Neil,

Al Gore is the ultimate hypocrite. When he was VP he and Clinton did
nothing about reducing fossil fuel use. They had no energy policy. In
fact in 2000 when gas prices spiked about 20 cents/gallon he advocated
releasing oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to reduce prices to
help him in the election. Clinton and Gore also had chances to mandate
improved gas mileage for new cars but they wanted to keep Michigan in
the Dem column so they acquiesced to the SUV lobby. 
I could also mention the failure to stop the Rwandan genocide or
supporting the illegal Balkan Wars or not killing bin Laden when they
had the chance but sorry I digressed.
Yes there are lots of reasons to despise Al Gore including his latest
cashing in big time on the climate change issue while living in his
palatial estate.

Mike


 Steve,

 Al Gore is not a climate scientist, but I have no problem with that
because he did not create the data or conduct any of the experiments.
He is the 'student' of many of the scientists performing state-of-the-
art research. When he was VP and post-VP, I know that he often
consulted with the top climate scientists [he would consult with folks
at my institution somewhat regularly]. I've seen the data he presents
presented by the scientists who performed the investigations. There
are only a couple of places in that part of the data where I would
quibble, but I am actually pretty comfortable with the climate science
portion of the movie.

Not much has been discredited by the science community. Some [a lot?]
has likely been replaced since the movie was made. Science is a moving
target like that; actually, some of the data he presented was somewhat
old. In fact, he stated that in the movie that in 50 or so years the
Arctic Pole would be free of ice. Within a yr of the release of the
movie, scientists had cut that estimate by 60%. Recent research
suggests that the Arctic will be ice free in the summer in 12-20 yrs.
So, some of that movie is out of date.

 The real problem with the movie is that many people do not like Al
Gore. They cannot separate the personality/politician from a very
nice, data-driven presentation that is based upon the work of
hundreds, if not thousands, of scientists. In no way am I confusing
him for a science researcher. He is simply the person who presented
the information, a person who has the ability to get such a movie made
and to get many people to watch it. If any of the scientists wanted to
do this, they would have trouble getting it made and then have trouble
getting more than a few thousand people to see it. So, in that sense,
Al was quite successful.

 So, as much as I did not think I would like the movie [and I waited
more than a yr to see it], I did. Al Gore did a decent job in
presenting the data. I have problems with some of the ecology he
presents and much of the invasive issue connection to warming - that
is actually a pretty poor connection. But, for the climate science, it
is pretty true to the data.

 neil




--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
Eastern Native Tree Society http://www.nativetreesociety.org
Send email to [email protected]
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/entstrees?hl=en
To unsubscribe send email to [email protected]
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to