What do you think of the Al Gore Yahoo question on global warming?

Boring.

Al Gore has selected an issue that is obviously not close to his heart but could be a vote-getter for him. He is focusing on younger people that want to protect the environment to boost his popularity. Bush as we have seen seems indifferent to the environment and has allowed several projects that further put ecology in a bind. Republicans have traditionally supported business and the business of oil is pretty big. While the Democrats have normally been the workers and somewhat more friendly to nature. However, in spite of the headlines in the press, there is not firm proof about global warming whether it is man-made or a cyclical event. Recently Australian scientists suggested that cows were a major source of pollution by flatulence...or excuse the crude expression...farting...( I wondered if the vast herds of buffalos and the antelopes of Africa began this crisis hundreds of years ago). It is not time for rhetoric or polemics, it is a time for truth in the media, science and government.

I don't know exactly what his question was, but here is my take on the subject, on which I have done some research.

- Proposition 1: that the earth's temperature is increasing. Established by adequate data. This is not new; the earth's temperature has been fluctuating since it was formed.

- Proposition 2: that the CO2 level in the atmosphere is increasing. Established by adequate data.

- Proposition 3: that Proposition 2 is the cause of Proposition 1. Not established, although there is a widespread view in the popular media that it is true. Attempts to validate this rely on computational models, whose validation is problematic. Making predictions based on models is hazardous, as any weatherman can tell you.

The role of the ocean in dealing with CO2 has not received sufficient attention. The amount of CO2 in the air is 2,900 billion metric tons. However, the amount of CO2 in seawater is 145,000 billion metric tons -- fifty times as much. Clearly, exchange mechanisms between oceanic and atmospheric CO2 are of crucial importance. The deep ocean is unsaturated with respect to CaCO3, which means that excess CO2 can combine with calcium, either to precipitate out as limestone at shallow depths, or to remain in solution in the deep sea.

The costs of dealing with atmospheric CO2 are large, determinable, and now, while the benefits of doing so are indeterminable, uncertain, and future. A dollar invested in a fund for future work on the perceived problem will amount to $20,000,000 in 300 years, so spending a lot of money now may well be wasteful.

GLOBAL WARMING/THE ENVIRONMENT IN GENERAL

Any and I mean any environmental cause or approach must be grassroots in nature. Having PhD's talk about global warming and having those representing industry interests debunk these present theories is a high level and almost an entirely futile effort. Don't get me wrong, it is great that someone with Al Gore's connections and exposure is getting the word out. However, people are people they want to see results.

Yes, the expression is now trite but still true, "Thing Globally, Act Locally". Watching the sky over a city, town or even a more rural area become darkened by smog has local impact, people take note and actually see A PROBLEM. A problem that can measured in terms of air quality or perhaps an AIR QUALITY HEALTH INDEX like the one that the provincial government in Ontario, Canada is in the process of implementing. You can measure results (however small) in terms of air quality and the affect it has on the health care system (those with breathing problems, doctor's visits, etc). It certainly speaks to the advantage of a UNIVERSAL health care system (however, actually implemented) as it actually makes sense to improve the environment as it keeps people healthy (a humanitarian cause) and when health care it publicly funded it affects the public coffers when people become ill therefore it even makes better financial sense to keep the environment a top priority.

Plus any approach must be entire with a complete overall plan (the big picture). Including recycling initiatives, energy solutions (alternatives/renewables can now present a real potential financial threat to the big oil companies and even power companies...), government involvement at all levels, public transit, greener vehicles in general (Hybrid, Hydrogen, Conventional electric, bio-diesel, ethanol), conservation in all energy arenas, ETC!

Economic viability is the real sell as many of these solutions are just that economically sensible (ensuring we look at the entire picture). Yes as more people use solar, wind and other renewable energy sources the cheaper the technology will get. Two of the newest billionaires have earned a large portion through renewables Solar (India I believe) and Wind (China I believe). Yes in many ways developing nations and economies will be the first and early adopters of such renewable tech as they are just building much of their infrastructure.

So what do we all need to do? GET INVOLVED ! Contact your local government about improving your recycling program, contact provincial/state/federal government about the adopting of these new technologies (renewables such as solar/wind), buy gas with ethanol in it and demand it, use and demand bio diesel, buy products with less packaging and demand manufacturers to reduce packaging and to offer a price break as a result. More ECONOMIC VIABILITY! After all energy diversity just like economic diversity is the safest and best bet for good long term results and return on investment.

Joe...

KEEP IT UP MR. GORE THE POLAR BEARS NEED YOU FIRST **GRIN**.

I thought it was something typical coming from good ol' Al. I guess he thinks Americans have nothing better to do but worry about a non-existent problem. Or maybe he thinks the environment is more important than people. It was good for a laugh though. Some of the answers were hysterical.

It was fixed. That answer that Al Gore chose was from Filmmaker, a guy who has only answered one question: Al Gore’s. So, Filmmaker just happened to beat out 7525 other people. Yah, right!

But we already knew that Al Gore does not play fair.

Al Gore has an a priori assumption that global warming is caused by human action, thus it's a loaded question. Kind of like evolution. 'Tain't necessarily so, but it's popular, and popular makes it fact.

if he in implying that the human population need reducing, I have just one answer for him, "After you sir!" Really boring, BTW...

Up here in the NW, we don't believe in global warming, we'd been waiting for it to happen for the last 100 years... still too damn cold in the Summer here! I'll believe it when I see it, and not just 2 days in the Summer!

I think it is nice to see a Political figure ask a question for a change and not just give an answer.

Nice to see a politician who cares!