And some think he is TOO OPTIMISTIC!

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?.../a105014D57.DTL

See the movie!

I'd like to see it...Its not coming out here, though for a while and I doubt my friends are going to want to go see THAT movie....so I guess I'll wait for Netflix...

Being you are so, you had BETTER see it. For your very future survival your generation needs to MOBILIZE as soon as possible! At my age, I only care about the future of the species, it won't make much difference to me personally, but to YOU, it could mean your early doom.

TQ you are ignorant. As if you had any belief in main stream science anyway LOL LOL LOL
This was a mistake by the AP ROFL!!!!!!

http://www.epw.senate.gov/pressitem.cfm?party=rep&id=257909

Majority Press Release
Contact: MARC MORANO 202-224-5762, MATT DEMPSEY 202-224-9797

AP INCORRECTLY CLAIMS SCIENTISTS PRAISE GORE’S MOVIE
June 27, 2006

The June 27, 2006 Associated Press (AP) article titled “Scientists OK Gore’s Movie for Accuracy” by Seth Borenstein raises some serious questions about AP’s bias and methodology.

AP chose to ignore the scores of scientists who have harshly criticized the science presented in former Vice President Al Gore’s movie “An Inconvenient Truth.”

In the interest of full disclosure, the AP should release the names of the “more than 100 top climate researchers” they attempted to contact to review “An Inconvenient Truth.” AP should also name all 19 scientists who gave Gore “five stars for accuracy.” AP claims 19 scientists viewed Gore’s movie, but it only quotes five of them in its article. AP should also release the names of the so-called scientific “skeptics” they claim to have contacted.

The AP article quotes Robert Correll, the chairman of the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment group. It appears from the article that Correll has a personal relationship with Gore, having viewed the film at a private screening at the invitation of the former Vice President. In addition, Correll’s reported links as an “affiliate” of a Washington, D.C.-based consulting firm that provides “expert testimony” in trials and his reported sponsorship by the left-leaning Packard Foundation, were not disclosed by AP. See http://www.junkscience.com/feb06.htm

The AP also chose to ignore Gore’s reliance on the now-discredited “hockey stick” by Dr. Michael Mann, which claims that temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere remained relatively stable over 900 years, then spiked upward in the 20th century, and that the 1990’s were the warmest decade in at least 1000 years. Last week’s National Academy of Sciences report dispelled Mann’s often cited claims by reaffirming the existence of both the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age. See Senator Inhofe’s statement on the broken “Hockey Stick.”

Gore’s claim that global warming is causing the snows of Mt. Kilimanjaro to disappear has also been debunked by scientific reports. For example, a 2004 study in the journal Nature makes clear that Kilimanjaro is experiencing less snowfall because there’s less moisture in the air due to deforestation around Kilimanjaro.

Here is a sampling of the views of some of the scientific critics of Gore:

Professor Bob Carter, of the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University in Australia, on Gore’s film:

"Gore's circumstantial arguments are so weak that they are pathetic. It is simply incredible that they, and his film, are commanding public attention."

"The man is an embarrassment to US science and its many fine practitioners, a lot of whom know (but feel unable to state publicly) that his propaganda crusade is mostly based on junk science." – Bob Carter as quoted in the Canadian Free Press, June 12, 2006

Richard S. Lindzen, the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT, wrote:

“A general characteristic of Mr. Gore's approach is to assiduously ignore the fact that the earth and its climate are dynamic; they are always changing even without any external forcing. To treat all change as something to fear is bad enough; to do so in order to exploit that fear is much worse.” - Lindzen wrote in an op-ed in the June 26, 2006 Wall Street Journal

Gore’s film also cites a review of scientific literature by the journal Science which claimed 100% consensus on global warming, but Lindzen pointed out the study was flat out incorrect.

“…A study in the journal Science by the social scientist Nancy Oreskes claimed that a search of the ISI Web of Knowledge Database for the years 1993 to 2003 under the key words "global climate change" produced 928 articles, all of whose abstracts supported what she referred to as the consensus view. A British social scientist, Benny Peiser, checked her procedure and found that only 913 of the 928 articles had abstracts at all, and that only 13 of the remaining 913 explicitly endorsed the so-called consensus view. Several actually opposed it.”- Lindzen wrote in an op-ed in the June 26, 2006 Wall Street Journal.

Roy Spencer, principal research scientist for the University of Alabama in Huntsville, wrote an open letter to Gore criticizing his presentation of climate science in the film:

“…Temperature measurements in the arctic suggest that it was just as warm there in the 1930's...before most greenhouse gas emissions. Don't you ever wonder whether sea ice concentrations back then were low, too?”- Roy Spencer wrote in a May 25, 2006 column.

Former University of Winnipeg climatology professor Dr. Tim Ball reacted to Gore’s claim that there has been a sharp drop-off in the thickness of the Arctic ice cap since 1970.

"The survey that Gore cites was a single transect across one part of the Arctic basin in the month of October during the 1960s when we were in the middle of the cooling period. The 1990 runs were done in the warmer month of September, using a wholly different technology,” –Tim Ball said, according to the Canadian Free Press.


http://www.junkscience.com/feb06.htm

You just cited bush administration RIGHT WING ANTI SCIENCE PROPOGANDA! You should be ashamed of yourself, trying to hide from science and endangering our children.

The bush regime is the most ANTI SCIENCE administration in US history. This is a regime that opposes STEM CELL RESEARCH, and promote CREATIONIST crap "theory". They also have a long history of suppressing research on GLOBAL WARMING. This regime is actually EVIL. They are engangering the very survival of our SPECIES.
Stop listening to their OIL INDUSTRY funded PROPOGANDA!
I am not ignorant, you are brainwashed.

You just cited bush administration RIGHT WING ANTI SCIENCE PROPOGANDA! You should be ashamed of yourself, trying to hide from science and endangering our children.

The bush regime is the most ANTI SCIENCE administration in US history. This is a regime that opposes STEM CELL RESEARCH, and promotes CREATIONIST crap "theory". They also have a long history of suppressing research on GLOBAL WARMING. This regime is actually EVIL. They are engangering the very survival of our SPECIES.
Stop listening to their OIL INDUSTRY funded PROPOGANDA!
I am not ignorant, you are brainwashed.

Yes, sir....but how do I MOBILIZE a nation filled w/ people who don't care about anything but themselves to do anything about this?

Your generation is going to have to answer that, or die. I will be enjoying the last days in Thailand, watching the ocean come closer to my condo every year.

I agree with the scientist who thought Gore was too optimistic. He said we could stop it if we took action now. There is no way the world will take action fast enough. People only react to disasters after they are in their face, and this one is sneaky and is creeping up on us. And then greedy republican bastards will be trying to hide the truth until it is really in the whole world's face. SEE THE MOVIE even if you have to sneak in to avoid giving Al Gore money!

I cannot answer for my generation....I doubt we will DIE though...

Thats what the dinosaurs said.

Dinosaurs didnt have reason........

Again you are retarted. I suspect you cannot even mobilize your own parents from the tv they watch that is stacked upon dead console tv's in the living room. If you could maybe they would buy you some school clothes.

tell me Mr. Gore_Lost is it not true that you need a strap-on to satisfy your woman? Or do you not have a woman at all?


LOLOLOL: Again you are retarted LOLOLOLOL he calls people retarded, but he CAN'T EVEN SPELL IT!?!?! LOLOLOLOLOL WHAT AN IDIOT!

Neither do silly boys who haven't studied this issue.

...sry...

More on global warming. Important to IGNORE all bush OIL INDUSTRY propoganda. bush and Cheney have NO CREDIBILITY. They are poison.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nati...lobewarm11.html

Al Gore’s movie

Climate Science - 10th May 2006.

by Eric Steig

Along with various Seattle business and community leaders, city planners and politicians, a large group of scientists from the University of Washington got a chance to preview the new film, An Inconvenient Truth, last week. The film is about Al Gore's efforts to educate the public about global warming, with the goal of creating the political will necessary for the United States to take the lead in efforts to lower global carbon emissions. It is an inspiring film, and is decidedly non-partisan in its outlook (though there are a few subtle references to the Bush administration's lack of leadership on this and other environmental issues).

Since Gore is rumored to be a fan of RealClimate, we thought it appropriate to give our first impressions.

Much of the footage in Inconvenient Truth is of Al Gore giving a slideshow on the science of global warming. Sound boring? Well, yes, a little. But it is a very good slide show, in the vein of Carl Sagan (lots of beautiful imagery, and some very slick graphics and digital animation). And it is interspersed with personal reflections from Gore that add a very nice human element. Gore in the classroom in 1968, listening to the great geochemist Roger Revelle describe the first few years of data on carbon dioxide increases in the atmosphere. Gore on the family farm, talking about his father's tobacco business, and how he shut it down when his daughter (Al Gore's sister) got lung cancer. Gore on the campaign trail, and his disappointment at the Supreme Court decision. This isn't the "wooden" Gore of the 2000 campgain; he is clearly in his element here, talking about something he has cared deeply about for over 30 years.

How well does the film handle the science? Admirably, I thought. It is remarkably up to date, with reference to some of the very latest research. Discussion of recent changes in Antarctica and Greenland are expertly laid out. He also does a very good job in talking about the relationship between sea surface temperature and hurricane intensity. As one might expect, he uses the Katrina disaster to underscore the point that climate change may have serious impacts on society, but he doesn't highlight the connection any more than is appropriate (see our post on this, here ).

There are a few scientific errors that are important in the film. At one point Gore claims that you can see the aerosol concentrations in Antarctic ice cores change "in just two years", due to the U.S. Clean Air Act. You can't see dust and aerosols at all in Antarctic cores -- not with the naked eye -- and I'm skeptical you can definitively point to the influence of the Clean Air Act. I was left wondering whether Gore got this notion, and I hope he'll correct it in future versions of his slideshow. Another complaint is the juxtaposition of an image relating to CO2 emissions and an image illustrating invasive plant species. This is misleading; the problem of invasive species is predominantly due to land use change and importation, not to "global warming". Still, these are rather minor errors. It is true that the effect of reduced leaded gasoline use in the U.S. does clearly show up in Greenland ice cores; and it is also certainly true that climate change could exacerbate the problem of invasive species.

Several of my colleagues complained that a more significant error is Gore's use of the long ice core records of CO2 and temperature (from oxygen isotope measurements) in Antarctic ice cores to illustrate the correlation between the two. The complaint is that the correlation is somewhat misleading, because a number of other climate forcings besides CO2 contribute to the change in Antarctic temperature between glacial and interglacial climate. Simply extrapolating this correlation forward in time puts the temperature in 2100 A.D. somewhere upwards of 10 C warmer than present -- rather at the extreme end of the vast majority of projections (as we have discussed here ). However, I don't really agree with my colleagues' criticism on this point. Gore is careful not to state what the temperature/CO2 scaling is. He is making a qualitative point, which is entirely accurate. The fact is that it would be difficult or impossible to explain past changes in temperature during the ice age cycles without CO2 changes (as we have discussed here ). In that sense, the ice core CO2-temperature correlation remains an appropriate demonstration of the influence of CO2 on climate.

For the most part, I think Gore gets the science right, just as he did in Earth in the Balance. The small errors don't detract from Gore's main point, which is that we in the United States have the technological and institutional ability to have a significant impact on the future trajectory of climate change. This is not entirely a scientific issue -- indeed, Gore repeatedly makes the point that it is a moral issue -- but Gore draws heavily on Pacala and Socolow's recent work to show that the technology is there (see Science 305, p. 968 Stabilization Wedges: Solving the Climate Problem for the Next 50 Years with Current Technologies).

I'll admit that I have been a bit of a skeptic about our ability to take any substantive action, especially here in the U.S.
Gore's aim is to change that viewpoint, and the colleagues I saw the movie with all seem to agree that he is successful.

In short: this film is worth seeing. It opens in early June.

...is the world gonna get pwned?

Could be. Have fun while you can!

LOL seriously though....We can't ALL really DIE from it, can we?

***

More info on how destructive to the earth the American way of life OIL life is:

Pollution in Overdrive
New Report Cites U.S. Motorists For Production of Greenhouse Gases

By Sholnn Freeman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, June 28, 2006; Page D01

When it comes to greenhouse gases, U.S. drivers are getting more of the blame.

Americans represent 5 percent of the world's population but contribute 45 percent of the world's emission of carbon dioxide, the main pollutant that causes global warming, according to a report by the nonprofit group Environmental Defense.



Environmental Defense's report points out that while SUVs get a bad rap, more pollution is caused by smaller cars because there are far more of them on the road. (Jerome T. Nakagawa - AP)

High Court to Hear Greenhouse Gas Case
The Supreme Court agreed yesterday to hear arguments on whether the federal government must regulate carbon dioxide as a pollutant, a case that could have broad implications for utilities, auto manufacturers and other industries across the country.


Who's Blogging?
Read what bloggers are saying about this article.
dotcommonsense.blog-city.com
Current Events Discussion Board
Improve Gas Mileage


Full List of Blogs (3 links) »


Most Blogged About Articles
On washingtonpost.com | On the web


Save & Share
Tag This Article


Saving options
1. Save to description:
Headline (required)
Subheadline
Byline

2. Save to notes (255 character max):
Subheadline Blurb None
3. Tag This Article

Americans own 30 percent of the world's vehicles, drive farther each year than the international average and burn more fuel per mile, the report says. Additionally, the sport-utility boom of the past decade put vehicles on the road that could be spewing carbon dioxide for years to come.

General Motors Corp. and Ford Motor Co. have long been the targets of environmentalists and other groups concerned with global warming. Vehicles made by GM, the No. 1 U.S. automaker, produced as much carbon dioxide in 2004 as American Electric Power Co., the nation's largest operator of coal-fired power plants, the report says.

Auto industry representatives declined to comment on the report, saying they had yet to see it. Most auto companies have been working to reduce emissions by designing more-efficient engines and vehicles capable of running on alternative fuels.

Automakers, though, have generally resisted government restrictions on carbon dioxide emissions, saying such limits would force extensive design changes and drive up prices for consumers.

Environmental Defense, which plans to release the report publicly today, attempted to quantify how much carbon dioxide is produced by vehicles sold by various automakers. But the group said auto companies should not be singled out for blame, because consumer choices also play a role.

"What we are trying to do is make the connections for people," said John DeCicco, a senior fellow at Environmental Defense and an author of the report.

He said consumers could buy gas-electric hybrids or cars with smaller engines that burn less fuel and they could be more aware of how much they are driving, no matter the gas mileage of their cars. The report points out, for example, that although SUVs may be known as gas guzzlers, smaller cars cause more pollution because there are many more of them on the road. The authors also suggest that communities reconsider land use policies because Americans are taking more and longer trips, often to shop.

With the report, the group is trying to build support for government policies aiming at curbing greenhouse gases, including a system that would cap carbon dioxide emissions but allow companies and utilities to trade credits, mirroring Clean Air Act rules that govern sulfur dioxide, which causes acid rain. Under such a system, a company would get an allowance for carbon dioxide emissions each year, and if it did not reach that limit, it could sell off the remaining allotment to others.

The group's report is the latest effort by environmentalists to draw attention to global warming. Former vice president Al Gore also addresses the issue in his documentary "An Inconvenient Truth," which presents climate change from global warming as a fact he says is no longer debatable.

For years, though, environmental groups have run into resistance in Washington. The Bush administration has questioned the science behind global warming, and environmentalists complain that congressional leaders are ignoring proposals to raise fuel economy standards while pushing to expand offshore drilling.

On Monday, the Supreme Court agreed to hear arguments on whether the federal government has the authority to regulate carbon dioxide. The Bush administration is seeking to convince the court that the federal government has no obligation to restrict greenhouse gases.

Carbon dioxide is a byproduct of burning gasoline in vehicles. Scientists say the atmosphere can absorb a great deal of it, but many worry that people are adding more than nature can handle. They say the gases are building up around the Earth, trapping heat and raising the planet's temperature.

The report considered national statistics on how long vehicles are used and how far they are driven as they age. New and used vehicles were examined.

Carbon dioxide emissions from vehicles are disproportionately high in the United States for two primary reasons, the report says: U.S. drivers average 11,000 miles per year, 29 percent above the global average, and U.S. autos consume more fuel, emitting 15 percent more carbon dioxide per mile than the average vehicle in the rest of the world.

The Environmental Defense report found that in 2004, U.S. cars and light trucks emitted 314 metric tons of carbon dioxide, the equivalent of a coal train 50,000 miles long.

Greg Martin, a GM spokesman, said the automaker was working to reduce emissions. It will continue to focus on developing technologies to improve fuel efficiency. He said the automaker also plans to build more vehicles capable of burning alternative fuels, as well as more hybrids.

I'm kinda confused by all of this........what exactly is the danger...how will we supposedly die?

http://www.climatecrisis.net/

http://www.solcomhouse.com/globalwarming.htm

are you sure this isn't just about opposing everything Bush supports (Oil producing/the like) btw I'm not accusing, I'm just questioning.

No, this is a bipartisan issue. The earth doesn't have a party affiliation or even a national one.

No Haupt we're not all going to die!
Why don't you take a look at the BBC website "Planet Under Pressure" it explains the global environmental issues and gives insight into what might happen in the future.

If you want to know how you can help, as well as save money, or in your case how your parents can save money, download this pdf guide The Alliance to Save Energy - Power$mart Booklet

Man-Bear-Pig must be found to reverse the effects of global warming. Man-Bear-Pig must be sacrificed to save the planet.



Man-Bear-Pig must be found to reverse the effects of global warming. Man-Bear-Pig must be sacrificed to save the planet.

As repetitive and vacuous as ever.

YES FINALLY MAN-BEAR-PIG FANS!!!!! I realized what they were representing as MBP after I saw that show...I know, I'm smart.....MBP EXISTS GUYS, I'M SUPER SERIAL!