Movements need figureheads, and Gore isn't the worst. It does bring up problems though, being a former elected official in a politically polarised country, the same country that is in the top 3 polluters in the world. It creates a lot of problems, brad. You're right in that having a publicly-recognisable figure as a figurehead raises awareness, and that's good. But it seems the shortcuts that he's taken in Inconvienent Truth (which I still think is an excellent film, natch :p), have angered some scientists.
As for his personal energy usage, there was a lot of discussion on this between myself, August & Sea Demon on this thread.

Hmmm... that's a little disappointing; I would've thought #1. We could just bomb or invade the other 2 I s'pose. :hmm:

Ya know, do our part for the good of humanity. Now don't everyone thank us at once.

I thought so, but I wasn't 100% sure. It's a nasty place in the listings to occupy, so I was circumspect :)

Here Paul Krugman on the "right-wing's" problem with Al Gore. I usually can't stand economists writing politics, but Paul is an exception. World-class economist with his head screwed on

Link

Thank you Al Gore...for what?!?!? :rotfl: :rotfl:

http://newsbusters.org/node/13948

Consensus my a$*. ;)

Great point Sea Demon. Saying its a concensus doesn't make it fact.

Oops how stupid do the liberal intelligencia think people are? :rotfl: :rotfl:

More like the liberal snake oil salesmen, used auto salesmen, you get the drift.

Seems they forgot the bits in the beginning.;) They suffer from selective editing.

Scientists not involved in the study cautioned, however, that current climate change is so driven by pollution from power plants, industry, and other human activity that it is nearly impossible to draw a meaningful conclusion about the durability of Greenland's ice.
"Whatever occurred in the past almost surely occurred much more slowly," said Raymond S. Bradley, director of the Climate System Research Center at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst. "Human activity is pushing warming at a much faster rate than in the past. Change is occurring in decades or centuries, not over millennia."

http://www.boston.com/news/local/art...pe_on_climate/

It's easier to read the source article than NewsShouters spin. (just saw your post, brad :))
The Globe piece does not say what NewsBusters or Sea Demon want it to.
Greenlands ice is be more resilient than previously thought, but it's the ocean ice that's melting faster. The loss of ocean ice is more harmful, the darker water absorbs more heat than would have been reflected by glossy ice.

Its amazing what you can make something say or get a certain spin when one uses selective editing.

Not even close. If you read my earlier posts, you would have seen it was a Y2K bug that screwed up the NASA models, bringing them more in line with a normal warming. It is no where near as bad as the middle ages once had. The Medieval times is the time in history of the hottest weather, increasing at a faster rate than our own is now.

This evidence kind of screws up people doomsday BS they are posting all over the web.

-S

The effect of the correction on global temperatures is minor (some 1-2% less warming than originally thought), but the effect on the U.S. global warming propaganda machine could be huge.

Edit: Or this http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/environment/index.html
This is the guys site that found the bug. http://www.climateaudit.org/ I absolutely can't understand a thing he is saying. It goes waay over my head.

And here's where I come in and remind everyone....who gives a flying f*ck!?

So global warming has been debunked, eh? We can all rest easy, get in our Chevy Suburbans, and eat a nice McDonalds meal of corn based, fossil fuel fertilized, processed food. And make sure you throw out those nasty oil based plastic wrappers on the side of the road, kids!

Who cares if global warming is true or not. It's a stupid debate that draws everyone's attention away from finding a more sustainable and green way of living.

And thus the "broken record" portion of your evening has been concluded.

The NOAA don't agree with this interpretation, SUBMAN.

Check here - http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globa.../medieval.html

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globa...s/nhemmill.gif

Here's a RealClimate piece on the misuse of the Medieval Warm Period - http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...st-millennium/

And another focusing on the Greenland-Ice story Sea Demon posted - http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=458

Quoted for truth. I would quote this all day for truth. I don't pretend to understand the science behind climate change (and ergo I'm still on the fence about it) but I don't need to be a scientist to know that exploding hydrocarbons and releasing poisonous byproducts into the same air that I breathe, and that someday maybe my future children will breathe, is not really a great and sustainable way to exist.

Taking public transit or turning off lights does not, to my knowledge, put extra money in the pockets of Al Gore or any other gosh darn alarmist liberal yuppy. I'm sure many posters here would also like to see the West less dependent on Middle Eastern oil. Take a guess how to start.

But then there's this.....

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/liv...n_page_id=1811

My whole point is that there is absolutely no consensus from scientists that man is creating an irreversible climate disaster. And to ward it off, we now have to destroy national economies, sign job killing Kyoto protocols, and allow worldwide socialistic redistribution schemes to be enacted and managed by the UN and other such institutions.....lest we all die. What I'm saying is, let's not burn the barn down because the loudest voices want us to. ;)

Goodbye academic diversity.

Similarly: From Red to Green. You can listen to a clever lecture by Professor Stott on the subject here.