cows and other herbivores, our atmosphere is contaminated. It makes little sense as in America were vast herds of bison, and the plains of Africa still have millions of grazing animals...both past and present. The die-off of marine organisms is often linked to man-made problems...oil spills, dredging, sewage and such...i.e. the Thames River of England was so polluted years ago that no fish could exist...the environmental agency cleaned it up by stopping sewage, etc and now 10 species of fish have returned. We build dams and prevent floods and deprive vital nutrients to the sea. In Asia, DDT was introduced to protect the crops and successfully killed many species of fish and birds (most potent when used with oil as the solvent). Few people understand that a tree does many things besides provide wood, it retains soil but also transpires a substantial amount of moisture into the air...and we cut down the forests. We cover vast areas with tarmac and concrete and deaden the soil. On my last visit to Mt. Kilimanjaro, I noticed the reduction of the ice caps and glaciers but I didn't come away with any firm conviction of a drastic change. In Tibet, I visited the glacial rivers but they seemed much unchanged, and the peak of Mt. Everest seems to have the same amount of snow and ice. The only tangible proof I have found is that some of the tropical marine life in the Sea of Cortez have move further north, but that could be explained by a shifting of currents, rather than an
924926
I swear, that movie did more harm than good. Here's my take on things... very briefly.\n\nThe flash freezing you see in the movie... physically impossible.\nThe giant, planet-sized storm... nope.\n\nHere's reality:\nMore carbon-dioxide in the atmosphere = higher surface temperatures\nHigher temperatures = less ice and snow, expansion of water in the oceans, more water vapor in the air\nMore water vapor in the air = more greenhouse effect = higher temperatures\nLess ice and snow = less reflection of sunlight (and higher temperatures), more water in the oceans\nMore water in the oceans = Oceans less salty = slowdown of deep ocean currents\n\nAll of these could lead to dramatic changes in weather patterns that would be very hard (and expensive) to adapt to... and that's really the worry. And once you change the climate, it would be very hard to change it back the way it was. And the whole thing is so complex that it's hard to tell exactly what the final results of the meddling might be.
1093830
Here's something to dwell on:\n\nGlobal Warming has become a religion run by fanatics reminiscent of the leaders of the darkest days of the Inquisition that nearly destroyed civil society only a few hundred years ago. We are not to question the great god of Global Warming. Those who do are separated from civil society and labeled as heretics. \n\nThe simple truth is there is no scientific consensus on Global Warming. In fact, as the media frenzy screams global warming, there are a growing number of scientists who are expressing their doubts.  In 1992, just prior to the UN’s Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, 425 scientists and other intellectual leaders signed The Heidelberg Appeal, a quiet call for reason in dealing with the climate change issue, which expressed a conviction that modern society is the best equipped in human history to solve the world’s ills, provided that they do not sacrifice science, intellectual honesty and common sense to political opportunism and irrational fears. Today, the Heidelberg Appeal has been signed by more than 4,000 scientists and leaders from 100 countries, including more than 70 Nobel Prize winners.\n\nAlso in 1992, another statement from some 47 atmospheric scientists was issued saying greenhouse global warming theories derive from highly uncertain scientific theories. The statement went on to say, "We are disturbed that activists, anxious to stop energy and economic growth, are pushing ahead with drastic policies without taking notice of recent changes in the underlying science."\n\nIn 1995, over 85 scientists and climate experts from research labs and universities worldwide, signed the Leipzig Declaration. In part it says, "In a world in which poverty is the greatest social pollutant, any restriction on energy use that inhibits economic growth should be viewed with caution. For these reasons, we consider ‘carbon taxes’ and other drastic control policies – lacking credible support from the underlying science – to be ill-advised, premature, wrought with economic danger, and likely to be counterproductive."\n\nIn 1997, a Gallop Poll of eminent North American climatologists shows that 83% did not support the claims of the green house theory of Global Warming.  In 1998, The Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine (OISM) issued a petition for signature by atmospheric scientists saying there is no scientific evidence indicating that greenhouse gases cause global warming. That petition was signed by more than 17,000 scientists and leaders involved in the issue. \n\nGlobal Warming scaremongers have tried to discredit these statements from the opposition, saying either they are too old to be counted in today’s debate or that they weren’t signed by real scientists. Neither is true. One only has to look at the signers on the documents and statements to know who and what they are. The relevance of the documents can be answered in two ways. First, most of the signers of these documents from the 1990’s hold the same positions today. Second, as is the fallacy in the Global Warming debate, such drastic climate changes, as described by scaremongers, would not come about overnight. Though the proponents would have you believe otherwise, 15 years is but a microsecond in the study of the earth’s activities.\n\nHowever, there is great question about the validity of the documents promoted by the Global Warming crowd. In May 1996, unannounced and possibly unauthorized changes to the United Nation’s report on climate change touched off a firestorm of controversy within the scientific community. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change the science group that advises the United Nations on the global warming issue, presented a draft of its report in December 1995, and it was approved by the delegations. However, when the printed report appeared in May 1996, it was discovered that substantial changes and deletions had been made to the report to make it conform to the P
985565
As I remember, it's about a world that has become poisoned by pollution, over populated and underfed. It is a police state where information is forbidden and those sources are illegal. At least that world gave you the right to die in dignity but you weren't supposed to know you were about to become food. I'd have thought that Heston's politics would have different because of that movie. You might try seeing 1984 and Logan's Run as well. I still think we may well be headed in that direction if we don't do something about our own state of affairs very soon.
1029300
Haven't seen it, yet. Ebert & Roeper gave it thumbs up last \nweek. They also said that in comparison with the limited of \nnumber of theaters it opened in, it did better than what ever \nwas number one.\n\nGlobal warming - I've seen pics of the ice caps 10 yrs. ago, & \ntoday - they are obviously melting. The disturbing thing are the\nphotos of the thinning polar bears. Less ice, means less prey\nfor them to eat. It also means less cubs.
282103
Is the book you read "State of Fear"?\n\nYou can debate this all you want, but you wont get anywhere until you define 'global warming.'  I think I wrote a long-winded explanation in another answer, so search for that.\n\nThe long and the short of it is:\n\n1.  The Earth goes through natural warming and cooling, based on a HUGE range of varying natural processes, from changes in orbital paramaters to changes in sea ice thickness in polar regions.  It has done this since there were oceans and an atmosphere, and will always continue.\n\n2.  Humans have influenced certain properties of the atmosphere and hydrosphere that may be contributing to accelerated warming (ozone depletion, increased levels of 'greenhouse' gases, etc).  Since we dont know if the Earth would be warming anyway, we cant definitively say that a current warming trend is related to human influence (but its a good bet).\n\n3.  Global warming trends are difficult to understand.  As a paleoclimatologist, I dont even understand it.  I dont know where the temperature data has been collected, the spatial distribution of the data points, I dont know what the temperatures are being compared to (the Earth has been much warmer at times in the past), I dont know if the scientists who tabulate the data are being influenced by something other than true science, etc.\n\nBottom line is that its a VERY VERY complex problem.  Unfortunately, the more data that are generated, the more complex and vague the answer will become, and the more people will become divided over the interpretation of the data.\n\nIt would be wise to minimize our impact on the climate system (or any Earth system for that matter) as best we can, no matter what the answer is.  The more interesting question is: when will the next 'ice age' begin, if it hasnt already?!?!?
924632
The 2 different things you mention do NOT coincide ironically.  As you mention, 'slow warming & melting' compared to a couple movies about penquins that were released in the past 2 years.  Not hardly slow at all.  Global warming, like you say, has been slowly going on for years and years.  The popularity of these movies is a 'recent' thing.  Dogs are afraid of fire.  But if a dog is born during a forest fire, that does not make it ironic.  Just 2 seperate events that have nothing to do with the other.  Just like the 2 things in your statement.
1045634
I don't think a lot of people read this. It is interesting information. I had to take a tree hugger science last year and one of the things the professor admitted to is that another one of the destructive gases to the ozone that they beleive is causing the global warming is ethanol, and uria, which are both caused by natural body occurances, the ethonal comes from Pooh, while the uria comes from Urine. Not just human but animal as well. I personally don't know, but am refreshed to see another prospective on the whole thing. Now they can prove all of it, inclucding the CFC part Maybe we can all use Aqua Net again.