Hey, Gore, you could be right

exercising colonialist exhaustively diat might repeats blogpulse oped binomial interchange uncompressed

Can you let something be known me who did your layout? I?ve been looking for anybody big-hearted of like yours. Thank you. By.

What is truly sad is that so many commentators in this list are dwelling on a long-settled argument rather than addressing what Ms. Deffree actually brought up, namely how are we going to motivate and teach the next generation of engineers (who are going to have to be attuned a whole lot better to social implications of their work than the last generation, apparently...). My answer to that is provided by my former mentor at HP Labs (Barbara Waugh): "encourage positive deviance". That is, don't try to win over the pre-Neanderthals who are against you (she would have been more tactful, but I'm a bit frustrated in this era when seeing an island through the fog qualifies one to be President), and help the people who are already doing the right thing. And that is what you did by calling attention to those efforts. Keep up the good work!

Inarguable points: 1. Before fossil fuels were fossilized, all their carbon was atmospheric. 2. During this time, life on earth was abundant, diverse, and vigorous. 3. Why was the earth's climate at that time necessarily worse than it is now? It takes much less energy to air-condition than it does to heat.

Al Gore is our Messiah and Savior! He alone can save the planet! At the Church of Global Warming, we have accepted his wisdom as Gospel. Any criticism, even any questioning of his proclamations is sacrilege! Stop the blasphemy! Al Gore is the New Prophet, Savior, and Messiah! Worship HIM!

Why doesn't someone ask Al Gore why he shut down our nuclear power developement while he was VP? (forcing us to burn coal and build more dirty coal burning power plants). And also about all the Occidental Petroleum stock he owned and made a fortune from after the Clinton Admin. sold off the Elk Hills Naval Oil Reserve to Occidental? Or how for more than ten years the Zinc mine on Gore family property in Tennessee leached Zinc into nearby streams and all complaints to the USEPA went ignored while Gore was VP? That's right, Global Warming Religious zealots, your Emperor has NO clothes.

Want more blog on Gore? See: www.edn.com/blog/690000269/post/760017276.html

Aside of whether global warming is real or not, etc., Gore is a huge hypocrite & opportunist. He's just happens to be Big Media's & Hollywood establishment darling of choice. Check out the difference between his power hog mansion & W's ranch house: www.snopes.com/politics/bush/house.asp He's nobody to deserve that much credibility on this issue.

Ok, lets compromise... 1) lets assume there is some human influence on the climate change (just for a minute) 2) lets also assume that despite whatever arbitrary targets we may set, the levels of C02, etc. will still increase (but at rates that might save Winnipeg by 2050) ...then wouldn't Plumbum's logic be correct? ...forget doing the equivalent of some primitive rain dance or sacrifice of virgins. Instead, lets plan on riding this muthaf%$#r till the wheels fall off and plan for the technologies to save us after we lose our ice caps. In other words, if you want to clean the environment, put the effort into something more pressing and realistic like cleaning our run-off into lakes, streams, and the ocean. And if you're concerned about human survival after the change, then plan for de-desalinization plants and energy systems that completely get us off oil. I think what pisses most people off about the movement is the response. For one, shaving 5 or 15% off our emissions by 2025 won't do $hit especially while so-called developing countries like China continue to see out their industrial revolution.

Plumbum was eloquent. It takes enormous hubris to assume that man can impact the macro-climate. Beyond that, it takes real guts to profess a post-hoc ergo propter hoc argument about melting glaciers. What irks me is, none of the contemporary doomsayers have ONCE mentioned the Milankovitch cycles, which are calculated to produce a p-p 6% variation in total solar energy impacting the earth, and significantly more than that, latitude-wise. In addition, how is it that we ignore H2O among greenhouse gasses? It represents 98% of the impact, compared with 350ppm for CO2, and just under 2% for all other trace gases, combined. Can we say bad science?

Oops, I meant they scoffed at thought that the Earth was round and were sure it was flat. My bad.

Remember, the ''skeptics'' at one time scoffed that the Earth was round and not flat. Many ''skeptics'' didn''t think there any way mankind could pollute the air/water 30-40 years ago. mankind can affect massive changes on a global scale if given 100+ years to do it. If mankind can''t wreak havoc on a large scale, just be sure to remind the people who lived at Love Cannal of that, or those around Chernobyl. Indeed they were on a smaller scale but it also didn''t take a century to do that damage.

I wouldn''''t listen to a thing Al Gore had to say. I''''m an electronic engineer and an expert in my field. Sorry you don''''t have enough work to keep you busy. Instead of going to nonsense things like listening to Al Gore.

Even if you disagree with Gore's points of view, what is clear is that we are consuming limited terrestrial resources in a fast way. That we will have to stop with this whether we are causing a global warming problem or not. The point what I would like to make is that technology can perhaps find ways to reduce the impact of our consumption (for instance by better fuel efficient cars or better thermal isolation) but that technology itself will not be sufficient to solve the resource crisis we are facing. I have recently completed a book, "the Second Law of Life" (ISBN978-0815515371) that describes how the second law of thermodynamics will force us eventually to change our lifestyle considerably if we want to give our children and grandchildren a chance to survive.

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 warming 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

Why are so many engineers fond of pseudo science? We breathlessly await their refutations of plate tectonics, relativity, evolution, and the Copernican theory. Meanwhile, for discussion of the facts of global warming by scientists in relevant disciplines, visit realclimate.org

The IPCC process is more political then scientific, stifles debate and is used by scientists to further their own self interest. Solar influences are the main driver of global average temperature in the 20th century not humans. Start your research by viewing: "The Great Global Warming swingle" video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4340135300469846467&q=the+great+swindle

Denying human influence on global warming is really pathetic. Thousands of scientists have been involved with the data analysis for over 30 years. And the consensus that there''s a correlation between human influence and GW has been growing steadily, based on the data, not ideology. Give up the Kool Aid guys.

Oh for crying out loud; are you people watching Fox News or something? Look kids, the MWP appears to have been a local phenomnenon, not global; go read chapter 2 of the IPCC's 2001 report. And if you can hold off, in a month the 2007 report will be issued - ipcc.ch. I'm not going to do your research for you - the vast scientific consensus is that there is human influence. It is, in fact, up to the few nay-sayers to prove the opposite. So, jbluffer and OhBrother, show me the proof. OK? Oh, and any REALLY good engineer knows that you often have to make conclusions, and decisions, based on limited data due most often to time and $ constraints - that's why there's this thing called "risk" in everything we do. I don't think that's really a factor in this - lots of time and money have been spent to come to these conclusions around the world.

Catapult, you are the one who is foolish. In fact, you are a moron. Any good engineer knows that you cannot make a conclusion based on very limited data. Translation, taking climate data from the past 30 years and assuming that this warming trend is all man made. How do you explain the warming trends in the past like the medieval period from the 950 AD to 1300 AD? Maybe it was those chariot hummers.

To Catapult: Show the proof. Don't get emotional. What scientific evidence are you referencing? Act like an engineer and prove your case. If you can.

I agree with LindainSFNM - thank you for the article and blog post. And as for Plumbum, all you have to do is look around you to see the effect humans have on the planet. The foolish statement you make was relegated to the trash heap of history long ago by scientific evidence. What the hell are you doing reading EDN if your beliefs are not based in scientific evidence? That''s what engineering is all about.

I did not attented Mr. Gore''''s presentation, but I sure enjoyed your post and other articles of his address. He surely shows the intellect and vision to move us forward. I am so appreicative of his most excellent guidesmanship on our new chapter in history.

Sadly, the author (and many other people) seem ot be taken in by the oft repeated rhetoric of "global warming". If you hear something repeated often enough it must be true, right? There may be a long term trend toward increasing temperature or on the geological scale it may be a normal transient. The truth is we really don't know. There is also compelling data which indicates we are on the cusp of another ice age. There is a limited effect humans can have on the macro climate scale in spite of our hubris that we think we are so omnipotent. Instead of fearing the future and refusing to accept the changes becasue it may wind up being worse, we should do what we can to adapt and influence any changes to our advantage.