1 I'd have possibly watched this movie if it was not in any way attached to Gore. That it is tells me all I need to know.

2 Here's a question that I'd like answered: What are you going to do if it turns out that Gore is right?

3 Take off one layer of clothes... And what will you do if (as is likely) Gore is wrong?

4 Whoa, GM, I cancelled my subscription to Discover more than ten years ago - maybe fifteen.

Pupular Mechanics used to be the home of ham-radio operators and guys who liked diagrams of jet engines, but in the last 5-10 years it has become one of the best pure science magazines around. I also like Technology Review.

Or you could just go over to tech central station on the web!

5 AVI... LOL, Woody is the one with the subscription... not me... I cancelled mine about the same time you did... probably for many of the same reasons...

6 I've been tired of the liberal rants and liberal bias of "Discover" for years. It's just that my wife keeps automatically renewing it for me as a gift. I'd just as soon burn the money, even if it does contribute to global warming. "Discover" got rid of their science writers and now concentrate on using political writers.

Hey, I just checked out Tech Central Station. I had never seen it before. Anyway, here's a pertinent link for which liberals will say is all wrong. http://www.tcsdaily.com/sections/science_roundtable.aspx

7 Moose, I have no expectation at all that Gore is correct, and I believe that it would take over 1,000 years to prove him correct. I need more proof before committing trillions of dollars on a problem still debated and for which cost-benefit analyses seem to indicate a very poor return in relation to other needs. I would invest in education before this project. With smarter students, we may eliminate global warming beliefs altogether.

You're not stupid. Have you given this much personal thought beyond accepting liberal claims? I just wonder how deeply people analyze global warming before accepting it.

8 S. Fred Singer, Professor emeritus of environmental sciences, at the University of Virginia (and former director of the US Weather Satellite Service), does a good fisking of Algores' mockumentary at-
http://www.sepp.org/weekwas/2006/june%2017.htm

He includes weekly evidence, debunking the 'man-made' GW theory, in which Algore adds prophesies of doom.

9 Thanks, Ben. I've never seen that site. I don't know why, but I had trouble with the link, so I'll try one myself which covers his archives.

http://www.sepp.org/weekwas/weekwas.html

If the whole world is so big on global warming and if it is so important, then they should get started without us. They don't hold up a baseball game until everyone has bought a ticket.

P.S. I just realized that I needed to add the http preface to the link, so I added that to your comment.

10 Thanks Woody. How could I forget the http?

11 Thanks Woody. How can I forget the http?

12 When Omni magazine went belly up and they replaced the remainder of my subscription with Discover I just let it run out and didn't renew. Week after week they sent me offers to renew until it was nearly free. Each offer went straight into the 86 file.

TCS Daily is a great site.

13 Take off one layer of clothes...

How very droll. You'll be doing a lot more than that and you know it.

And what will you do if (as is likely) Gore is wrong?

Much of what needs to be done to prevent global warming would make America less dependent on foreign oil and improve air quality in major U.S. cities as well. So if Gore is wrong I'd be quite happy that we did the right thing anyway and reaped some benefits regardless.

14 Droll is my middle name... just like yours is Nonee. :-)

Actually, what you declare "...of what needs to be done..." assumes that the added effects of CO2 are anthropogenic in the first place and that is the science that is debated over and over again. Too, there is considerable evidence (provided by Woody's links) that argue that the entire "Hockey Stick" information on which the GW controversy is founded, is inaccurate. There seems to be some, well, shall we say, reluctance for Mann et al to release their lines of codes for checking... not exactly what one does when one is sure of their data.

Prove the science, and I'll capitulate, castigate myself etc., and provide a suitable retraction in big print

15 Moose, would you marry a girl who thinks that she's pregnant and thinks that you're the cause? I'd want to see that blue strip and a DNA test before I spent a lot of money on that venture, even if it would have some positive results.

Surely, you have some requirements for proof beyond anecdotal claims.

16 The underlying purpose of the AGW true believers is to replace capitalism with socialism (some would have us live like the Indians used to).
They would also impose the greenie lifestyle. All animals and plants are more important than humans.
It's a non-democratic power grab, and the ones who would be in power would be the UN, Algore, and the greenie leaders.
Isn't it ironic that European countries can't meet their Kyoto obligations?

17 The only reason we have the current GW hysteria is because our public school system doesn't teach people how to think, nor give them the tools to be able to figure it out on their own anymore. Politicians such as Algore know this all too well, and use it in their own self-interest. If we had an educated citizenry, no one would even know Algore's name. So sad, but then the liberals like it that way for all the obvious reasons.

18 Air quality in major cities? That's odd, because I've read quite a bit about how air quality has improved in many major cities without Kyoto compliance for over two decades.

For only one instance:
http://www.cleanairprogress.org/top_20/index.asp

And I really get peeved at those who attempt to appeal to my sense of right and wrong by using the "foreign" oil argument. Actually, if one is against fossil fuels, why do they so often use the term "foreign" fossil fuels? Because if we wanted to get off "foreign" oil, we could simply drill here. So see, that's not the point at all. It's merely a tactic used for argument's sake.

My point is not that we can't be more responsible, or even to deny changes in our atmosphere, but that global warming enthusiasts, bullies and extremists are exploiting people using emotion and employing fear tactics more than actual science. If one cherrypicks from articles to rebut them, it's largely because the science itself has been cherrypicked.

In the meantime, I will simply continue to be as environmentally friendly as I can as an individual.

Most of us do not deny that global temperatures have changed. I've said this a million times if I've said it once. Global climate has changed in the past and it will continue to do so until a comet takes us all out. It's the manner in which these people instill stark fear in the public and then come up with totally unrealistic proposals through computer models and far-fetched extrapolations which oddly benefits only their special interest groups (something they continually accuse others of) and will produce little or nothing in the way of results. There are no promises that the Kyoto Treaty, for one thing, will produce any results at all - ever.

Raise awareness through education? I'm all for it. But the bigotry, hypocrisy and shrill rhetoric many use that dominates the discussion has to go.

If you're a scientist that advocates the prevalent Global Warming theory, you're a "respected member of the scientific community". If you question it, you're a "crackpot on someone's payroll".

Bah.

19 The underlying purpose of the AGW true believers is to replace capitalism with socialism (some would have us live like the Indians used to).
They would also impose the greenie lifestyle. All animals and plants are more important than humans.
It's a non-democratic power grab, and the ones who would be in power would be the UN, Algore, and the greenie leaders.

Dude... you're not supposed to drink the bong water... okay?