The purpose of the project is to spur people to drive less, eat locally grown produce and buy only compact florescent light bulbs. I fail to see how much of a scientific background is needed to present such a message, especially considering the typical target audiences.

It's also interesting to contrast Gores plan to George Bush's (I'm referring to the serious one, which is �__ _ _ _. Oh that's right, Bush has no plans, just right wing misinformation and denial).

From the webpage: "Al Gore came across as someone who really believed in what he was saying," Dunham says. "That man charmed me."

There you go. Gore's a charmer. I believe!!

I believe I'll have another beer.

There is nothing surprising about Gore's legion having no scientific background. Boiled down to its essence, environmentalism is a profound rejection of science -- even by some who are ostensibly scientists. Even if Gore had sought people with backgrounds in the sciences, would it have been hard for him to find zealots who put political activism before science? From eugenics, to psychiatry, to environmentalism, scientists have shown themselves no less vulnerable to political enticement and intellectual corruption than non-scientists.

Why should Gore's army be any more informed than he is?

Gore has declined every opportunity to debate the accuracy of his film. Why should he debate? He has a legion of gullible or cynical politicians and news people beating his drum. He has tapped into liberal guilt, a scary story, and the opportunity to raise taxes - an irresistible combination for many politicians.

Andrew:

That's right, absolve Gore of responsibility just so you can berate Bush, because we all know this GW thing was not a problem until he became President. And, are you saying that the target audiences are even more of a bunch of dolts than the people in Gore's legion? Pretty smug comment.

I just love how the AGWers continually claim to be the only people with the brains to understand this issue.

Andrew,

All the goals you mentioned are admirable, but by linking environmental safety and health with a mix of lousy science, terrible politics and personal greed - he is ultimately doing more harm than good.

There are a thousand good and undisputed reasons to society cut back on fuel consumption, water consumption and toxic chemicals. Why tarnish them with nonsense? As a concerned environmentalist, I resent the massive long-term damage Gore is doing.

A training session in Nashville, Tennessee??? Yeah, a training session in BS!

The purpose of the project is to spur (control, a.k.a. TELL PEOPLE WHAT TO DO) people to drive less (yeah and get themselves killed riding a vespa or a bike), eat locally grown produce and buy only compact florescent light bulbs (filled with Mercury). I fail to see how much of a scientific background is needed to present such a message, especially considering the typical target audiences.

REPLY: Al Gore and his band of buffones are the ones basing their rants on (junk) science. One would think that it would be a requirement before spewing their garbage.

It's also interesting to contrast Gores plan to George Bush's (I'm referring to the serious one, which is �__ _ _ _. Oh that's right, Bush has no plans, just right wing misinformation and denial).

REPLY: There it is again. You guys on the looney left still won't provide a definition of right wing. Please explain. I am still waiting. And a plan for what, for something that doesn't exist? Don't think so. Yeah that Bush, such an evil person. You guys really need to go on prozac or something.

Hey, since Patrick does it, might as well too -- it's pretty hot out West, huh guys?

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/07/05/heat.wave.ap/index.html

I guess it's AGW. Look for more wildfires this year too.

Brett, as someone who respects your work, I must say this blog post is beneath you.

In addition to Andrew's (in the comments section) valid point that the material in question probably does not require a specific technical background, you are missing the larger point.

This effort is a volunteer effort. If they get paid at all, it might be a small stipend to cover some basic travel costs (if that). Do you honestly think that someone with an undergrad or grad degree in meterology or climatology is going to take time off from a full-time job to do volunteer work for a project that requires travelling to the orientation site? If someone is, he or she is doing it out of benevolence and a desire to combat a huge problem. It's not as if this volunteer work would be a ticket to a more lucrative management position.

If you want to express skepticism about certain aspects of cliamte change, go ahead...but taking cheap shots at a bunch of volunteers comes across as extremely petty.

REPLY.....

Scott, you make a valid point. I guess what I was saying was that if I was going to a lecture on global warming (pro or against) I would want to hear from someone with at least a scientific background related to the subject. But you make a good point about this being a volunteer army and the people signing up for this are probably doing it because of their strong concerns about global warming. I was not trying to express skepticism about climate change and I did not intend to take a cheap shot at the volunteers. Brett Anderson

Guys, Guys, Guys!

If you want to know the science on Global Warming, just check out the IPCC report:

http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-report.html

If you read it, you will find that the science supports Al Gores position very well. Whats really great is that the current US Government has actually signed off on the report.

That's correct. Call the science what you want, but somebody who reports to George Bush agrees with it (Bush just can't accept any solution).

scott:

So what you are saying is that the volunteers are probably out of work people looking to get a stipend. And after an orientation in Nashville, they can now discuss psuedo technical information regarding climate change. Yea, I can see the credibility. Actually, they are no different than Goreacle. He has zero technical training yet after making up a bunch of stuff, he is seen as some sort of guru.

Oh, but the reality of it is whether or not they are technically profficient is that they CARE about the environment. And that makes everything just hunky dory. Typical, it's not the reality but the appearance that is critical.

I suppose that if this was a group of volunteers who were out pointing out that maybe man is not as guilty as what the MSM would like us to think, cheap shots would be acceptable, right?

Andrew:

It is sad that the government feels they have to "sign-off" on the IPCC just to make points with the rest of the world. The IPCC report is nothing more than a puff piece based upon incorrect and chosen data sets to develop a plan by which to confiscate wealth. To say that the UN is capable of anything is positivly laughable. Their list of failures is long and extensive.

After reading the report, I was appalled at the amount of paper spent pointing out how great the report is. Why do this if they don't already know that they are on a weak, of not questionable foundation.

I think Andrew and Mark have been to these sessions. Please Andrew the IPCC is a political organization and not scientific. If you want real discussion then go to a host of non aligned sights such as;

http://climatesci.colorado.edu/
http://icecap.us/
http://www.junkscience.com/
http://www.climatescience.gov

I would put realclimate.org but you probably know that one. Oh yea you might need to know a thing or two otherwise these blogs will be very unkind. By the way I present facts and let people respond with debunking them (if they can and very rarely do) or listen to their opinion also . But thats just my opinion.

ALL OF YOU GUYS NEED TO TEAM UP AND START A MOVEMENT IF IT'S THAT IMPORTANT TO YOU INSTEAD OF CUTTING EACH OTHER HEADS OFF!!!!!!

Why of course not. Why let science get in the way of a good movie. It never stopped Gore before.

As Andrew stated, these are just volunteers who are donating their time for a cause they believe in. I suspect that if these volunteers were donating their time to promote anti-abortion causes, or to "support the troops," the Radical Right would have no problem with it.

Global Warming hype must be related to the chemtrails being dispersed in our skies on a daily basis. Does anyone know why this is happening or what it means? Seriously, we may be under the influence allready of powers unknown. Chemtrails are real and undeniable. Only the blind cannot see them! Pablo

I would just like to know why Al Gore was not concerned at all with global warming when he and President Clinton could have not only championed the global warming fight (scare) by signing the Kioto (sorry for the spelling) Accord (Bill could have signed it but didn't)and Al Gore could have made it a cornerstone of his persidential campaign but again did not. We all know that Democrats and the far left have always be strong environmentalists, and I say that as a middle road conservative, yes I do disagree with some conservative stands and issues, but my point is, if this is so important that AL made a film and is backing this silly Live Earth, Concert for a Climate in Crisis thing, what were Preseident Clinton and Vice President Al Gore doing for 8 years?? Oh, thats right, they were protecting the spotted owl by destroying the econmy of parts of the nothwest (timber) only find out banning logging actually hurt the spotted owl...who is AL going to hurt now with his fear tactics (I know we conservatives are supposed to be the only fear people who scare you agreing with us and voting for conservative candidates) Please, I agree with most climate experts, yes, the planet is getting warmer, but, do we or should we blame it all on the cars we drive or the lights in our homes? Maybe AL and his army think we should head back to days on no automobiles and electric lights, and disease and a life expectancy for me (men) of about 50, then at least my great, great, great granchildren will have an earth to live on because from all I have seen and based on records of global temperature change, if any climate crisis does occur, you and I and several generations beyond us will be long gone and if that means I'am a uncaring conservative Buch loveing ass, and don't care about anything or anybody. Yes, I dupport my President no matter who he/she is or will be. I served 20 years in the Air Force through 4 Presidents and I supported all of them because afterall, I was working ultimately for that Commander in Chief, no matter who it was. I mean, is there not a few things more important in our world today than wether or not of coastlines may change 1000 years from now??? or even 100 years from now?? Please tell me there is.

OT

Thought this paper might be of interest to some of you folks frequenting this blog.

Climate forced atmospheric CO2 variability in the early Holocene: A stomatal frequency reconstruction, Global and Planetary Change Volume 57, Issues 3-4, June 2007, Pages 247-260.

Apparently, the fossil record indicates that there was indeed a fluctuation in CO2 concentration during the early Holocene and this fluctuation was in response to climatic changes caused by "Gasp" changes in solar activity.

Say it ain't so, Al.

But then, I keep forgetting the past is not the key to the present. Only the last 30 years count.

Mark-

Amazing. Hot in Arizona in July. Whoever could have imagined such a thing happening during our lifetime?

-5F last night in Greenland. Imagine all the massive melting that must be occurring there during this blistering hot summer.
http://www.wunderground.com/history/station/04416/2007/7/6/MonthlyHistory.html

I suspect that if these volunteers were donating their time to promote anti-abortion causes, or to "support the troops," the Radical Right would have no problem with it.

REPLY: "The Radical Right." There it is again! How radical to support the troops that dying for your freedom to spew your Looney Left venom, Mark. Heaven forbid! P.S. Are you ever going to define "Right Wing" for us? Of course not, because you CAN'T!....;-DDDDDD

The Denier of your Propaganda

It's my opinion that anyone who is a "Gore-Basher", had better jump off his elephant and get a clue. You right wingers need a grip. Global warming is happening and it's happening faster than Bush and party would care to concern themselves with. Political ploy, totalitarianism, casting fear and ignoring the environmental issues at hand, is no way to run a country. I say GORE FOR PRESIDENT!!!

Hey CosmoCarter - want some Kool-Aid with that. LOL thats too funny man. Try to to keep the blatant politics out of this blog. There are many .org's for you to go to.

Cosmo,

Most of the posters here generally attempt to provide some scientific backing for their claims, like a link from a respected. scientific organization
http://ff.org/centers/csspp/library/co2weekly/20060706/20060706_07.html

You seem to have offered nothing but the same thoughtless and meaningless spam which the press publishes thousands of times every day. I hope you can do better than that, because it is really quite boring.

Mark,

You belong on MoveOn.org, not a blog that is actually supposed to embrace different points of view. Until politics no longer becomes the driving factor for you AGW lemmings, any points you might have are moot. Get out of the way and allow a discussion to take place.

Buzz,

The politics are brought into it by people such as yourself. Ideally, we'd like to stick to the science, but the paranoid right-wing can't seem to focus on the topic without going on their typical anti-government tirades.

Skepticism is embraced. Denial is not.

The politics are brought into it by people such as yourself.

REPLY: As per usual, you are wrong again, Marko. The politics are brought into it by people that YOU support, like Al Gore. And just so you know, I can't speak for anyone else, but I certainly NEVER brought up Bush, or the War in Iraq, or any other issue that has been unrelated to the Global Warming farce. That, my friend, is something that other people (look in the mirror) have done!....:-Z....

Mark:

Hey Pot!, the Kettle says to get back in the cabinent.

LOL

Gore caught with his pants down again....

http://www.suntimes.com/news/otherviews/450392,CST-EDT-REF30b.article

Mark,

On the political spectrum, I am probably farther left than yourself. As to the terms skeptic and denier, I reject either label as I agree that there is global warming, just not as convinced as you that it is derived from human activity. Politics, regardless of which party, should be subordinated to an open discussion without judgment based on perceived party bias. The goal of understanding issues far outweighs whose side wins.

If I agree to AGW, will Gore put his pants back up? That is one something I really, really, do not want to see. Or even hear about for that matter.

Good article though. That's just like a politician to never let the truth get in the way of made up crises and alarming.

Sadly, it seems that accurate information is never as good for the masses as the spin that can be induced upon things of questionable origin.