Is Al Gore helping or hurting the effort to educate the public about global warming?

There is no question that he has done more than any other single individual to educate the public about the issue; to "build up and disseminate greater knowledge about man-made climate change, and to lay the foundations for the measures that are needed to counteract such change" (Nobel Peace Prize Committee (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Nobel_Peace_P...

"An inconvenient truth" has had an impact on millions of people around the world who couldn't care less who can and cannot follow ballot instructions in the state of Florida. There were some errors in the movie, but they were relatively minor, and relatively few compared to most documentaries.

Some drawbacks of his involvement, however, are

1) some people now "confuse the politics and character of Al Gore with the science of climate change" (as the question itself aptly puts it).

2) some people now confuse weather and climate

3) some people (one thankfully absent YA contributor comes to mind) are inclined to confuse climate change with the imminent end of the world

4) anti-science deniers repeatedly use Al Gore as a strawman in their conspiracy theories, especially by deliberately promoting myths 1), 2), and 3).

Keep mind, however, WHY he is doing it. There are easier ways to make money (Bob Dole, Viagra). He is doing so because politicians don't have the backbones to lead on this issue (neither did HE when he was VP). In very significant particular: today's Democrats in the US are among the greatest political cowards in the history of the civilized world. Non-deniers of science who care about the future long term global climate would be well advised to de-emphasize controversies over Gore in favor of emphasizing, and doing something against, the denial of that political cowardice.

Very few scientists have the time, energy, or temperament to "do" the KIND of "talking" that Gore has been doing (and that is one reason Gore got involved in the first place in the early 1980s while in Congress -see for example, Spencer Weart http://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.htm). I would certainly agree that it would be better if some scientists found it in themselves to do so, and in an effective and persuasive manner. Probably, on balance, Gore's efforts are more of a spur than a discouragement in that respect.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Inconvenient_Truth

I actually think he is hurting the effort. There is a scientific consensus on global warming but there is no political consensus. As soon as you bring politics into any area it tends to cause a lot of problems. He has been good at putting the message out to the public but bad in that deniers can attack the fact he is a politicians. Its quite ironic that people who say he is talking crap because he is a politician believe what their own politicians say but say he is talking rubbish.

Anthropogenic global warming absolutely exists. Although I would argue that the media cause more problems than Al Gore himself. The way media is supposed to work is to give unbiased stories with "both sides of the story". Since the science says it exists the other side is usually politicians with good rhetoric but little understand of the science. So when people watch debates they think the politician saying it doesn't exist has stronger arguements based on the fact they are usually better public speakers.

Too many people think Al Gore invented global warming and they are either ill informed, ill educated or just putting their heads in the sand.

I'm a global warming believer, but I even think Al Gore is being a celebrity rather than a scientist when it comes to the topic. I've worked with IPCC members (one is even heading up a chapter in the next report coming in a year or two) and I can tell you that policy is one thing, but finding palatable adaptations is job one on their plate, not the political ramifications.

I liked Gore in 2000, even read his biography, but I think he is generally malnourishing the science behind climate change in the name of his own good. You can ask many climate scientists with good credibility what they think of him, and even they will give him a little bit of a "stink eye" when it comes to the topic. Us climate scientists could care less about whether your local government wants to implement mandatory "green" initiatives - but we are paid to get you the info and analyze it.

You wouldn't get someone actively doing drugs to promote the war on drugs. Gore would be a PR nightmare and would have been fired if AGW were a company. But who could fire Al Gore after he makes some boneheaded claim like the center of the earth being several million degrees?

international Warming is merely the latest "disaster" fantasy getting used to strengthen the hot international Order. Twenty 5 years in the past it replaced into the "New Ice Age" we've been coming into. Then, there replaced into Y2K. a similar mendacity sacks of excrement are carping on the subject of the latest reason we would desire to sacrifice our freedoms so they might save us. it is a similar mentality at the back of the "conflict on Terrorism". in case you're blind to it, the terrorism we've been experiencing is known consequently of an aggressive, intrusive distant places coverage. once you grow to be in touch in the wars of alternative countries, bomb and invade countries that have not attacked you, you are able to assume "blow back" And that blow back has been used to convince thousands and thousands of yankee that they might desire to provide up their freedoms.

Any confusion is the result of the intentional confounding of politics and science by deniers to divert attention away fro their absence of scientific evidence and general intellectual dishonesty.

Gore is a political lightning rod for the political right. If it wasn't him, they would find someone else to lie about.

Does it matter? Foolish politicians who know nothing do not understand the solid science behind global warm. You see the damage must be done before they see it and believe it and then still do nothing.

He should apologize for his frivolous election challenge in 2000 -- then adults might start to take him seriously.

I wouldn't call it educating;but he has turned the global warming idea into a multi-billion dollar Business,and definitely has gotten his share

hurting,

yes, he should retire and take up some hobby, maybe sailing.