June 2, 2006 4:40 PM PDT

Gore film calls for environmental action

What does former Vice President Al Gore have in common with "Chucky" and "Freddie Krueger"? He is the main character in a horror movie, at least of sorts.

To some, "An Inconvenient Truth," the documentary opening today about global warming and Gore's crusade to raise environmental awareness, will be scarier than anything Hollywood has produced in years.

The film tracks Gore and the multimedia lectures he gives around the world. His talks connect greenhouse gasses to recent draughts, hurricanes, floods, famine, heat waves, melting glaciers and global epidemics. And there's more to come, unless political action is taken, the movie asserts.

Click here to Play

Video: Gore's crusade to halt global warming
Watch a trailer for the documentary "An Inconvenient Truth."

Gore presents endless charts, numbers and diagrams of temperatures and carbon dioxide and water levels to argue that global warming is real and alarming, and that the U.S. is responsible for almost a third of greenhouse gas emissions.

His conclusion: "Maybe we should be preparing against other threats than terrorists."

So is Gore being an alarmist or a soothsayer?

Gavin Schmidt, a climate modeler at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York, saw the movie and said Gore calls it like it is. "He didn't say the world is going to end, or that all these consequences are going to happen tomorrow," Schmidt said. "I thought it was a good balance of evidence and caution."

Schmidt agreed with Gore that global warming is being caused by humans. "It is unquestionably human-driven, there is no other possibility," he said. "The idea that there are two sides to this, that there are all these dueling scientists, that's media fabrication."

Not surprisingly, the film already has its preemptive critics. The free-market think tank Competitive Enterprise Institute aired television ads in 14 cities the week before the movie premiered, arguing that it's alarmist. "Carbon dioxide--they call it pollution," the ads said. "We call it life."

But Bob Epstein, co-founder of Environmental Entrepreneurs, a network for business people trying to combine environmentalism with entrepreneurialism, said Gore was spot on.

"We are already seeing the consequences and we already have the solution," Epstein said.

Schmidt agreed that there are things that can be done immediately to slow global warming, such as improving energy efficiency and reducing the use of carbon emitting fuels. He also thinks the Gore film will raise awareness, even if it falls short of sparking real political action.

"It will probably expose people to more science than they have seen since high school, probably not even then. I think that's a good thing," he said. "Do I think it's going to cause some seismic shift in the political outlook in the U.S.? I'm not terribly optimistic about that."

See more CNET content tagged:
global warming, documentary, Al Gore, vice president, movie

108 comments

Join the conversation!
Add your comment
Did Gore take Geology?
Maybe he was asleep in the back row. If anyone cares to look in a geology textbook and back through geologic time and what went on, they will immediately see that (for example) in Jurassic times for instance, the level of CO2 in the atmosphere was much MUCH higher (about 2900ppm) that it is today, (less than 400ppm). The
Cambrian Period had a spike of CO2 up to 7000 ppm. Evidently the dino's were driving around in SUV's and of course we all know the Earth ended shortly thereafter. Except for the various ice ages inbetween periods of much higher temperatures, the earth's climate has always been just like it is today (heavy sarcasm). Ah and then it is possible they may find oil under the Antarctic from the old tropical vegetation that used to be there. You see, back when the continents were moving around and ocean currents were changing...oops they still are. Oh yes and then the sun varies its output and did you know that the Martian ice has been melting and receding recently too? All those darn Martians breathing out CO2 like the cows and chickens and humans are here on earth. Or maybe it is caused by all the politicians breathing hot CO2 out into space and it is traveling clear across to the Martian ice cap and melting it. Too bad public schools have such an abysmal record on teaching basic science. Ignorance is not bliss. It could cost the U.S. and Europe dearly, while China and India laugh. Predicted next doomsday scenario: Just wait until the magnetic field of the earth reverses.
Posted by furgle (10 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Did you?!?!
Furgle, you are a prime example of someone who skims 30-year
old geology textbooks and thinks he understands science. If
you want to live in the Cambrian Period, before the evolution of
the frontal lobe that you seem to not use, then go ahead and
move to Brasil, but don't act like you know more than the 100's
of scientists who agree with Gore and not you.

For the record, the CO2 content in the Jurassic was 3 times
greater than today, and the plants and animals were adapted to
live in it, but then it changed ... much more slowly than we are
seeing today and guess what, the dino's didn't take climate
change very well at the end, did they (heavy sarcasm).

Sarcasm is a skill that you don't have, furgle, and with factual
statements being an even lesser skill, maybe you should go
listen to Rush and leave the thinking to others.
Posted by MacGregory (53 comments )
Link Flag
So maybe...
... you want go to back to the Jurassic! With a little luck, some hungry dino will find you!

:-D
Posted by aemarques (162 comments )
Link Flag
Scientists Respond to Gore
<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.canadafreepress.com/2006/harris061206.htm" target="_newWindow">http://www.canadafreepress.com/2006/harris061206.htm</a>

Appearing before the Commons Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development last year, Carleton University paleoclimatologist Professor Tim Patterson testified, "There is no meaningful correlation between CO2 levels and Earth's temperature over this [geologic] time frame. In fact, when CO2 levels were over ten 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 asked the committee, "On the basis of this evidence, how could anyone still believe that the recent relatively small increase in CO2 levels would be the major cause of the past century's modest warming?"

Patterson concluded his testimony by explaining what his research and "hundreds of other studies" reveal: on all time scales, there is very good correlation between Earth's temperature and natural celestial phenomena such changes in the brightness of the Sun.
Posted by furgle (10 comments )
Link Flag
he is full of it
someone please tell him the world heats then cools it has been that way since time started. He is trying to make a comeback with appealing to the far left. the far north was sub-topical millions of years ago now ice its the way the world works
Posted by retired_afmil (7 comments )
Reply Link Flag
yes...and
those changes took thousands to hundreds of thousands of years to take place...not hundreds...or even tens of years...read a book
Posted by epiccollision (105 comments )
Link Flag
this is not the time for simple minds
Yes the world heats and cools - and there are consequences to it
that you might not be so happy to deal with. Red states in the
plains and South might become as miserable as they deserve to be.
Inundated coastlines and dustbowls. Isn't it ironic that if global
warming wipes out the red states, we might finally be able to do
something about it (although perhaps 50 years to late). Trust me
when I tell you Al has a much better command of this subject than
you do. It is just a shame you are too brainwashed to let him help
you.
Posted by southstinks (4 comments )
Link Flag
Idiot
Typical response from someone with no science background. They used to call this runnaway global warming since at some point you can't just stop and things get better. The earth hasn't always been populated by humans and the warming was caused by a more gradual change so that evelution could adapt. So keep on and the world will go back to the animals or nothing will adapt and everything will die.
Posted by stevenmcs (47 comments )
Link Flag
CNET: Stick wth tech.
What is this crap, CNET? Just because Al Gore created the internet doesn't mean you have to chime in with your liberal bias. The climate has varied greatly over the years, and well before man was around. And why doesn't Gore mention that global warming got worse while he was in the White House? Maybe because he wants a Democrat in office. How "convenient." <a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.nypost.com/movies/66485.htm" target="_newWindow">http://www.nypost.com/movies/66485.htm</a>

CNET, don't make me lose respect for you.
Posted by innov8ion (62 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Here's your "tech tie-in"
The almost-president edits with Final Cut Pro and knows how to
use Keynote to make multi-media presentations. The current Chief
Executive would have a difficult time even switching on a computer.

<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.apple.com/hotnews/articles/2006/05/" target="_newWindow">http://www.apple.com/hotnews/articles/2006/05/</a>
inconvenienttruth
Posted by CBSTV (780 comments )
Link Flag
"varied"...could you be
a little more specific...Ever since the Pre-Cambrian (600 million years ago), ice ages have occurred at widely spaced intervals of geologic time - approximately 200 million years - lasting for millions, or even tens of millions of years. For the Cenozoic period, which began about 70 million years ago and continues today, evidence derived from marine sediments provide a detailed, and fairly continuous, record for climate change. This record indicates decreasing deep-water temperature, along with the build-up of continental ice sheets. Much of this deep-water cooling occurred in three major steps about 36, 15 and 3 million years ago - the most recent of which continues today. During the present ice age, glaciers have advanced and retreated over 20 times, often blanketing North America with ice. Our climate today is actually a warm interval between these many periods of glaciation. The most recent period of glaciation, which many people think of as the "Ice Age", was at its height approximately 20,000 years ago.

so with these scales of over thousands of years we have managed to speed this up dramatically to decades...nuff said
Posted by epiccollision (105 comments )
Link Flag
You've already...
lost any respect you deserve. Maybe you missed the announcement that CNet was going into the news biz. Or maybe the website URL fooled you.

If your complaint is with CNet, dont bash Gore. If your complaint is with Gore, go to FreedomForums.com where you and all of the other Gore-bashing America-haters can snivel in company.

If you didnt hate Gore so much, you'd know that he *did* talking about global warming was increasing while he was *in* the White House.
If you had a brain, which obviously you dont, you would have paid attention to the fact that Gore has been talking about environmental issues for thirty years.
But since you have been brainwashed by minions of The Project for a New American Century(aka The New World Order--see Iraq), there is no hope for you.
Just go back to Rushie-baby, you ditto-head.
Posted by Vurk (147 comments )
Link Flag
Respect?
I think you ought to worry a little bit more about whether anybody
respects you. On the other hand, you are correct. Global warming
really isn't a big deal given that Neanderthals such as yourself are
still with us and seem to be breeding at an unprecedented rate.
Posted by southstinks (4 comments )
Link Flag
Typical republican idiot
Typical response from someone with no science background. They used to call this runnaway global warming since at some point you can't just stop and things get better. The earth hasn't always been populated by humans and the warming was caused by a more gradual change so that evelution could adapt. So keep on and the world will go back to the animals or nothing will adapt and everything will die.
Posted by stevenmcs (47 comments )
Link Flag
Experts say C|NET is promoting a socialist agenda
Experts universally proclaimed that C|NET is promoting socialism. "Yes, everbody agrees" said one expert... "the site is purely a vehicle to promote taking money from those who work hard in a society, and redistributing it to those who can't or won't work hard".

C|NET is also famous for its obsession with the XXX registry, and allegations of secret hurricane machines.
Posted by gerhard_schroeder (311 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Esperts say that gerhard is mixing up science with socialism.
Too bad gerhard's politics blinds him to the fact that thousands
of research papers and universities and supercomputers are
studying the global phenomenon of climate change and global
warming...and none of them talk about issues of the proletariat
work force or economic capital. They are telling us that
ecological processes are changing and that many people and
species will be harmed by the change as it is happening very
fast.

Their job is to study those things and the job of journalists is to
tell you about those studies so that you can remain a "hard
worker" yet learn about the world around you. No one wants
your money, dude, so keep it and if you are so smart, why not
take it and buy up lots of Florida coast real estate and see how
long it takes for the waters to lap up to your couch. If you don't
believe Gore or the 1000 scientists, then maybe listen to the
insurance industry which is right now using the information in
their free market capitalistic plans for devesting themselves
from policies that will inundate them when the climate changes
subsantially in 20 years. They don't think it is a dumb
redistribution of money to plan ahead. They just want to do
their own redistributing.

As for c|net promoting socialism, I don't see it and maybe you
should grow up and not be so offended by science.
Posted by MacGregory (53 comments )
Link Flag
Experts say that gerhard is mixing up science with socialism.
Too bad gerhard's politics blinds him to the fact that thousands
of research papers and universities and supercomputers are
studying the global phenomenon of climate change and global
warming...and none of them talk about issues of the proletariat
work force or economic capital. They are telling us that
ecological processes are changing and that many people and
species will be harmed by the change as it is happening very
fast.

Their job is to study those things and the job of journalists is to
tell you about those studies so that you can remain a "hard
worker" yet learn about the world around you. No one wants
your money, dude, so keep it and if you are so smart, why not
take it and buy up lots of Florida coast real estate and see how
long it takes for the waters to lap up to your couch. If you don't
believe Gore or the 1000 scientists, then maybe listen to the
insurance industry which is right now using the information in
their free market capitalistic plans for devesting themselves
from policies that will inundate them when the climate changes
subsantially in 20 years. They don't think it is a dumb
redistribution of money to plan ahead. They just want to do
their own redistributing.

As for c|net promoting socialism, I don't see it and maybe you
should grow up and not be so offended by science.
Posted by MacGregory (53 comments )
Link Flag
Agreed
"C|net must be stopped" says another expert...luckily when arguments take place in internet forums it seem to be full of experts ready to argue til the death
Posted by epiccollision (105 comments )
Link Flag
Experts...
Yep...that is what I picked up from this too....'experts say its dead on' ... well guess what Cnet...if you bothered to try there are as many if not more 'experts' that will tell you this is hogwash.

Experts also say that Gore invented the internet.
Posted by KsprayDad (375 comments )
Link Flag
experts say reality has a liberal bias
why don't we talk about the real issues like child molesters and
baby killers
Posted by duncan idaho (1 comment )
Link Flag
Incovenient Truths Indeed...
<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.tcsdaily.com/printArticle.aspx?ID=052406F" target="_newWindow">http://www.tcsdaily.com/printArticle.aspx?ID=052406F</a>
Posted by Joe Hanson (65 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Yeah Right...
Its good to see the oil industry propaganda mill has found some lapdogs. Why listen to scientist when you can listen to someone like Robert Balling:

"Balling has acknowledged that he had received $408,000 in research funding from the fossil fuel industry over the last decade (of which his University takes 50% for overhead). Contributors include ExxonMobil, the British Coal Corporation, Cyprus Minerals and OPEC."

Mind you, this is what he is willing to admit to.

<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.epilogicconsulting.com/cascadiac/altviews.htm" target="_newWindow">http://www.epilogicconsulting.com/cascadiac/altviews.htm</a>
Posted by billjames11111 (2 comments )
Link Flag
Incovenient Truths Indeed...
"http://www.tcsdaily.com/printArticle.aspx?ID=052406F"
Posted by Joe Hanson (65 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Other inconvenient truths
Al Gore was the one who promoted MTBE, the ground-water killing fuel additive.

Two of the three warmest years in the US history were under Al Gore and Clinton's reign.
<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/cag3/na.html" target="_newWindow">http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/cag3/na.html</a>

Oh, by the way, if anybody studies weather long enough they'll notice the earth is a cycle machine. I'm with him on recycling and reducing pollution, but to say the US or humans are causing global warming is wrong. The earth is just too resilant.
Posted by i_am_still_wade (250 comments )
Link Flag
Here's your "tech tie-in"
The almost-president edits with Final Cut Pro and knows how to
use Keynote to make multi-media presentations. The current Chief
Executive would have a difficult time even switching on a computer.

<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.apple.com/hotnews/articles/2006/05/" target="_newWindow">http://www.apple.com/hotnews/articles/2006/05/</a>
inconvenienttruth
Posted by CBSTV (780 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Interesting Link
I like the bullet points from Al's presentation, thanks for posting it:
-Neutralize your remaining emissions... ulp, no beans
-Dont waste paper... use only 3 squares at a time
-Carry a refillable beverage bottle... but no carbonated beverages!
-Modify your diet to eat less meat... that way cows can eat and multiply, be happy cows from CA
-Buy things that last... like software and computers
-Pre-cycle  reduce before you buy... like shrink wrap man, get rid of that plastic packaging and the plastic CD's and DVD's man, the plastic TV man, plastic in your computer man, cool dude!
-Vote with your dollars... tell the politicians to quit wasting money on pork barrel spending, lining their pockets, ah, freezers?
-Support an environmental group... let George Soros do that, he's a multi-millionaire.
Telecommute from home... best idea yet, everyone stay home including the kids who can go to school online. Fire most of the teachers &#38; administrators, save a bundle. Tear down all the cities and factories, create big parks. We can all move underground so we don't disturb the happy cows. Oh, oh... someone will have to leave home to repair stuff that breaks. hmmm, no parts?
Posted by furgle (10 comments )
Link Flag
Should politicians be geeks?
This is an interesting aside -- should politicians be geeks?

Many of my colleagues in the press would agree with you. There have been plenty of articles obsessing about whether this politico has a Blackberry or whether that one uses an iPod. The latest is "CBSTV's" post about Al Gore using a Mac.

If these political hacks were Linux kernel developers and had to deal with undocumented libraries and race conditions and buffer overflow errors and bizarre driver incompatibilities and spending hours trying to debug your code because you stupidly used a colon instead of a semicolon, then perhaps that would mean they wouldn't come up with some of the braindead proposals they have in the past.

Knowing how to use Keynote -- a program designed to be as easy to use as possible -- hardly gives enough geek cred to even be worth mentioning, by that standard. We might as well be applauding some hack for being able to use a cell phone.

Let me know the next time some politico configures Sendmail for multiple machines, writes a Unix shell, or debugs weirdnesses in X11 makefiles on their own.

More broadly, though, I doubt that measure-politicians-by-geekiness yardstick is the right one.

It is an interesting bit of political theater, in much the same vein as gossiping about Britney's baby or Brangelina's clothing preferences or what Alyssa Milano and Moby think about Net neutrality.

But we don't elect politicians based on their Mac vs. PC preference or MP3 vs. FLAC -- or at least we shouldn't. We elect them, at least in theory, based on whether they'll support laws that are constitutional and wise.

That, it seems to me, is the acid test of whether a politician is a good one or not. I'd prefer a lazy philandering draft-dodger and high school dropout who takes the Constitution seriously rather than a computer science &#38; econ PhD-equipped Rhodes scholar who stays up all night tweaking models and devising technocratic ways to micromanage the economy and expand the power of government beyond Constitutional limits.

iPod or Creative music player? Boxers or briefs? Steak or tofu? Ligne Roset or Ikea? Cessna or Piper? Mac or PC?

How trivial and, in the end, uninteresting -- at least given the goal of creating and maintaining a constitutional republic.

-Declan
Posted by declan00 (848 comments )
Reply Link Flag
That has nothing to do with this story...
This story is about fear mongering. Telling you that if you drive an SUV, you are killing thousands of small children in Africa.

Why don't you weigh in on that, Declan? Bring some sanity back to this rubber room that is C|Net.

We now know that the Earth was hit by a 30 mile wide asteroid, releasing enough energy to literally knock an entire continent adrift. And these phony Nancy boys in their skirts are foaming at the mouth over CO2 emissions. The earth has digested a crisis a trillion times larger and is doing just fine. Stop the hysterics. Stop the phony news.
Posted by gerhard_schroeder (311 comments )
Link Flag
Should geeks be political activists?
I appreciate the comments of the last poster. I must admit, I am
not at all sure what the thesis of the piece is. I did sense that he
used a lot of technical references to establish his credibility as a
programming enthusiast. The thing that stands out to me
though is a lack any comment or thesis statement on the issue
presented. It sems like the thesis issu might have been: Is Al
Gore playng a role?

If so I think a little research will show he is not playing a role,
and he is not just suddenly jumping in to the crossroads of
science and public policy. The following is excerpted from
Wickipedia it is documented from numerous sources and
transcripts;

&gt;&gt;&gt;
In 1991, Gore sponsored the High Performance Computing Act
of 1991 which advanced the growth and mainstreaming of the
Internet during the 1990s.[41] In 1999, during an interview with
Wolf Blitzer on CNN's Late Edition on March 9, 1999, Gore said:

During my service in the United States Congress, I took the
initiative in creating the Internet. I took the initiative in moving
forward a whole range of initiatives that have proven to be
important to our country's economic growth, environmental
protection, and improvements in our educational system.

This statement has been the target of satire and criticism. Much
of this criticism has been based on the interpretation that Gore
was claiming to have invented the Internet. Gore is frequently
misquoted on this matter. Internet pioneers Robert Kahn and
Vinton Cerf defended Gore's statement:

...as the two people who designed the basic architecture and the
core protocols that make the Internet work, we would like to
acknowledge VP Gore's contributions as a Congressman, Senator
and as Vice President. No other elected official, to our
knowledge, has made a greater contribution over a longer
period of time.

He was a founding advisor to Google and of course, any geek in
good standing knows that his use of Apple computers stems
from the fact that he has been on the board of Directors for
some time now.

I actually don;t aree with may of his olitical leanings, but I have
to be objective about the presentation it is very careful to
accurate and delivered at a high chool level - not a super-ego
programmer's level.

a
Posted by usernameinuse1234 (5 comments )
Link Flag
Should geeks be political activists?
I appreciate the comments of the last poster. I must admit, I am
not at all sure what the thesis of the piece is. I did sense that he
used a lot of technical references to establish his credibility as a
programming enthusiast. The thing that stands out to me
though is a lack any comment or thesis statement on the issue
presented. It seems like the thesis might have been: Is Al Gore
playng a role? But it is hard to excerpt a point from the techno-
term-droppings.


If so I think a little research will show he is not playing a role,
and he is not just suddenly jumping in to the crossroads of
science and public policy. The following is excerpted from
Wickipedia it is documented from numerous sources and
transcripts;

&gt;&gt;&gt;
In 1991, Gore sponsored the High Performance Computing Act
of 1991 which advanced the growth and mainstreaming of the
Internet during the 1990s.[41] In 1999, during an interview with
Wolf Blitzer on CNN's Late Edition on March 9, 1999, Gore said:

During my service in the United States Congress, I took the
initiative in creating the Internet. I took the initiative in moving
forward a whole range of initiatives that have proven to be
important to our country's economic growth, environmental
protection, and improvements in our educational system.

This statement has been the target of satire and criticism. Much
of this criticism has been based on the interpretation that Gore
was claiming to have invented the Internet. Gore is frequently
misquoted on this matter. Internet pioneers Robert Kahn and
Vinton Cerf defended Gore's statement:

...as the two people who designed the basic architecture and the
core protocols that make the Internet work, we would like to
acknowledge VP Gore's contributions as a Congressman, Senator
and as Vice President. No other elected official, to our
knowledge, has made a greater contribution over a longer
period of time.

He was a founding advisor to Google and of course, any geek in
good standing knows that his use of Apple computers stems
from the fact that he has been on the board of Directors for
some time now.

I actually don't agree with may of his political leanings, but I
have to be objective about the presentation it is very careful to
accurate and delivered at a high chool level - not a super-ego
programmer's level.

a
Posted by usernameinuse1234 (5 comments )
Link Flag
Send In The Clowns!
Amazing how sure some are about the earth's future climate based on the scraps of evidence at hand. Sure the climate has changed up or down without man's input in the past. Does that suggest we can do as we please now with little fear of negative consequence? Please!!
Don't put too much faith in the belief that the climate system is "self regulating" or the results we are measuring are just part of natural "cycles". Those tendencies may exist within the complex interplay of forces that create the climate but could be overpowered by the influence of a positive feedback loop. It's most likely happened in the earth's past, only to be "unstuck" by external impact or mega volcanoes or both. Look at Venus as a runaway greenhouse experiment or Mars that may have had a past life-favorable climate that has "cycled" into a hostile one. Who's to say a little human input into our atmosphere won't have future dire consequences? Humans- being what they are- it's likely that little will be done to address the changing makeup of our atmosphere until the evidence is overwhelming and the chances to avoid disaster are all but gone. We have virtually doubled the CO2 in the air and the tipping point to drastic and deadly change may already have been reached. Let's hope we can keep getting away with this vast climate experiment we are all participating in because it's too expensive and too much trouble for politicians and corporations to change their act. In a few short decades we will know the answer. Good luck with that!
Posted by zanzzz (138 comments )
Reply Link Flag
AL get lost
T R I P E . . .
Posted by jpprice (1 comment )
Reply Link Flag
your lost
Typical response from someone with no science background. They used to call this runnaway global warming since at some point you can't just stop and things get better. The earth hasn't always been populated by humans and the warming was caused by a more gradual change so that evelution could adapt. So keep on and the world will go back to the animals or nothing will adapt and everything will die.
Posted by stevenmcs (47 comments )
Link Flag
geology
I am not saying this to be trite or confrontational.

You should see the presentation before you make assumptions
about what is in it. This issue is very carefully explored and very
accurately.

One of the main points made details how extreme the CO2
imbalance is and how much higher the current and projected
levels are than they ever where, The historical peaks he
mentions are higher than the one you noted.

This is not a political debate piece and it is too bad that most
people will remain closed minded about it due to the political
party or church they have committed to being a member of.

None of the facts are manipulated or taken beyond context. The
facts he lays out are very straightforward, documented carefully,
and not at all exagerated.

After all, the most powerful political and financial movement in
human history (the American republican/right) is going to go
after this with a lot of energy with folks like you ;leaqding the
charge.

I think he knows beter than to make a high school mistake of
misrepresenting facts.
Posted by usernameinuse1234 (5 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Objective Science
Would call for you all to see the film and take notes before you
make all of these assumptions about wat it says.

The acts of climate temperature and CO2 level trends are very
carefully laid out and compared to curent trends.

I am curious though, if you assume the film takes liberties with
these acts; when you discover that it is neticulously accurate will
you be objective enough to consider an opinion change based
on the acts?

Will your church or political party let you change your mind
when the messanger is not of their liking? Are you brave enough
to even go see this film? If so will you do so privately, discretely,
hoping no one sees you?

Ha
Posted by usernameinuse1234 (5 comments )
Reply Link Flag
May we reason together?
Oh well - here goes.

The need for "absolute proof" should not be the barometer (pun intended). This is not license for irresponsible stewardship of our environment. Simultaneously, people should not confuse correlations with causality. Apparently, the rise and wane of the popularity of the Beatles was strongly correlated with sunspot cycles. No educated and rational person believes there was causation.

Most objective people recognize global warming as a given. However, it does not necessarily and automatically follow that people are the primary cause. The data for global warming on Mars seem compelling. For example - <a class="jive-link-external" href="http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/polaricecaps/co2_cover_100.html" target="_newWindow">http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/polaricecaps/co2_cover_100.html</a>
It then seems reasonable to wonder how much of this would be happening anyway? The extent to which this is an open question - I admit - I don't presently know. Can someone direct me to relevant articles in scientific journals (peer-reviewed) that dissect out human contributions vs. background. Thank you.
Posted by Symphyotrichum (7 comments )
Link Flag
Where do these loons come from?
All they do is regurgitate some crap they read on a blog.

Google 'climate change' and any one of the following:

'American Meteorological Society'
'American Geophysical Union'
'American Association for the Advancement of Science'
'National Academy of Sciences'

After that, try reading any of the hundreds of peer-reviewed
articles on the topic.

Hint: You may learn something that conflicts with the bloggers.
Posted by mgreere (332 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Enviro-wacko, nut-bag, left-wing loon.
When I was in school thirty years ago it was global cooling. Now
it is global warming. Who buys this crap anyway?
Posted by Work Out Freak (2 comments )
Reply Link Flag
IT was not global cooling 30 years ago idot
I was in school 36 years ago and then they called it runnaway gobal warming. there was never any global cooling unless you were in school during the ice age. Typical response from someone with no science background. They used to call this runnaway global warming since at some point you can't just stop and things get better. The earth hasn't always been populated by humans and the warming was caused by a more gradual change so that evelution could adapt. So keep on and the world will go back to the animals or nothing will adapt and everything will die.
Posted by stevenmcs (47 comments )
Link Flag
"Man-Bear-Pig"
Al Gore, a failed politicians who is desperate to stay part of the headlines. Just like his former boss Bill Clinton. These two have such an attention-thirst, that they'd stop at nothing to get it.

Sure, taking care of our environment is important. But, don't try to give that impossible scenario as presented on that looney movie "The Day After Tomorrow." What a bunch of morronic nonsense. Did anyone catch that part of this movie where they said/implied "The Mexican Govt will allow Americans on their land in exchange for the cancelling of their foreign debt." In other words "black mailing." I won't help you unless you tell me I don't owe you a thing. These excuses for movies are so thick on politics. These are the same clowns that gave us "Independence Day", which is also filled with the same political message. No wonder, it was produced by the same boys as "The Day After Tomorrow."

I don't take Gore seriously at all. Man-Bear-Pig creator, and creator of the Internet, can take his policies elsewhere.
Posted by Dead Soulman (245 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Ironic
Yes, and it is ironic that you are stealing your critical thinking
lines from South Park.

And don't get me wrong, I LOVE South Park.

But Global Warming is real (facts ARE there) and it is too
important an issue to simply "laugh away."

If you value an inspired, free, critical life, that get your head out
of pop TV, put this computer to work discovering facts and
learning and battle the powers that want you to remain ignorant
on this issue.

They have too much money to lose.

You have too much quality of life to lose.

DJO
Posted by dansterpower (2511 comments )
Link Flag
The REAL problem...
It is very sad to see a question of this global importance being reduced to a left wing/right wing thing.

The problem - your specific problem as Americans, and our problem as human beings in general - is that the US have an election system that lets someone to be elected president even without 50% + 1 votes.

That is a REAL tragedy. Because if Gore was elected when he should (and he had the votes for that - in any other democratic country besides the USA) we wouldn't were having this conversation...
Posted by aemarques (162 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Scientists cool on global warming
<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.washtimes.com/national/20060420-115953-7360r.htm" target="_newWindow">http://www.washtimes.com/national/20060420-115953-7360r.htm</a>

Scientists cool on global warming

Global warming may not be as dramatic as some scientists have predicted.

Using temperature readings from the past 100 years, 1,000 computer simulations and the evidence left in ancient tree rings, Duke University scientists announced yesterday that the magnitude of future global warming will likely fall well short of current highest predictions.

Supported by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the Department of Energy and the National Science Foundation, the Duke researchers noted that some observational studies predicted that the Earths temperature could rise as much as 16 degrees in this century because of an increase in carbon dioxide or other so-called greenhouse gases.

The Duke estimates show the chances that the planets temperature will rise even by 11 degrees is only 5 percent, which falls in line with previous, less-alarming predictions that meteorologists made almost three decades ago.
Posted by MMFixer (4 comments )
Link Flag
Not seeing what you see....big surprise.
I just looked at the chart you link to, and the warmest year in the Clinton/Gore "reign" came in at #6.....that was 1998. #1.....this year!! And of course, the chart just supports Gore's premise. You keep drinking that koolaid. Someday it will completely blank your mind.
Posted by TriangleRocks (5 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Good and bad
Where was he 10 years ago? He reached a position where he could do a lot of good things for the environment when he was a vice president.

I think it's a good thing that he took part in this film because it created a lot of media buzz which will make people aware about Global warming.
Posted by Green canada (1 comment )
Reply Link Flag
Global climate panics going on for 100 years
<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.businessandmedia.org/specialreports/2006/fireandice/fireandice.asp" target="_newWindow">http://www.businessandmedia.org/specialreports/2006/fireandice/fireandice.asp</a>

Excerpt:

It was five years before the turn of the century and major media were warning of disastrous climate change. Page six of The New York Times was headlined with the serious concerns of geologists. Only the president at the time wasnt Bill Clinton; it was Grover Cleveland. And the Times wasnt warning about global warming  it was telling readers the looming dangers of a new ice age.

The year was 1895, and it was just one of four different time periods in the last 100 years when major print media predicted an impending climate crisis. Each prediction carried its own elements of doom, saying Canada could be wiped out or lower crop yields would mean billions will die.
Posted by MMFixer (4 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Please
There's mountain of genuine evidence. Comparing now with then is
ridiculous and demonstrates why we shouldn't take you seriously.
Posted by mgreere (332 comments )
Link Flag
Holy Global Warming Batman
This seems to be a heated issue no matter where you talk about it. On one hand you got Rusch saying how its so arrogant to think we could affect the planet, and on the other hand there was a comment made earlier to the effect of how we could be so arrogant to think we can keep consuming and not affect the environment. Is global warming happening...sure it is, I cant look at the scientific data and say its not. Are humans the cause of it...I bet we are a part, not the sole reason, but we sure play our role.

So we know its getting warmer and its something that should heed our attention. However, there seems to be so much sensationalism about what will happen; whether its florida being underwater, huge storms as shown in The Day After Tommorrow, or worries about humans being wiped out. The way I see it this is the only world we have and we have to be good stewards, but we are not going to change the worlds habbits or our own make a substantial effect. So, since we are warming up anways what better way to learn how global warming works then to see it in action.

We have never actually been around to study what would happen as the earth heats up. Sure we can look at sediment samples or ice cores and everything, but that is nothing compared to being a part of the phenomenon. Maybe once we lean how global warming implements itself and its effects we will be better armed to reign it back in.

Global warming is real, as for being alarmed about it, I'm not. However it would be reckless to not try and curb our emissions, can't hurt any right now at least. I guess I am sort of excited about seeing a change and seeing whether it lives up to the hype. But it would be sorta neat to be farming the permafrost in canada, and to have some near extinct fish species find new breeding grounds in the costal shallows that used to be Florida.
Posted by TinySmash (1 comment )
Reply Link Flag
More moderate sanity -- thanks (nt)
...
Posted by mgreere (332 comments )
Link Flag
Thank you Al Gore
About time that someone had the guts to open this debate, US citizens are the biggest polluters on the planet, yet we will all have to pay for your greed. Most of you still dont think there is a problem.

Global warming is real and is here now. If only a fraction of the money spent on anti terrorism was spent on renewable energy research and funding construction and use of renewable resources the world would be a much less polluted place a lot quicker. The George Bush regime has its head in the sand for too long on this issue, I guess he is trying to work out how to make money out of it before he commits himself.
Posted by (19 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Thank you (again)
I appreciated the information in both postings. I also now know what coconino is and will try and avoid sitting on petrified wood. (strictly precautionary, of course).
Posted by Symphyotrichum (7 comments )
Reply Link Flag
 

Join the conversation

Add your comment

The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. Click here to review our Terms of Use.

What's Hot

Discussions

Shared

RSS Feeds

Add headlines from CNET News to your homepage or feedreader.