Al Gore speaks at Embedded Systems Conference

The quote included in the article "They don't even wish to see the facts he presents in this movie" told me all I needed to know. What "facts" are these? The facts presented by scientists whose funding is dependent on scaring the public into wasting our tax dollars on supporting them? Or, the facts disputed by thousands of scientists who are willing skeptics who may even lose funding by being skeptical? Oh, wait, I forgot - AlGore's movies doesn't present those facts. He was a jerk when he ran in 2000 - he's a jerk now.

I've seen "An Inconvenient Truth," read "Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1500 Years," by Fred Singer and Dennis Avery (current warming is part of a cyclical change in solar radiation) and just last night talked to Patrick Michaels, state climatologist of Virginia, who doesn't buy the solar variation theory but thinks any increase in greenhouse warming isn't much and isn't fast. I think Al Gore does not make a convincing case and does not deal with the very serious criticisms that have been made, including that the temperature record does not match the CO2 theory. Singer and Avery come much closer to explaining it, especially when viewed over the past million years. But even if they don't have it quite right, Pat Michael's expectation of the magnitude and rate of warming (not much) certainly matches the historical record. It is correct that +90% of the greenhouse effect comes from water vapor; CO2 is a very small player. Now I hear that Russian researchers are predicting significant cooling in about 20 years. The earth has been significantly warmer in the past and there has been a mile of ice on Ohio, all without human causality. Moral: climate is always changing; adapt and get used to it.

How can anyone take Al Gore seriously when he doesn''''t practice what he preaches? Sure there''''s a lot of data saying that temp and CO2 has gone up. But you can''''t say that CO2 causes temp because during the 50''''s-70''''s when CO2 was sky rocketing, temps went down!

Dear Norbert - Actually the current president's "compound" in Crawford (Good 'ol) Texas is more efficient (i.e. has a lower carbon footprint) than Gore's mansion. Also I have seen many pictures of Bush riding a bicycle and I have never seen Gore on a bike. AND... Bush's lung capacity is much less than Gore's and therefore he emits much less CO2 on a regular basis. Wake up and smell the oxygen and nitrogen (which is what the atmosphere is made of).

Wow, Steve, I am impressed by your judgement of AlGore''''s credibility based on his clothing. I assume that he still burn''''s less fuel than your president though. Let''''s focus on the facts not on the people, otherwise we will still argue about the climate change in 20 years. Greetings from Australia where temperatures are presently above the long term average. Norbert

The debate about global warming should not really be a debate (in particular from those of us within the scientific community). The problem lies in the convolution of the sources of our global ?crisis? and this is exacerbated by those who are steadfast in their theories. The fact is that we as humans are producing vast amounts of greenhouse gases, as part of our techno/industrial existence, but in so much, careful measurements of the earth''s orbit indicate that the earth''s orbital shape varies from elliptical to circular over a 100,000 year cycle due to gravitational variations. This orbital shape change has a profound effect on the overall climactic patterns of Earth including the relative amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere and the advance and recession of continental ice sheets. So let this be said ?We can not stop General Relativity, but we can stop driving 8L V10s to and from the grocery store.?

I attended the Al Gore keynote and was sitting in the front row as an analyst/press person. First, I noticed his clothes were crumpled and his pants were two inches short -- not exactly almost-presidential. But more seriously, he is very far from being a role model in energy saving as his own house uses about $2K of energy per month and flies around in private jets. While the global warning is happening, there is much controversy over how much and how fast...clearly he is at the extreme end of very much and very fast. Most scientists do not agree that the East Coast will be under 20 feet of water in 20 years. While this controversy lasts and he is in the public eye, he stands to profit immensely from his book and film products, not too mention speaking fees. ESC could do better in signing up keynotes. Steve Szirom, senior analyst, InsideChips.com

Get on the stick, Tony, the biggest "greenhouse gas" is plain old water vapor. Sure, carbon dioxide levels have gone up and sure, models of global warming may "show" mankind has caused GW, but put me in the "let''s get real" camp. Do you believe the results of every Spice model you use or every simulation you run? Me, neither. They''re MODELS and don''t always reflect reality. As far as I can see, periodic warming and cooling takes place anyway, so there''s little we humans can do that makes economic sense. Spending trillions of dollars to solve a problem over which we have no control makes no sense.

Jared, you clearly have no clue as to the amount of data that has been generated that shows 1) that CO2 is a major contributor to global warming and 2) that mankind has been responsible for a sharp increase CO2 since 1850, an increase which continues unabated. Come out from the rock you are under and look at the data, and see why the overwhelming number of scientists have reached the conclusion that Mr. Gore is presenting in this film.

Al Gore is irresponsibly trying to instill panic by calling GW a "crisis" (which it isn''t) and assuming that it''s man made. CO2 is a very minor contributor to the green house effect and there is evidence that shows CO2 is a result of warming, not the cause.