yeah ive heard this..also things about his house. Its a huge house that generates a lot of power/energy.

No. We have other reasons. That’s just the part we have fun with.

Its so easy to shoot holes in Al Gores hot air balloon…hes just annoying and boring and remember that the messenger typically gets treated with animosity.

Al Gore is a big deal to Al Gore.

Global Warming IS REAL; however, NOT caused by us.

Enlighten yourself:

it’s more that the big oil companies don’t want to start losing there gigantic profits. they hire people and organizations to create doubt in the public mind. it’s the same thing as the big tobacco companies did eons ago. “create doubt” is the policy, and that’s exactly whats happening.

global warming is very real, and so is the fact that humans are playing a huge role in making it worse. theres also a phenomenon called global dimming, which is what we will have to deal with as well. believe it or not, global warming is protecting us from global dimming, but both will kill us eventually if we don’t find the perfect resolution. please don’t believe the people that say we don’t have anything to do with. don’t believe it because it is absolutely false. do your own research and decide for yourself :o)

How did he get a nobel prize before ghandi???? is it because he invented the internet?

Conservatives just don’t care to be conned! Make no mistake, Gore has a financial gain from all his efforts down the line, not from efforts already expended.

Ya all the scientist in the world that have studied this are all wrong!! ………(sarcasm)

but some money hungry politicians, in a suit and tie are right!!

Have you ever heard of hypocrisy? I am fearful of the future with such logic.

You’re defending his hypocrisy.

Truthfully, the way Gore conducts himself makes everyone suspicious.

No, Al Gore being a hypocrit has nothing to do with why a lot of people don’t buy into the man made global warming theory. I think it is mostly because the science is split on the issue and there is no real proof to indicate the warming is man made. The historical inaccuracies of the same scientists also a large part of the problem. Allow me to elaborate.
Since 1895, the media has alternated between global cooling and warming scares during four separate and sometimes overlapping time periods. From 1895 until the 1930’s the media peddled a coming ice age. From the late 1920’s until the 1960’s they warned of global warming. From the 1950’s until the 1970’s they warned us again of a coming ice age. This makes modern global warming the fourth estate’s fourth attempt to promote opposing climate change fears during the last 100 years.

The National Academy of Sciences report reaffirmed the existence of the Medieval Warm Period from about 900 AD to 1300 AD and the Little Ice Age from about 1500 to 1850. Both of these periods occurred long before the invention of the SUV or human industrial activity could have possibly impacted the Earth’s climate. In fact, scientists believe the Earth was warmer than today during the Medieval Warm Period, when the Vikings grew crops in Greenland.

What the climate alarmists and their advocates in the media have continued to ignore is the fact that the Little Ice Age, which resulted in harsh winters which froze New York Harbor and caused untold deaths, ended about 1850. So trying to prove man-made global warming by comparing the well-known fact that today’s temperatures are warmer than during the Little Ice Age is akin to comparing summer to winter to show a catastrophic temperature trend.

Something that the media almost never addresses are the holes in the theory that C02 has been the driving force in global warming. Alarmists fail to adequately explain why temperatures began warming at the end of the Little Ice Age in about 1850, long before man-made CO2 emissions could have impacted the climate. Then about 1940, just as man-made CO2 emissions rose sharply, the temperatures began a decline that lasted until the 1970’s, prompting the media and many scientists to fear a coming ice age.

A letter sent to the Canadian Prime Minister on April 6, 2006 by 60 prominent scientists who question the basis for climate alarmism, clearly explains the current state of scientific knowledge on global warming. The 60 scientists wrote: “If, back in the mid-1990s, we knew what we know today about climate, Kyoto would almost certainly not exist, because we would have concluded it was not necessary.” The letter also noted: “‘Climate change is real’ is a meaningless phrase used repeatedly by activists to convince the public that a climate catastrophe is looming and humanity is the cause. Neither of these fears is justified. Global climate changes occur all the time due to natural causes and the human impact still remains impossible to distinguish from this natural ‘noise.”

In 2006, the director of the International Arctic Research Center in Fairbanks Alaska, testified to Congress that highly publicized climate models showing a disappearing Arctic were nothing more than “science fiction.”

“Geologists Think the World May be Frozen Up Again.” That sentence appeared over 100 years ago in the February 24, 1895 edition of the New York Times.

A front page article in the October 7, 1912 New York Times, just a few months after the Titanic struck an iceberg and sank, declared that a prominent professor “Warns Us of an Encroaching Ice Age.” The very same day in 1912, the Los Angeles Times ran an article warning that the “Human race will have to fight for its existence against cold.” An August 10, 1923 Washington Post article declared: “Ice Age Coming Here.”

By the 1930’s, the media took a break from reporting on the coming ice age and instead switched gears to promoting global warming: “America in Longest Warm Spell Since 1776; Temperature Line Records a 25-year Rise” stated an article in the New York Times on March 27, 1933.

The media of yesteryear was also not above injecting large amounts of fear and alarmism into their climate articles. An August 9, 1923 front page article in the Chicago Tribune declared: “Scientist Says Arctic Ice Will Wipe Out Canada.” The article quoted a Yale University professor who predicted that large parts of Europe and Asia would be “wiped out” and Switzerland would be “entirely obliterated.”

A December 29, 1974 New York Times article on global cooling reported that climatologists believed “the facts of the present climate change are such that the most optimistic experts would assign near certainty to major crop failure in a decade.” The article also warned that unless government officials reacted to the coming catastrophe, “mass deaths by starvation and probably in anarchy and violence” would result. In 1975, the New York Times reported that “A major cooling [was] widely considered to be inevitable.”

On February 19, 2006, CBS News’s “60 Minutes” produced a segment on the North Pole. The segment was a completely one-sided report, alleging rapid and unprecedented melting at the polar cap. It even featured correspondent Scott Pelley claiming that the ice in Greenland was melting so fast, that he barely got off an ice-berg before it collapsed into the water. “60 Minutes” failed to inform its viewers that a 2005 study by a scientist named Ola Johannessen and his colleagues showing that the interior of Greenland is gaining ice and mass and that according to scientists, the Arctic was warmer in the 1930’s than today.

According to data released on July 14, 2006 from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the January through June Alaska statewide average temperature was “0.55F (0.30C) cooler than the 1971-2000 average.”

In August 2006, Khabibullo Abdusamatov, a scientist who heads the space research sector for the Russian Academy of Sciences, predicted long-term global cooling may be on the horizon due to a projected decrease in the sun’s output.

I only know this because I know a lot about science. We are in what I call a “fast food” society these days. Meaning that everything is now, now, now! What was our world like 1 year ago, 10 years ago, 100, 1000, 10,000 years and so on? We cannot base our future with only a melting ice cube and a few years of temperature recordings. The planet is millions and millions of years old, heating and cooling the whole time. How is a small group of biased scientists in just a couple years of study (if that) going to tell us that the planet is heating/changing because of insignificant little mankind? When I was a liberal in high school, it was Global Cooling and an ozone that was disappearing world wide. Now in Phoenix, we have had cooler summer days and TOO much ozone. I bought it then and I don’t buy it now. I don’t live my life with the collective thought process like the left does. I make up my own conclusions on our planet.

What’s so bad if the temp goes up 1 or two degrees anyway? It has before hundreds of times and somewhere in there, man came along when Mammoths were walking around in an ice covered planet. Gee, the planet warmed up back then and we prospered.

You obviously have been drinking the kool-aid.

The scientific objection to global warming is that it is not man-caused as it is being purported by the liberal spin machine. Al Gore has been attacked for his use of a private jet because it is hypocritical to his own position.

I think if Al Gore presented the POSSIBILITY that global warming might be due in some part to man as opposed to declaring it written in stone, others might take him a little more seriously. However, as it stands, he simply does not want to consider ANY other possibilities for climate change.
Had he taken the approach of evaluating ALL the factors involved in global warming and stated that the bottom line was that we all need to take better care of the planet REGARDLESS of the causes of climate change, I think people would be much more receptive to his message.

First man made global warming needs to be emipically proven.
Good luck with that.

The private jet thing is just a way of pointing out one of the many inconsistencies in Al Gore’s “Inconvenient Truth”. Gore has sewn together a sort of crazy quilt of “scientific data” to make the case that humans are destroying the Earth. He also implores readers/viewers of his book/film to purchase hybrid cars and to conserve energy and waste as a means of reversing the ill effects. At the same time, he jets around in an airplane that burns more fuel in one trip tham a Hummer would in one year. This is somewhat hypocritical. It does not necessarily mean that global warming is not happening, but it does take some of the passion out of his arguments.
Scientifically, there is a much wider range of opinions than Mr. Gore presents and there is even wider controversy over the effects of global warming.

There is tremendous scientific support for the projections that global climate change will result or is already resulting from man-made influences. There is little credible scientific argument against the possible effects of man’s activity. There are tons of arguments, but not credible scientific arguments.

I read a post recently that said, “Yea, well, a few years ago the “libs” were up in arms about the hole in the ozone layer, and that turned out okay.” The argument seemed to be that by extension, the warnings about climate change are over-reactions, too. What the poster was not thinking about was that we made MAJOR changes in the use of ozone-destroying gases, and moderated the problem. Had we done nothing, the result would have been different.

This is an example of the justification being used for “not believing.”

Also, one of your earlier posters said that Gore’s house generates power. Excellent! I wish mine generated power instead of consuming it. If all houses generated power, we would be a lot better off! I’m not trying to be mean in pointing that out. Please take it as another example of how important careful phrasing and factual checking are in the debate. In ANY civilized debate, in fact.

Edit - While I was typing, several answers were also entered. I am about out of time this morning but I’d like to address two points made in different posts. One person said that humans tend to think of things in terms of the here and now instead of taking the longer picture. I agree. Another said that the sun’s projected reduced output will cause cooling on the earth. This is also true. Now put the two points together: The reduction in the sun’s output is projected to take millions of years. We are not talking about a reduction in solar energy reaching the earth for the next 100 years, but the effects of greenhouse gases will be felt in the next 100 years. Part of the problem is that there is a lag between the event and the perceived effects of the event. The reason for much of the debate is that we MUST use projections as well as historical measurements. I’d like to discuss some of the “historical data” brought up in a long and civil post above, but again, time prohibits. Thank you for the question.

The two points (Al Gore’s hypocrisy and scientific objections to man made global warming) are separate.

See the book Unstoppable Global Warming Every 1500 Years to understand the scientific objections to the idea of man made global warming. There is a significant body of hard science showing that the current theories of the human causes of global warming, if they have an effect at all are truly marginal and at the edges of measurability at their maximum. The actual global warming that occurs is a natural cycle and no matter what we do it will happen, just as we will not be able to reverse the fall in temperatures that follows.

The comments about Al Gore center on the hypocrisy of the messenger, not the message. If Mr. Gore believes that we should all change our behavior in order to save the world, why does he not change his own behavior? He clearly believes that he is more important than us. We peons need to change our behavior while the truly enlightened get to stay with theirs. I see nothing wrong in pointing out that hypocrisy even if he was correct.

Let’s see now. Let’s set the house and the jet aside for a moment.

Al got an Oscar. He flew to HOLLYWOOD to get it.

Hollywood indeed. Can anyone name one other place in the world that is more indicative of wasteful consumption?

Hollywood indeed. Go up on that mountain that holds the ‘Hollywood’ sign. You can actually see off shore oil platforms in the Pacific.

While you’re up there, you’ll notice that the air is so polluted you can actually touch it.

BTW the entire region is developed on stolen water that is consumed at an alarming rate.

Notice any of the vehicles pulling up to the red carpet on Oscar night? Those are the biggest, blackest Hybrids I’ve ever seen.

How do they get those searchlights to shine so bright with candles?

How many homeless could we feed with what all those gowns and tuxedos cost?

One of those Bimbos was actually wearing a gown that cost more than my first house.

Considering the impact on the environment with all those super stars traveling in for the event and occupying penthouse suites in the hotels, wouldn’t it make more environmental sense to conduct the whole thing on a web-cast?

Who’s kidding who here?

I guess who are we to be so arrogant as to think we are the only cause for global warming ? It WILL happen weather we are here or not.

It has already been proven that the planet goes through climate cycles every so often. Why is there limited focus on this ? Hey, I have no problem with alternative fuels. I use solar power myself and would love nothing more than to get off of fossil fuels. But to me, I see no solid proof that we are the sole cause.

To me, Al Gore has done nothing but very effectively, add fuel to the fire of political propaganda and media furver in the effort to further himself and his party.

The media machine of the right has a momentum of its own, and many of them have begun to believe their own lies. I suppose they view that as a victory.

Isn’t it amazing the way Gore is being flayed? And he’s not even running. But his success is a threat to corporate greed, a threat to the Right’s version of non-science, the twisted view of Earth as being able to support an infinite number of people with no danger of pollution or environmental change.

This was the real reason for the Nobel, a political statement to emphasize the larger world’s view, so as to combat local propaganda.

So Gore will be attacked relentlessly, and the original reason will be obscured.

This is just one:

It’s not cut and dry. Yes, the Earth is warming. Thermometers over time tell you that. It’s hard to refute.

Is it part of a natural cycle? What impact do humans have on it? These are the fuzzy points.

And Gore has latched onto this as his last gasp hope at a legacy. “We are dooming ourselves to global catastrophe!!”

Meanwhile, he flies around in his jet (alot), has numerous mansions that have carbon footprints the size of Texas, he makes millions off of owning shares in a company that trades in “Carbon credits,” and people on the left wonder why he is the object of disdain from the right.

what is wrong with you people??? global warming is NOT about politics!! seriously, are u all living under a rock or something? it’s called science. Marie is actually right about the big oil companies!!

if you would do some research on your own, instead of getting all your fact from the talking heads on tv, you would know that exxon mobile has admitted to funding certain denier organizations. they may not admit their TRUE intentions but they cant hide where their money goes.

this is not opinion…this is fact. unfortunately most of ya’ll are basing your opinions on other opinions.

p.s. Al Gore DESERVES the Nobel Prize.

I have asked them to provide an alternative scientific explanation for the current global warming many times. Global warming deniers can never come up with one.

All they can do is engage in ad hominem attacks and present the same tired old debunked arguments, like “SUVs on Mars” and “it’s all a magical natural cycle”.