Outstanding documentary, can't recommend it strongly enough. Entertaining, informative, and it's going to change and wake up a lot of peoples minds.

I was genuinely surprised by what a effective presentation Al Gore gives. Definately one of the best documentaries ever.

Considering the controversial nature of this film and the politicization of its subject, I don't see how this thread can continue without getting "political."

Of course, that's just my opinion.

One of the things the documentary makes very clear is it's not really a controversial issue at all. The science is laid out clearly, and the evidence is pretty much inarguable. Co2 levels in the atmosphere are rising at exponential rates since the 1970's, nobody disputes that.

See it and judge for yourself. But I warn you, if you do, you're not going to have much patience afterwards with arguments about volcanos and cow farts.

Any good fillmaker can make a convincing propaganda film, whether the "facts" are real science, pseudo-science or just made up. I avoid any film with an agenda, whichever side of the fence it's from.

My main complaint is that Al Gore is a terrible actor--completely unconvincing as a human being.

:jest:

My main complaint is that Al Gore is a terrible actor--completely unconvincing as a human being.

:jest:


You know, I can't completely disagree with you on that based on past performances. One of the films surprises is how effectively and confidant Gore makes his case.

One of the more interesting notes in the film is that Gore got interested in this in 1958, his college professer was the guy that first noticed that CO2 levels were rising in the atmosphere. Gore himself has been trying to bring this to people's attention since 1974. One popular misconception is Gore 'jumped on the global warming bandwagon" as a political agenda, when the fact is more Gore got into politics to spread the word about global warming.

Once again, if you bother to take an hour from your life and actually watch the doc instead of dismissing it as "political propaganda", you'll probably be surprised. It's not what I was expecting.

Three things.

If only half the things Gore tells you in this movie are true, it's still pretty scary.
Is it political to note inaction by the current administration or is it just reporting on the efforts made so far by world governments?
Gore ends with suggestions on what you can do as an individual and that doesn't include suggestions on which party to vote for.
I really don't understand how people can dismiss this movie as propaganda. Propaganda for who? The main argument for the non-acceptance of the Kyoto accord was that it would hurt our economy. Pessimist that I am, I interpret this as "don't concern yourself with the long term condition of the Earth, it's only important that US business make a profit this year."

Rent this movie . . . even if you are a Republican.

Jim

...and it's going to change and wake up a lot of peoples minds.

I'm kinda with JP on this, I tend to stay away from documentaries trying hard to convince me of something. What's more, I don't think it will change any minds, though they're certainly seeking a larger audience, it mostly ends up preaching to the choir.

Not to get inflamatory, and I really am not trying to get anyone fired up, I have a problem with the way in which global warming is often discussed ...and BTW, I'm a liberal. The crux of the conversation usually seems to go: on one side folks saying the climate was all good until we crapped it up, and on the other side folks saying the climate is fine, global warming's a myth, stop whining.

Having taken both geology and meteorology in college, the main points I took away from these classes was that the little ball we live on is always in a state of change. What is left out of the discussion of global warming is: climates are all about change. The example I usually sight which I think is easy for people to grasp is that 17,000 years ago, half of Europe and North America were covered in ice - and not just a little ice, in NA the ice was a mile thick in places. Not so much ice around today. So I think one could reasonably conclude, from the end of the last "ice age" to now, the general temperature trend has been up! Not saying we haven't had significant influence on climate in the past century, but before that? I think, not so much.

John O.

I'm afraid we really have a 50/50 chance of entering another ice age and that the conspiracy is that no one wants to admit it since it would destroy our economy. :freak:

Sound outlandish? Yeah it is and it would probably not happen for hundreds of years and have nothing to do with what man does or does not do.

For crying out loud, there are folks saying cow flatulence dwarfs the harmful stuff (like CO2 :rolleyes: ) that industry puts in the air. Whom do you believe?

Science is not consensus and consensus is not science. A majority vote does not a fact make. And, in reality, this is probably just another campy sci-fi movie that will soon be as lauded for its bizarre take on reality as "Reefer Madness" is.

Pardon my cynicism and refusal to swallow what clearly isn't proved. Al Gore does a great impression of Chicken Little even if incapable of appearing human.

Having taken both geology and meteorology in college, the main points I took away from these classes was that the little ball we live on is always in a state of change. What is left out of the discussion of global warming is that climates are all about change. The example I always sight that is easy for people to grasp is that 17,000 years ago, half of Europe and North America were covered in ice - and not just a little ice, in NA the ice was a mile thick in places. Not so much of that around today. So I think one could reasonably conclude that from the end of the last "ice age" to now, the general temperature trend has be up! Not saying we haven't had significant influence on climate in the past century, but before that? I think, not so much.

John O.

Those perfectly reasonable arguments are addressed in the doc. The current situation is different. Rather than rehash all the arguments from the film, I'm with Jim/Arronax, take an hour and check it out.

Science is not consensus and consensus is not science. A majority vote does not a fact make. And, in reality, this is probably just another campy sci-fi movie that will soon be as lauded for its bizarre take on reality as "Reefer Madness" is.

Speaking of consensus, another interesting fact from the movie(and the last one I will make). They looked at articles about global warming over the last ten years. In scientific periodicals there were 938 articles with 0.0% disputing whether global warming existed. In mainstream periodicals there were 678 with 53% disputing global warming.

Pardon my cynicism and refusal to swallow what clearly isn't proved. Al Gore does a great impression of Chicken Little even if incapable of appearing human.

Yeah, why listen to a guy thats been studying and following the science of something for a few decades when you don't like the way he talks? I'm sure the corporations and special interest groups are as right about this as they are about everything else. And they'll talk real smooth, and dismissively.

This is the same Al Gore that invented the internet, right?

I tend to not believe "The Experts" on things they say will affect us globally. I recall them predicting that 2006 would be one of the worst years for Hurricanes that we've seen.. and it turned out to be exactly the opposite. Let's see..what else have "The Experts" beat us to death with?

AIDS (widespread in areas, but hardly the new Black Plague it was originally portrayed to be)
SARS
Bird Flu

I agree with John O. I am in the cyclic crowd.. that this trend is more natural than scientists are admitting. I'm not saying that humankind and insdustrial factors have not contributed to it, I just don't buy that we are the main cause. This planet is in a steady state of change.. it is alive.. it is why WE are alive. No change= Dead Planet. There have been Ice Ages in the past, there will be Ice Ages in the future, it's a fact of life.

We don't know enough about the dynamics involved in a PLANET to predict with any certainty that events are natural or induced by outside influence.

This is the modern technological equivalent of the crazy guy with the sandwich boards standing on the corner proclaiming the end was near! How many times have we had predictions that the world will end on such and such a date.. only to have to be 'revised' due to human error? I believe this whole arguement is moot, since according to the Mayan calendar, the world will end on December 12th 2012.

I would say that I hope this information gives you a warm fuzzy feeling, but I don't want to contribute to the global warming crisis.

Yeah, the heck with those pesky facts, like the permafrost roads in Alaska were drivable for 250 days a year in the 70's, versus about 70 days now. Or that building & trees in Siberia and Alaska are collapsing because the permafrost is melting. Or that the record historical high in India in 2005 of 122 degrees mentioned in the film is no longer accurate, because they cracked 126 in Pakistan in 2006. Or that the ten highest years of global temperture all occurred in the last fourteen years. Or that a graph of CO2 levels matches exactly a graph rises and falls of the global temperature. Or that Greenland's glacier, the second largest piece of ice on the planet, is melting at alarming rate and produced a record number of glacial earthquakes in 2006. Or that glaciers all all the world are shrinking or have melted completely away. These are facts neither sides dispute, however one side says showing interest or attempting to address the situation is just hysteria.

If Greenland's glacier slides into the ocean, it's not going to matter whether it was because of global warming or the planets cyclical nature, it's just going to be bad. And it will be a real shame if we did nothing to even try to prevent it, especially if it was preventable.

0.0% disputing whether global warming existed. In mainstream periodicals there were 678 with 53% disputing global warming.

I would certainly not dispute the reality of global warming, it's absolutely real. As I noted, the current trend indicates warming. How much we had to do with that trend and what measures we can take to stop it are the parts I'm not so certain of.

John O.

No problem. Just turn up the AC.

Film legend Kirk Douglas is calling on young people in America to help save the planet. The Spartacus star has written an open letter to the teenagers of America on his 90th birthday, urging them to "fix the world because the situation is intolerable." He says, "Let's face it. The world is in a mess. Generation Y, you are on the cusp. You are the group facing many problems: abject poverty, global warming, genocide, AIDS, and suicide bombers to name a few. These problems exist and the world is silent. We have done very little to solve these problems. Now, we leave it to you."

We screwed it up. You fix it.

I have trouble dealing with people who want to impose a lifestyle change on the rest of us while exempting themselves from it.

How does Algore get to all of these conferences around the world to give these presentations? Does he walk or ride a bicycle to the docks and take a sailing ship accross the ocean where he is picked up by a horse-driven carriage and taken to a natural amphitheatre where he then yells out his facts and figures to the swarming masses?

No.

He is driven in an SUV to the airport where he boards a jet and flies over the ocean where he is picked up in a limo and driven to a large, climate-controlled convention center, where he then shows PowerPoint presentations on a large screen and belches out his oratory over the house PA system.

This guy doesn't follow his own "rules" of the guilt-ridden blather that he wants the rest of us to adhere to. He causes more air pollution and contributes more to this so-called "global warming" crisis in one year than I have in my entire life. He then expects the rest of us to quit driving and using electricity because he feels it's all our fault for this supposedly catastrophic situation?

Oh, please!!! If he wants us to change our lifestyle so significantly to suit his claims, then he better damn-well start setting an example for the rest of us and follow his own rules of conduct.

I think the word "agenda" is frequently misused. All you have to do is look at the economics of this argument to know what's driving it. It's all about money, and 99% of the money has been on just one side of the argument. That's changing though.

I like others do not dispute the fact of global warming. What I question is mankinds total contricutions to it. Most of the studies I have read or watched seem point to changes up and down in global temps throughout history. Have we accelerated it? Maybe. My problem is that in is not an exact science. We understand so little of the globe, to make blacket statements seems rash.
My other huge problem with this, is Al Gore standing on stage at MTV and telling 16 year old kids that Manhatten will be underwater in the near future and they won't ever be able to ski. Scare tatics are just as dangerous as bad science.

A recent study indicated that young poeple will beleive almost anything that is presented as fact. Even after the information is revealed to be false, they will still beleive it. The example was the Northwestern Tree Octopus was endangered and should be preserved. They bought it hook line and sinker, and when told it was a farse, didn't beleive the people who designed the test in the first place.

I don't particularly care which side is presenting the information, but I have a hard time beleiving Al "father of the internet" Gore.

j

I sort of wish there were such an animal as a tree octopus.

Qapla'

SSB

I haven't seen the film, but is the damage that China is doing to our global environment addressed? Apparently, they don't have an EPA. Also, what about solar activity? Is that addressed at all in the film? Global warming is more than likely caused by several different factors, not just "greedy imperialist capitalist oppressors".
Remember, a lie is most convincingly concealed between two truths. And it usually succeeds when the recipient already has pre-concieved notions in agreement with the message.
Advice; trust NO politician, especially a sore loser with an axe to grind; all they ever produce are "hit pieces".

I don't particularly care which side is presenting the information, but I have a hard time beleiving Al "father of the internet" Gore

This is the same Al Gore that invented the internet, right?

Speaking of "urban myths"

Oct. 5, 2000 | That Al Gore once claimed to have "invented the Internet" is now part of electoral folklore -- one item in a litany of Gore "exaggerations" or "lies" that his opponents trot out to discredit him. At Tuesday's debate the line became the basis for a flatfooted one-liner George W. Bush lobbed to deflect Gore's onslaught of statistics: "This is a man who has great numbers -- I'm beginning to think not only did he invent the Internet, he invented the calculator."

The sheer cheek of Gore's purported claim invites mockery. Everybody knows the Internet is an extraordinarily complex piece of engineering that only incredibly smart scientists could have "invented." Politicians need not apply.

But things that "everybody knows" are always worth examining for defects. And the "Gore claims he invented the Net" trope is so full of holes that it makes you wish there were product recalls for bad information.

Gore never claimed to have "invented" the Internet. What he said was:

"During my service in the United States Congress I took the initiative in creating the Internet."

As my colleague Jake Tapper carefully reported here last year, at worst that statement is a minor exaggeration of Gore's legislative record -- and miles away from the "I built it from scratch!" lie into which it has been twisted.

The life trajectory of the "I invented the Internet" Gore meme has been well traced by Phil Agre back to the original coverage of Gore's comment by Wired News' Declan McCullagh. McCullagh's first report, while never using the word "invent," interpreted Gore's statement as an outrageously false boast, and supported that view with one quotation from a conservative foundation spokesman. (That quote -- "Gore played no positive role in the decisions that led to the creation of the Internet as it now exists -- that is, in the opening of the Internet to commercial traffic" -- offers its own wildly distorted view of Internet history, narrowing its focus to "the opening of the Internet to commercial traffic" as the only significant milestone to shape today's Net.)

From McCullagh, the tidbit got picked up by the TV pundits and became the butt of late-night political jokes. The word "invent" practically leaped into Gore's mouth. News outlets across the board -- including Salon -- have now burned the distortion of the vice president's words into the public mind.

If that were the end of the tale, we could just dismiss it as one more round of election-year spin and counter-spin in which the lies won out over the truth. But this particular snow job springs from a deeper ideological well, and that makes it more interesting.

I hope you guys are a little more accurate about global warming :freak:


I haven't seen the film, but is the damage that China is doing to our global environment addressed? .

Yes

Global warming is more than likely caused by several different factors, not just "greedy imperialist capitalist oppressors".
Remember, a lie is most convincingly concealed between two truths. And it usually succeeds when the recipient already has pre-concieved notions in agreement with the message.
Advice; trust NO politician, especially a sore loser with an axe to grind; all they ever produce are "hit pieces".

Gore doesn't say global warming is caused by "greedy capitalistic oppressors". Gore says global warming is caused by increased Co2 levels in the atmosphere contributed by the Earth's rising population of people regardless of religion,political affiliation, sexual orientation, or wealth. And if we don't address it we're going to be in trouble.

I know it's not nearly as sexy a soundbite as "greedy capitalistic oppressors destroying the Earth", but reality is like that.

Anyone surprised at WHO the original poster is.

Yeah, the heck with those pesky facts(yadda, yadda, yadda )

So where is the data, and HOW are you interpreting it?
There is NO AGREEMENT on the methods used to DERIVE the info they are using as a basis of the HYPOTHESIS that man is doing most of the damage.
Why is it that Mars is getting warmer too?

Like most of the theories, they assume that without mans input it would always be the same, and that the earths climate wouldn't change. They are just understanding that plate tectonics and the movements of the land masses has a greater effect than originall assumed.

So where is the data, and HOW are you interpreting it?
There is NO AGREEMENT on the methods used to DERIVE the info they are using as a basis of the HYPOTHESIS that man is doing most of the damage.
Why is it that Mars is getting warmer too?

Like most of the theories, they assume that without mans input it would always be the same, and that the earths climate wouldn't change. They are just understanding that plate tectonics and the movements of the land masses has a greater effect than originall assumed.



MYTH: Even if the Earth is warming, we can't be sure how much, if any, of the warming is caused by human activities.

FACT: There is international scientific consensus that most of the warming over the last 50 years is due to human activities, not natural causes. Over millions of years, animals and plants lived, died and were compressed to form huge deposits of oil, gas and coal. In little more than 300 years, however, we have burned a large amount of this storehouse of carbon to supply energy. Today, the by-products of fossil fuel use - billions of tons of carbon (in the form of carbon dioxide) methane, and other greenhouse gases - add to the layer of greenhouse gasses that form a blanket around the Earth, trapping more heat, unnaturally raising temperatures on the ground, and steadily changing our climate.

The impacts associated with this deceptively small change in temperature are evident in all corners of the globe. There is heavier rainfall in some areas, and droughts in others. Glaciers are melting, spring is arriving earlier, oceans are warming, and coral reefs are dying.

[Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), 2001. Science of Climate Change, Technical Summary.]

It seems that most posters here do not argue that some type of global warming is occuring, they just dipsute the methods of determination, the stated causes... especially when presented as absolute fact, yet can not be factually proven, and the method in which it is being presented.

I have heard the GW debate for decades, and now suddenly we have a personal political presence involved. You cannot tell me that he only doing this in an altruistic manner. Nay, he has his political agenda behind it and anything presented is going to shine favorably on that agenda.

Were there any dissenting points of view given?

I would give much more credence to a scientific debate convened outside of the political agenda, giving equal time and weight to both sides of the global warming debate. I do not and will not trust ANY political persons advocacy or opposition to forces and events outside of human understanding.

How can we fix something that we have no idea exactly how it works, or what all the parts/pieces are? How can we be sure we are the ones breaking it in the first place and not just along for the ride? Did humanity's control and use of fire cause the last Ice Age? There are those who would argue it did. The ONLY thing we can due is to control our contribution to the matter, and sadly.. at this point in human history... that isn't going to happen. How can we work together to "Save the Planet" we can cannot even work together period?

. . . where he is picked up by a horse-driven carriage . . .

They tried that but the horse kept flatulating and that, combined with Al Gore's flatulation and hot air, raised the temperature of the planet .01 degrees F. :tongue:

Most folks don't realize just how clean we are today. About mid-20th century, coal burning produced such an amount of smog as to cause widespread health problems on a single day in London.

There is still pollution, but compared to what it was like when folks were burning massive quantities of wood, coal, kerosene in their houses and walking through manure of all types in the streets made the cities nearly unbearable. Disease from flies transmitting germs was in and of itself a major contributor to deaths. Polluted water from animal, human, and industrial waste used to kill tens of thousands a year. Forest fires used to rage unchecked throwing even more garbage into the air. Things are much cleaner now overall compared to then.

MYTH: Even if the Earth is warming, we can't be sure how much, if any, of the warming is caused by human activities.

Until you have a system that agrees with reality, you are still ASSUMING. There are many different ways that the political/environmenta wack-o's are trying that may or may not get very close. As I said, you haven't explained the ways they DERIVE (make up) the information they plug into the unproven formulas to make the political points.

Why IS Mars getting warmer by the same amount as Earth? Solar heat being radiated at slightly different frequencies.

FACT: There is international scientific consensus that most of the warming over the last 50 years is due to human activities, not natural causes. Over millions of years, animals and plants lived, died and were compressed to form huge deposits of oil, gas and coal. In little more than 300 years, however, we have burned a large amount of this storehouse of carbon to supply energy. Today, the by-products of fossil fuel use - billions of tons of carbon (in the form of carbon dioxide) methane, and other greenhouse gases - add to the layer of greenhouse gasses that form a blanket around the Earth, trapping more heat, unnaturally raising temperatures on the ground, and steadily changing our climate.

Pure BS.

The impacts associated with this deceptively small change in temperature are evident in all corners of the globe. There is heavier rainfall in some areas, and droughts in others. Glaciers are melting, spring is arriving earlier, oceans are warming, and coral reefs are dying.

So where is the correlation? We've been burning LOTS of coal and oil for 130 years. Explain the way they "Know" how warm or cold is was 150K years ago.

[Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), 2001. Science of Climate Change, Technical Summary.]

Politically funded...

There is still pollution, but compared to what it was like when folks were burning massive quantities of wood, coal, kerosene in their houses and walking through manure of all types in the streets made the cities nearly unbearable. Polluted water from animal, human, and industrial waste used to kill tens of thousands a year. Forest fires used to rage unchecked throwing even more garbage into the air. Things are much cleaner now overall compared to then.

No, they are not, at least not in regards to the atmosphere. CO2 levels in the atmosphere have risen every year since we started recording them in 1958. We know the levels before '58 by doing core ice samples from the Anartica.

Again, this is not in dispute.

I guess you can make the case that things were "dirtier' back then, but the population was much, much smaller. It took till the 1950's for the world build up a population of 2 billion people, we're over 6 billion now. Globally, it's a lot dirtier.

Disease from flies transmitting germs was in and of itself a major contributor to deaths.

Speaking of which, Nepal was built at it's present elevation to be be above the level of the 'mosquito line", when built it was too high and cold for mosquitos to venture to.

Nepal has lots of mosquitos now.

So where is the correlation? We've been burning LOTS of coal and oil for 130 years. Explain the way they "Know" how warm or cold is was 150K years ago. ...

Again, temperture and CO2 levels can be extrapolated from artic core samples for much of the planets history.



Politically funded...

Source please?


Pure BS.



Awww, don't go all scientific on me! Gee wilikers, I don't have a chance against rapier intelligence and wit like that.

Speaking of which, Nepal was built at it's present elevation to be be above the level of the 'mosquito line", when built it was too high and cold for mosquitos to venture to.

Nepal has lots of mosquitos now. I guess they didn't get the memo about how climates change and have never been fixed. Well intended folks have built community after community in places they though would be free of natural hazards only to find that nature had a news bulletin for them. History is full of cities abandoned due to flooding or desertification.

John O.

Global warming caused by mankind?

That is the myth.

Earthly weather has cycled through warm/cold for millions of years, perhaps billions. We can't stop it. Get used to it. Ruining our economy won't stop it either.

Our weather is largely controlled/created by the oceans and their relative temperatures. The oceans also regulate CO2 levels in the atmosphere. When the oceans warm, CO2 is released, when they cool CO2 is absorbed. Right now the oceans are warming and CO2 is being released. This historical hot/cold cycle and its related CO2 signature has been demonstrated via ice core sample studies, as mentioned elsewhere in this thread.

This cycle of hot/cold is natural for our planet. It is a pattern which was created long before humans decided to burn fossil fuels.

Politics get involved when one group uses this situation to bludgeon another, as the socialists are trying to do to the industrialized capitalists. Global warming is no one groups fault, not even mankind as a whole. It has happened many times before and will continue to happen in the future, even if we wipe humankind from the face of the Earth.

When global warming alarmist start preaching that this condition is the fault of human activity, that is when I know the agenda is political, not scientific.

And there is no consensus among weather experts about the effects of human activity on this process, there are as many who disagree with the alarmists as those who agree.

FACT: There is international scientific consensus that most of the warming over the last 50 years is due to human activities, not natural causes. Over millions of years, animals and plants lived, died and were compressed to form huge deposits of oil, gas and coal. In little more than 300 years, however, we have burned a large amount of this storehouse of carbon to supply energy. Today, the by-products of fossil fuel use - billions of tons of carbon (in the form of carbon dioxide) methane, and other greenhouse gases - add to the layer of greenhouse gasses that form a blanket around the Earth, trapping more heat, unnaturally raising temperatures on the ground, and steadily changing our climate.



Pure BS.

No, it's pure science. Carbon is one of the six most common elements in the universe. It's a promiscuous element, it likes to bond to things. We're made of it and so are plants. During Earth's early history, when it was hot and unihabitable, there were tons of it in the air, but it was slowly converted to make a significant portion of the chemistry in creatures and plants. Over the years this process the Earth cooled, the air became cleaner and more welcoming to life. On trees carbon can be found in bark. When animals die and under the right conditions we become oil. So here we have a chemical that is under "storage" in dead and living things. It's still around but not up in the air. So tell me what happens when those dead things are burned. The answer's easy: the carbon is released and back in the air.

Don't take my word for it, look it up. Don't dismiss it. Prove me wrong.

Global warming caused by mankind?

That is the myth.

Earthly weather has cycled through warm/cold for millions of years, perhaps billions. We can't stop it. Get used to it. Ruining our economy won't stop it either.

Our weather is largely controlled/created by the oceans and their relative temperatures. The oceans also regulate CO2 levels in the atmosphere. When the oceans warm, CO2 is released, when they cool CO2 is absorbed. Right now the oceans are warming and CO2 is being released. This historical hot/cold cycle and its related CO2 signature has been demonstrated via ice core sample studies, as mentioned elsewhere in this thread.

This cycle of hot/cold is natural for our planet. It is a pattern which was created long before humans decided to burn fossil fuels.

Politics get involved when one group uses this situation to bludgeon another, as the socialists are trying to do to the industrialized capitalists. Global warming is no one groups fault, not even mankind as a whole. It has happened many times before and will continue to happen in the future, even if we wipe humankind from the face of the Earth.

When global warming alarmist start preaching that this condition is the fault of human activity, that is when I know the agenda is political, not scientific.

And there is no consensus among weather experts about the effects of human activity on this process, there are as many who disagree with the alarmists as those who agree.


Whatever, you guys have fun. I'm really sorry I brought the whole thing up. All the dissenting opinions are dealt with in the film, again, I'd advise the open minded to check it out. You'll likely be surprised how engrossing, and non-political it actually is. Or you can listen to the guys who haven't even seen it, have no intentions of seeing it, but feel compelled to tell you how inaccurate and political it is.

without actually seeing it.

I'm sure I'll be as wrong about this as I was about there being no WMD's in Iraq in the ol' F-911 thread. Funny, almost exactly the same guys argued vehemently how wrong I was then too.

time will tell...

I have trouble dealing with people who want to impose a lifestyle change on the rest of us while exempting themselves from it.

How does Algore get to all of these conferences around the world to give these presentations? Does he walk or ride a bicycle to the docks and take a sailing ship accross the ocean where he is picked up by a horse-driven carriage and taken to a natural amphitheatre where he then yells out his facts and figures to the swarming masses?

No.

He is driven in an SUV to the airport where he boards a jet and flies over the ocean where he is picked up in a limo and driven to a large, climate-controlled convention center, where he then shows PowerPoint presentations on a large screen and belches out his oratory over the house PA system.
You know for a fact he drives an SUV? :)

I've not seen the movie but I know that a lot of environmentalist folks push for mass transit and/or hybrid's. I don't think there's any problem in suggesting mass transit. Think about it, in larger cities it really would help cut down on pollution, as well as traffic. Most folks likely only live a couple of miles from work anyhow, so mass transit systems make sense pollution-wise, traffic-wise and also econimcally as it tends to be cheaper than driving a car, right?

This guy doesn't follow his own "rules" of the guilt-ridden blather that he wants the rest of us to adhere to. He causes more air pollution and contributes more to this so-called "global warming" crisis in one year than I have in my entire life. He then expects the rest of us to quit driving and using electricity because he feels it's all our fault for this supposedly catastrophic situation?

Oh, please!!! If he wants us to change our lifestyle so significantly to suit his claims, then he better damn-well start setting an example for the rest of us and follow his own rules of conduct.
Those with a do-as-I-say, not-as-I-do mentality bug me, as well. However, there's no need to get worked up as you are over it and attack the guy.

When global warming alarmist start preaching that this condition is the fault of human activity, that is when I know the agenda is political, not scientific.

Please explain your logic here. I'd love to hear it. What would be the political "advantage" to the thesis that global warming is caused by human activity? I mean, unless the thesis were being floated by Cylons?

My wife really wants to see it and I will watch it with her. I'm not going to judge this before I see it or attack Al Gore or make ridiculous statements that are pure hyperbole. I'll just watch it.

Wasn't Al Gore the technical advisor for "The Day After Tomorrow?"

Oh, yeah, you know President Bush believes in global warming, too. That means there is a consensus of presidents and former presidents and former and future presidential wannabes.

That must mean it's true. :lol:

After all, if you can't trust politicians, whom can you trust? :confused:

And another thing, whatever happened to Erlich's population explosion? :mad: We're supposed to be shoulder to shoulder now like in "The Mark of Gideon" and dying from starvation and disease. I was so looking forward to that occurring in the '70s, the '80s, then the '90s, then the . . .

Alright y ou guys. After reading thru the rest of the thread, I see that some folks just can't Play Well With Others. As such, I'm locking the thread.

Everybody who turned this thread in a political direction is hereby put on warning. Don't do it again any time soon or you'll get a Time Out, m'kay?

Sorry, Scott. I just can't allow this thread to continue on. Not your fault at all.