I know we have limited numbers of Americans on here, but if you DO reside in the States...

http://www.algore.com/cards.html

Sign up and let Congress know NOW is the time to deal w/ Global Warming.

From a purely scientific point of view, beware of supporting Al Gore.

A lot of his science is actually wrong.

A primary example is how he shows that higher carbon dioxide levels lead to higher temperatures. He has a pretty graph to prove it.

Unfortunately he's made a basic error. The CO2 levels are *following* not driving the heat changes. As the planet warms more CO2 is released.

Certainly CO2 is a greenhouse gas and mankind is releasing more than would be released due to natural warming and it is important to curb these emissions.

I agree we need to be aware of climate change and there can be no doubt that it is occuring, however there are also natural forces at work which Gore doesn't even mention. The Earth naturally fluctuates between hot and cold - geologically speaking, we're barely out of the last ice age! Solar activity is at a particular high state in it's centuries long cycle and we must take account of ALL the facts at our disposal.

I agree completely that mankind needs to carefully examine what we are doing to the environment we live in.

Perhaps controversially, I'm a strong supporter of nuclear power. It is the only power source we current have sufficiently well developed to supply the needs of our civilisation without burning fossil fuels. Solar, Wind, Wave and other renewable sources are simply not efficient enough or able to be deployed on large scale. We MUST go nuclear and we MUST do it now and until [URL=http://www.jet.efda.org/]JET[/url] and [url=http://www.iter.org/]ITER[/url] can finish dealing with fusion, this is our only way forward.

I would strongly suggest, however, backing scientists who know what they are talking about and not a politician spinning facts into fiction. I would further strongly suggest that anyone get all the facts from both sides of the argument. It's simply not as cut and dried as Al Gore would like to have you believe.

Like most people, I believe we must examine our impact on the environment and take remedial action. I believe this action must be based on accurate correctly presented scientific research, not hysteria created through badly presented and incorrect interpretations of the data.

There's been no great shortage of rebukes against Al Gore and his Inconvenient Truth. They point out (as you did Stef) his faulty facts and the overall alarmist tone of his film, and their points are well founded.

However, seeing as Al Gore is a high profile figure and is spreading the word about the environment (in which case I believe an alarmist attitude is warranted solely for the purpose of attracting attention to the matter) and so I throw myself behind his cause, at least so far as filling out a tiny online pledge is concerned.

I'm strongly against going Nuclear as it feels to me like we'd go nuclear with the intent of switching to something "greener" afterwards and we'd end up stuck with Reactors dotted all over the place. You can say it's safe/clean etc till you're blue in the face but I don't want a potential Chernobyl in my neighbourhood. Overcautious, maybe. But what if the reactor DID leak?

I've read several sources saying that wind alone can't give us the power we need, nor can solar. But I feel that we should start generating some power of our own by installing turbines/panels in our own homes as well as deploying huge fields of them.

That and re-educate ourselves in energy conservation be it by enforcing strict laws or something else.

Global warming imho is just Earth doing her thing. I mean how long ago was the last ice age? 20,000 years ago? Seems to me we're probably due a rerun.

Trouble with wind turbines in back gardens and so forth is threefold.

1: Persuading Joe Public to do it - an enormous hurdle in and of itself.
2: Funding - this is not cheap, beyond the budget of most normal households.
3: What about places which aren't terribly windy?

And yes... Chernobyl. A badly maintained, obsolete reactor staffed by poorly trained personnel. It doesn't and shouldn't be like that.

Overcautious maybe, but what if gas/oil/coal fired stations ARE destroying the planet.

We do need to do our bit, of course. You're right, this will mean we need less main grid power stations, but no amount of backyard turbines & solar cells will completely fill the shortfall. We need and will continue to need a centralised power infrastructure.

Let's be clear here, we don't expect to be able to deploy truly clean (ie fusion) until 2035-2040. This is hopefully within my lifetime, but we need something that's not going to fuck up the atmosphere meantime.

Right now, today, if we knocked down all the fossil fuel burning plants, we could not fill the shortfall with renewables. That's a hard fact and there is no avoiding it.

The stark truth is two choices only.

1: Burn more fossil fuel.
2: Nuclear.

I don't buy it. Nuclear is not the answer. I'm well aware of the damages fossil fuels are doing.

But who am I to disagree, we'll only be forced to go along with whatever crap the Gov.t enforces upon us anyway.

Fuck Al Gore. He's a self serving penis licker. I particularly liked it when he met with that mob of people down there in California several years back who all joined hands, faced the west, and shouted at the approaching El Nino... "NOT ON OUR CONTINENT!!!" I bet he taught the weather a thing or two. He was like Dan Quayle. A PHENOMENAL life insurance policy for Clinton. Nobody in their right mind would have wanted Clinton incapacitated... look who would be running the show.

**Forgot to address my opinion on nuclear stuff**

In theory Nuclear is great. Nuclear technology in the hands of responsible western style countries is fine and dandy. nuclear technology in the hands of anyone else is too horrifying to comprehend. JIHAAAAAAD!!!!! Granted, a nuclear reactor does not by default equal enriched plutonium, but i think it inevitably leads to it.

Aye he is. But what difference do motives make if the overall result is positive?

The end does not justify the means. We could end racial strife in the US by rounding up all non-whites and exterminating them. No more racial problems. Not a workable solution. Al Gore's way to do things is to hamstring everyone and essentially bring us back into the 18th Century. He's a communist through and through. Sure, the world would be a SLIGHTLY cleaner place, but the quality of life would suck ass. The reports I've seen as that one major volcanic eruption chucks more "greenhouse" gasses into the atmosphere than several YEARS of human activity. We are no doubt contributing to the problem, in as much as a fly buzzing in a stadium would contribute to the noise pollution from a heavy metal concert. That may be an exaggeration, but then again.... maybe it aint.

[quote:5e54a3d8ff]We could end racial strife in the US by rounding up all non-whites and exterminating them. No more racial problems. [/quote:5e54a3d8ff]

*still laughing over that one*

[quote:1242792292="Eveshka"]The end does not justify the means. We could end racial strife in the US by rounding up all non-whites and exterminating them. No more racial problems. Not a workable solution. Al Gore's way to do things is to hamstring everyone and essentially bring us back into the 18th Century. He's a communist through and through. Sure, the world would be a SLIGHTLY cleaner place, but the quality of life would suck ass. The reports I've seen as that one major volcanic eruption chucks more "greenhouse" gasses into the atmosphere than several YEARS of human activity. We are no doubt contributing to the problem, in as much as a fly buzzing in a stadium would contribute to the noise pollution from a heavy metal concert. That may be an exaggeration, but then again.... maybe it aint.[/quote:1242792292]

With all due respect to the esteemed woman/gentleman from New York, I believe the above statement may be a bit out of context. Or at least scope. No one is suggesting that Al Gore should be given dominion over the US Government, but merely that his quest of raising environmental awareness is a good one and that regardless of his ambition, the result is undoubtedly positive.

What I was backing was not blatant endorsement of "the ends justify the means" but rather that on not quite as dramatic cases as were presented, a politicians personal ambitions can be exploited for a greater good. All ethnic genocide put aside for a moment, Al Gore may be a tool, but his environmental awareness campaign is okay by me.

Face it folks, your great great grand kids will probably live in an Ice Age :D

Perhaps what he desires, a clean environment, is a good thing. I like a clean environment as much as the next cyberly-gender-confused person. However, it is all the red tape bullshit that will go along with what he wants if he (and his kind) gets/get his/their way that is the problem.

[quote:312bd773cd="Porter"]I don't buy it. Nuclear is not the answer. I'm well aware of the damages fossil fuels are doing.[/quote:312bd773cd]

Suggest a [b:312bd773cd]*viable*[/b:312bd773cd] alternative.

Magic? Tap into Dark Energy, say the charm of making... that one that goes something like annal nathrak, oos fath bethud, dachiel tien vay. Then wiggle the fingers and voila, a new power source.