>I think there are reputable scientists on both sides of the global warming issue.

You might think that, but it doesn't make you any less wrong.

>I remind you that we were being warned of a coming ice age in the 70s, by reputable scientists, and it even made the cover of Newsweek.

That never rose to the level of concern that global warming has today. Furthermore, the globe never actually started to cool for any real length of time! The Earth is warming, no question. Our knowledge and understanding of the global climate has increased by orders of magnitude since the 1970's.

>I do think there is indisputable evidence that there have been times of global warming in the past. Obviously we had nothing to do with that. So the hysteria gets irritating.

Its absolutely true that the climate has changed in the past and that we've had nothing to do with it. Any climate change scientist will agree with you. However, that doesn't mean that what's happening now isn't man made. Do you really think an entire world-wide committee of climate change scientists haven't considered all of the possibilities regarding the causes of our warming planet? Do you really think you've figured out something that they haven't? Do you really think that there is a world-wide conspiracy to blame global warming on humans when they actually believe that its not our fault? What exactly do you think the motives of the IPCC are?

What's irritating is when people who simply refuse to attempt learn anything about this issue spout nonsense.

Get over your dislike of Al and start learning about this issue. Just cause you don't like the guy doesn't mean he's wrong.

There will always be global warming denialists. You can point them to scientific websites and papers, talk about how the IPCC works, remind them that the level of hysteria about global cooling in the 70's was mostly dreamed up by the mainstream media (i.e., Newsweek is not a scientific source), remind them that Republican politicians denying climate change mostly get a lot of money from oil companies, etc. and nothing will change their minds. They will keep coming up with complicated conspiracy theories and "missing" physics and other red herrings. That serves to divert the discussion and make you take time to answer all of their points, which of course distracts from the real issue at hand - which is figuring out how we are going to reduce carbon emissions and/or adapt to a changing climate.

Ignore the denialists, focus on the issues. Our dependence on fossil fuels is a problem. We need to reduce this dependence by funding new technologies and reducing our energy use. We need to seriously think about adaptation by questioning the wisdom of building in places like New Orleans, Florida, etc. that are going to be vulnerable to higher sea levels. We need to promote public transportation and renewable energy. We need to figure out how to get the average American to conserve energy and water.

on one thing, Mike, I don't think his primary motivation is money. Although I have observed that no matter how rich people are, they always want more. Hard to understand, but true. Perhaps, if I was rich, I would understand!

I believe his primary motivations are fame and power. He wants to be looked to as some sort of savior.

I think there are reputable scientists on both sides of the global warming issue. I remind you that we were being warned of a coming ice age in the 70s, by reputable scientists, and it even made the cover of Newsweek. I do think there is indisputable evidence that there have been times of global warming in the past. Obviously we had nothing to do with that. So the hysteria gets irritating.

As for what I have done, there is a lot I haven't done. I haven't flown in any kind of plane since 1995, for instance. I have never ever drunk imported water of any kind (we all drink from the tap). I rarely buy expensive imported veggies, fruit, or fish.

On the positive side, I have a vegetable garden. I compost. I reuse all sorts of stuff, more from a motivation of thrift. I shop at thrift stores for myself and my kids. We eat out at restaurants maybe twice a year. In short, I have done a great deal less damage to our environment than a lot of jet setting environmentalists.

For those of you who just can't stand Al Gore, here is some advice: Ignore him. Pretend he does not exist.

Instead, read the IPCC reports. They shared the Nobel Peace prize with the dreaded former Vice-President. They are the ones who actually do climate change science. They do the actual science that has caused concern by much of the world. Take a look at their work and then make up your mind. Step beyond your dislike of Gore and do a little honest thinking for a change.

I agree, it would be better if Al lived a lifestyle with a smaller footprint. At the very least, his large house is fodder for the anti-environment right. However, in defense of Gore, he was plenty wealthy on the day he was born, so I doubt he's financially-motivated. He's also been an environmentalist and pro-science advocate since very early in his political career. Long before "An Inconvenient Truth," there was "Earth in the Balance." He's well known among environmental scientists as being a strong supporter of environmental regulation and research funding. Like it or not, his work has converted thousands (at least) to the cause of ending global warming. Al's impact on the environment goes far beyond the size of his house, car, or bank account. What have you done for the environment lately?

Well, a Nobel prize for one. More money than he knows how to spend. Global adulation. Press. Big crowds hanging on to his every word. Interviews on big tv shows. It keeps his ego propped up. He feels important, like he has a purpose, that he is saving the world.

If he believed one word out of his own mouth, he'd be living a very different lifestyle. His hypocrisy is well-documented and astounding. I can't believe anyone listens to him.