I just love their "C02 is our friend ad." Pathetic drivel. Water is also our friend, but if you drink 100 gallons a day, you're dead.

That video and the ads are the most stupid, most assinine thing I have ever seen. What is the world coming to when you allow raisen brain ads like this to show to the masses?

Now wait I'm confused. The first two clips showed us that CO2 twernt nuttin to be fraid of. I then felt reassured that I could breath out and produce a whole variety of gases with no guilt whatsoever.

then I seen the next one bout how Gore's actually doin' most of the output of CO2. which ta maw mind is a bit of a confession that too much CO2 is a bad thing.

Because you fellars and the completely neutral competetive enterprise institute, are so up in arms bout this film. I have resolved to see it fir maself. Mayhap be that this stewin bout the film actually helps spread it through somethin called buzz generation

"Raisen brain ads"....you mean like the ones MoveOn put out with Hitler / Bush comparisons.

I'm sure you were complaining ad nauseum.

Good God you are such a friggin hypocrite it is scary.

Oh, I see! Al Gore caused Hurricaine Katrina!

Let the Gore bashing begin, Bushies!

Because the dream ticket of Gore/Feingold in '08 is going to become a reality ... and Al will reclaim his rightful spot in the White House.

Until then, November is fast approaching ... hmmm, can't wait for The Decider's impeachment hearings!

Gore/Feingold is your dream ticket? I'd love to see that ticket crash and burn!

Gore is a loser. He'll never be anything more than that for the rest of his life.

I really have to say... those ads were stupid. I mean really stupid. I mean really, democrat stupid. Theres so many more intelligent ways of debunking the environmental alarmist/psychosis... why did they make this? The logic was like... michael moore logic. I'm very disappointed.

Im not sure whats stupider, Al Gore or these videos. Then again the leftwing trolls kind of top them all off on the stupidity scale.

Anyone dumb enough to believe that greenhouse gases are good for them, clearly needs a brain transplant.

These ads are paid for by the worst polluters on the planet.

PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE make it Gore/Feingold.

Algore cannot even win his home state. Would be a clean sweep.

Bwaaaaahaaaahaaaaa.

Gore Feingold?

And you guys wonder why it's been 31 years since 50% of the American public took you guys seriously enough to put you in office with a majority.

Gore Feingold. How sad is it that they aren't kidding and really think this is some kind of power ticket.

What the hell has happened to the Democratic Party....where on earth did your solid leaders go? A great party long gone, shame for the country really.

Al Gore? This is the same Al Gore that boasted he invented the internet. What a surprise when he didn't show up to get the Medal of Freedom for inventing the internet. Of course, the real inventors did show up. This would be the same Al Gore that has a mental health disorder. One he was institutionalized for. Al Gore's implosion is well documented. Leave to looney Al Gore to jump on any undocumented theory and make it his reality. I want to know just what type of technical expertise they had 500 years ago to judge climatic changes. Did they say "gosh it is warm" "dang it is really hot out" "what a scorcher"? Climatic changes are part of the progression. I don't doubt we contribute to it, but long after we are gone, people will still be talking about the weather.

Al Gore never claimed to have invented the Internet. See http://www.snopes.com/quotes/internet.asp

In the 1970's Time was screaming about Global Cooling and the next Ice Age. Now in 2006, Time is screaming about Global Warming. Junk science has many accolytes and their leader is Al Gore.

Obviously Gore has conservatives scared and worried with his movie, otherwise clearly it would not be necessary to create BS swiftboat style ads.

These people would put out an ad saying that nuclear waste is good for you and you should bathe in it. The sad thing is that a good percentage of you would be dumb enough to believe it.

Even Regan, your hero said "Trust, but verify" You boneheads are too afraid to verify for fear of finding out its all BS and you are getting smoke blown up yer butts. So instead, you just blindly trust.

Gores got you on the run, lol, run little piggies, run!

In the 1970's Time was screaming about Global Cooling and the next Ice Age. Now in 2006, Time is screaming about Global Warming. Junk science has many accolytes and their leader is Al Gore.

-- Theres a lot of speculation, however the way I see it is:

A) If we are right, and there is global warming happening as a result of humans, and you clean up you act, you save your butts.

B) If we are wrong, and there isnt, you still end up with cleaner air, cleaner water, cleaner environment and less dependance on foreign oil.

So, what do you have to lose by ASSUMING that we are right? Not much unless you are big business or a company that makes big $$$ by polluting.

First they said the sun revolves around the earth. Then they said the earth revolves around the sun. Junk scientists just can't keep their story straight.

I mean, those white-robed Gore-head moonbats claim global warming could lead to the next ice age by shutting down the Atlantic conveyor belt. Have you ever seen a conveyor belt in the Atlantic?

Next thing you know they'll be claiming the Dixie Chicks have a number one album! Like that could EVER happen...

Semantics....you can watch the video clip of what Al Gore said on Wolf Blitzer on CNN and if you think he didn't say he was responsible for the Internet being what it was at the time, you are kidding yourself.

He most certainly did say it:

"During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet. I took the initiative in moving forward a whole range of initiatives that have proven to be important to our country's economic growth and environmental protection, improvements in our educational system."

But again, isn't this just classic liberal hypocrisy. They claim (including snopes which is more than just a myth buster but a left wing tilting myth buster) that Gore really didn't mean that and it was "clumsy language", etc, etc.

It's amazing that Gore gets a free pass when all I hear daily out of the mouths of these idiot liberals is how poor of a speaker Bush is and everything he says must be taken to the letter of the word.

Can't have it both ways girls. Sorry, doesn't work that way

Semantics....you can watch the video clip of what Al Gore said on Wolf Blitzer on CNN and if you think he didn't say he was responsible for the Internet being what it was at the time, you are kidding yourself.

Sorry, but you're kidding yourself with of some kind of partisan sh*t blinders. It's clear he wasn't claiming he "invented" the Internet. It's a "funny" joke punchline, but if you take it seriously you're pretty damn out of touch.

Mostly, though, you're a fool if you think the "invention of the internet" has a god damn thing to do with global warming.

Matt, those videos are purely idiotic, thats the nicest word I can think of to describe them. To say "CO2 is life" is to say "O2 is life" when in reality pure O2 would kill us, just like pure CO2 would kill us. The planet is a very very delicate, changing how much CO2 is in the air will have an impact, do I know exactly how much? nope, but I trust scientists do. I'd also like to point out how often people on this blog say something like "they can't know what the temperature was 400 years ago because no one could measure it", well sorry but thats not 100% correct, in elementary math you may have learnt a little bit about patterns, well guess what, patterns are used to determine things that happened in the past and in the future. So yes, scientists can get a pretty accurate idea of what conditions were like 400 years ago and compare with today. This is the same logic used in things like the big bang theory.

Bring on global warming! It's too damn cold here in Nebraska in the winter.

Can I sell my snowblower?

AlGore for Prez in 08'......ROFLMAO

Liberal hypocrites...the AlGore Global Warming scare team took five SUV's to travel 200 yards to attend the opening. Yeah...they are really concerned about Co2 emmissions.

GDP...5.3% growth 1st quarter. Good thing a RECORD 64 million Americans voted for President George W. Bush.

Regardless of if you buy into Gore's version of events does not matter. Global warming is a reality.

Global warming is a reality....today. And then it will go back through it's normal cycle and it will be cooler in a few years.

Meanwhile, the warming means more crop yields, lower death rates as a result, etc, etc.

Yeah, that .5 degrees is brutal.

Meanwhile, the warming means more crop yields

Actually it means LESS as much of the midwest will have droughts.

All I really know about Gore is that my Secret Service neighbors ALL say he's an asshole.

There's an interesting piece by Samuel Thernstrom at NRO today.

With Al Gore’s new movie opening this week, there are some inconvenient truths its maker should consider: Gore himself has done incalculable harm to the cause of combating global warming. His efforts to call attention to the dangers of climate change may prove prescient but his policy prescriptions have been nothing short of disastrous.

Consider the facts: The Kyoto Protocol, which Gore personally negotiated for the United States, was a colossal mistake—a fundamentally flawed approach that has taken nearly a decade (and counting) to recover from. If ever a treaty was dead on arrival, it was Kyoto, given that the Senate had voted 95-0 against two of its essential elements before it was negotiated. (emphasis - mine) (That vote rejected any treaty that would seriously harm our economy while exempting the developing world from any obligation to reduce its emissions—a sensible litmus test.) That didn’t stop Gore from agreeing to its terms, knowing full well that it would never be ratified—a remarkably cynical political move.

What’s wrong with signing an impractical treaty? A lot, actually. Kyoto stopped us from pursuing more realistic alternatives. Even now, Kyoto’s misconceptions haunt us: Having already agreed that the developing world need not reduce its (rapidly increasing) emissions of greenhouse gases, it will be hard to persuade those countries to reconsider. Yet without their participation, no limits on global emissions can be effective.

Mr. Thernstrom makes a number of good points and approaches the debate in a common sense way that will not offend most of you proponents of global warming theory. Go read the whole thing.

Good thing a RECORD 64 million Americans voted for President George W. Bush.

Yeah, and the previous record was held by Al Gore in 2000.

The US population is growing, which in turn creates more voters. Your point is?

Drink that poisened koolaide my fellow republicans, drink and never mind the funny taste its just, uum, carbon dioxide, we call it life!

No axis...crop yields across the planet are up.

Drink that poisened koolaide my fellow republicans

axis, you're a Republican too? I mean, I knew we were a big tent party, but......really?

Who is this axis person? His posts are the height of ignorance; unsubstantiated rumor, a stunning lack of information on the history of the country, a basic misunderstanding of the issues, wild accusations with no facts, no training in, or understanding of science, economics, business, marketing, and a suspect understanding of politics.
But he does cut and paste the latest conspiracy theories from the fever swamps very well.

axis, you must be from Canada, am I right?

"Good thing a RECORD 64 million Americans voted for President George W. Bush."

Even more people voted for American Idol...

Yeah, but how many dead democrats voted twice for Taylor?

Probably about the same number whose votes were thrown out in Florida.

The military absentee ballots, right?

Nyuk Nyuk... I'll give you the last word on that one Bane.

As a born and bred Canadian who now proudly calls the USA home and is a staunch GOP'er, I can assure you Axis is indeed a Canadian. How can I tell?

His consistent, uneducated parroting of the typical liberal slop.

In the words of Cartman, "God I hate you Axis"...

You guys are scraping the bottom. The Jodi Foster story was a prime example of the decline. This blog is even more one-sided than the liberals'. You guys are having mutations of thought by surrounding yourselves with same-thinking individuals.

By the way, this story is a disgrace to President Bush. Childlike rantings on blogsforbush. And you say the lefties rant.

Do you start a business before MAKING money or do you INVEST money to make money in the long run? Do ya' think Gore might just invest something before gaining something?

Gore is investing to gain a long-term goal. Or maybe he is just a hypocrite, but that's your opinion. Even if he were, it wouldn't be for the reasons you've cited.

Suggestion: Post for quality and relevance, not quantity. Your many posts don't always prove a point.

GOP,
I love Canadians, some of my best friends ... etc. I love Canada; beautiful country up there;

Don't worry, I'm sure all thinking Canadians would be embarrassed by his ignorance, and even those that aren’t thinking Canadians(axis) would be embarrassed by his poor critical thinking skills. He's kind of like steve on crack.

"Mr. Thernstrom ... approaches the debate in a common sense way" like calling Gore's policy decisions "disasterous", because the goals appear unattainable, and so we must reduce our expectations. How dare Gore set such a high bar. This is the same as saying the four-minute mile, unattainable throughout the greatest bulk of human existence, should have been achieved by lengthening the minute to 70 seconds. What kind of goal is that? What kind of success does that achieve?

In the Gore Big Fat Carbon Footprint video, what units of CO2 does a "Gore CO2 Meter" and a "People CO2 Meter" measure, exactly? One still-frame shows "People" using 179 of whatever unit the meter measures, while Gore is using 760,000,000+ units of CO2. Is this correct? Is it possible that Gore is using over 4,318,000 times MORE carbon than "People"?

How do crop dusters and Blue Angels' fighter jets fit into Gore's travel plans?

Is Gore CARBON NEUTRAL like the ROLLING STONES?

Any clarifications of these observations would be greatly appreciated.

Oh, I guess Gore is CARBON NEUTRAL after all.

Does that mean the "Gore CO2 Meter" is broken? CEI should probably look into that.

"Mr. Thernstrom ... approaches the debate in a common sense way" like calling Gore's policy decisions "disasterous",

In what way were they not disastrous, Congressive? It doesn't sound to me like you read past the first paragraph. I think human-induced global warming is, as one of my favorite TV characters, Col. Potter, used to say, a bunch of horse hockey, so I don't really care one way or the other. For those of you who seem to think it is a planet-threatening crisis, I would think "disastrous" would be an understatement in describing a policy decision that resulted in a decade-long delay in doing anything meaningful. Gore recently said that we only have a decade left to act or it will be too late. Makes the decade that was lost because of a "disastrous" policy decision look pretty important, doesn't it?

How else would you describe Gore's approach to Kyoto? You certainly couldn't call it successful. You certainly couldn't call it reasonable. You certainly couldn't call it smart.

I answered my own question. His disasterous policies have somehow manifested itself in Gore creating 400 million percent more carbon dioxide than "People". Case closed.

I've heard "horse hockey" gives off methane. Unless you are referring to polo, a version of horse hockey. But, you don't care.

Comparing the state of climate science today with what it was in 1970 when some theorized about an impending ice age is disengenuous.

There have been quantum leaps in the improvements of the models that are used to predict future weather trends, data collection methods, and the ability of researchers across the globe to share data and cross-check results.

Putting the issue of Al Gore the messenger aside, there is an overwhelming consensus on the part of scientists around the world that human activities, specifically greenhouse gas emissions, are causing and contributing to esclating global warming. On this point there should be no debate, unless you are a nutty conspiracy theorist or just plain stupid.

The precise consequences of global warming are difficult to precisely determine. There are many variables, and at some point positive feedback loops can cause non-linear behavior. For exampe, disintigrating ice caps cause more energy to be absorbed into the oceans, causing more warming, which in turn causes addition disintegration of the ice caps.

Let's put aside partisan politics here. President Bush has identified global warming as the single biggest security challenge we are face, not only as a nation, but world wide. The longer we wait to do something about it, the more likely the consequences will be disastrous. The sooner we act, the more likely we can head off the most severe consequences.

Unless you are a scientist with bonafide credentials to argue the point, don't bother making lame political statements. Global warming should not be a political issue.

The "Competitive Enterprise Institute" is a sham organization that has no scientific credentials whatsoever, trying to muddy the issue for political reasons.

Comparing the state of climate science today with what it was in 1970 when some theorized about an impending ice age is disengenuous.

There have been quantum leaps in the improvements of the models that are used to predict future weather trends, data collection methods, and the ability of researchers across the globe to share data and cross-check results.

Putting the issue of Al Gore the messenger aside, there is an overwhelming consensus on the part of scientists around the world that human activities, specifically greenhouse gas emissions, are causing and contributing to esclating global warming. On this point there should be no debate, unless you are a nutty conspiracy theorist or just plain stupid.

The precise consequences of global warming are difficult to precisely determine. There are many variables, and at some point positive feedback loops can cause non-linear behavior. For exampe, disintigrating ice caps cause more energy to be absorbed into the oceans, causing more warming, which in turn causes addition disintegration of the ice caps.

Let's put aside partisan politics here. President Bush has identified global warming as the single biggest security challenge we are face, not only as a nation, but world wide. The longer we wait to do something about it, the more likely the consequences will be disastrous. The sooner we act, the more likely we can head off the most severe consequences.

Unless you are a scientist with bonafide credentials to argue the point, don't bother making lame political statements. Global warming should not be a political issue.

The "Competitive Enterprise Institute" is a sham organization that has no scientific credentials whatsoever, trying to muddy the issue for political reasons.

cookie,
The models that we use today are the same models we used in 1970. Data gathered from the past century hasn’t changed, history is still history.
The fly in the ointment is that all models are based on straight line projections, with little acknowledgement of variables caused by the models changes. In the 1960’s and 1970’s the trend was ever-so-slightly down for the period which was calculated at 35 years, in 2000 the period was extended to 55 years. Anything longer than that is guesses and dumb-ass luck. A simple test; take the “global warming” models currently being touted and push the baseline back another hundred years; you’ll have us facing an ice-age in the next epoch. Shorten it to 75 years and the world will cook at the equator before your great grandchildren get out of high school. Both are based on odds. The odds of a cow being struck by lightning are 1,000,000,000:1, unless you are the cow that gets struck; then the odds improve significantly!
Currently, we are seeing changes in oceanic temperatures that are closer related to volcanic activity at the sea bottom than any atmospheric conditions. These changes will affect the atmosphere in a few dozen years, but just as they will have an impact, solar flares or sunspots may cause the temperatures in the atmosphere to reduce by .10º to .5º thus negating any oceanic affect.
Scientists are hardly in agreement of the impact of humans on greenhouse gasses, Mt. St. Helens output of gasses in one day exceeded all the automobiles from all countries since we first started driving them. And we've recently had several more volcanic eruptions under sea and above ground.
You wrote, "There are many variables, and at some point positive feedback loops can cause non-linear behavior. For exampe, disintigrating ice caps cause more energy to be absorbed into the oceans, causing more warming, which in turn causes addition disintegration of the ice caps." this is pure pseudo-scientific pap! More energy absorbed into the ocean? what kind of nonsense is this? Cold water is energy?

You should learn to study the other side of the discussion, and as a qualified scientist precluding others from offering a political opinion is the height of disingenuous.