Responding to: Al Gore rides global warming cause back into presidential politics.

If Mr. Gore is serious about global warming and wins into a position of influence we have a plan that he can use to deliver public benefits on scale with the once per century projects like the Interstate system.

- Reduce greenhouse Emissions by billions of pounds per year.

- Use less than 1% of the USA land to produce sufficient hydrogen to completely replace oil consumed for fuel in the USA. Most of the land is already owned by the government and the technology is available and ready to deploy at the scale needed.

- Reduce power consumption for air conditioning by over 90% and heating by up to 50% which eliminates billions of pounds of carbon dioxide emissions every year while keeping people even more comfortable than they are today.

- Substantially reduce gas prices both the short and long term.

- Provide a substantial long term revenue boost for state and federal governments without increasing taxes. It may actually allow taxes to be lowered while increasing services.

- Remove the economic risk of depending on the Middle East for our energy supply.

These are not cheap solutions but they are less expensive than the long term costs of Desert Storm and Desert Shield. These solutions are less much expensive than the cost of global warming induced droughts.

The entire plan will cost a small fraction of an increased number of Category 4 and 5 hurricanes striking the America coast. Hurricanes are powered by warm water and the warmer the water the stronger the hurricanes. One side effect of global warming is warmer tropical waters where the Hurricanes start and grow so reducing global warming can have a significant economic benefit. In the longer term reducing global warming can reverse the melting of the polar ice caps which can prevent the loss of trillions of dollars worth of America’s most valuable real-estate to flooding. Perhaps most important is that these plans will remove the economic risk of depending on the Middle East for our energy supply.

If Al Gore was successful at championing this plan through deployment he would be remembered through history along with the great presidents Roosevelt and Lincoln.

The fastest way to slow or reverse global warming is to reduce greenhouse emissions and this fully implemented plan could reduce America's greenhouse emissions by over 85% while improving the economy. This is a bold vision but is within the reach of America using EEDRT technology and can become a reality if championed by a strong leader who can build national will and has a desire to have a real long lasting impact.

This plan is a one in every 100 year type project reminiscent of the 1900's when America invested in the Interstate Freeway, large Hydro electric systems and the Moon program. These investments have become critical aspects of the American economy and have allowed incredible economic growth that would otherwise have been impossible. Our roadmap provides a similar opportunity and when fully implemented will provide even a larger benefit to America's citizens by protecting our economic status and providing for future growth that is compatible with keeping our planet alive and healthy.

The Exxon Valdez: purveyor of life! How would you like it in your back yard? At the rate the gas companies are making money these days, maybe they can soon afford to share their gift of "life" with more of us.

In response to Mr. Broman, I read the opposite argument, after which I sent the following email to seek clarifications from Mr. Milloy. If I get a reply I'll post it.

Dear Mr. Milloy,

In Junk Science you make several references to the IPCC, their data, TAR, etc. However, from what I've read of the TAR and other IPCC statements, their assessment is at odds with yours. (This is one recent and useful IPCC statement.)

Why should I give you more credence than them?

Incidentally, I have not seen An Inconvenient Truth, but I have little doubt it paints a more severe picture than does the IPCC. Still, if you wish to debunk Al Gores presentation, you would do well to stay within the bounds of scientific consensus. If you believe your assessment is within those bounds, please provide citations. Your page gives just one assessment (yours) of a very complex set of data.

One other thing, I don't think it's effective to criticize use of the term "greenhouse effect" just because of convective considerations. While it is certainly true that an actual greenhouse relies largely on convective mechanisms, the specific mechanisms are not the point. The more general property of a greenhouse is that incoming radiative energy is trapped, allowing higher equilibrium temperature to be achieved. You recognize the heat trapping effects of "greenhouse gasses" but dismiss them as insignificant, e.g. "energy may be delayed on its inevitable journey back to space". What you fail to note is that it is the equilibrium point that determines the average global temperature, and the relationships are not trivial or intuitive. The IPCC has concluded that the effect may be quite significant, so again, why should I disbelieve them?

Best regards,

Richard Minner

I think in regards to the JunkScience.com rebuttal, the Living On Earth segment Early Signs sort of backs Gore's points to a degree. Diane Rehm's panel discussion about the movie is also something everyone here, left and right, should listen to.

The CEI calls it public relations. I call it bovine organic material.

It would be nice if Al Gore quit emitting so much CO2!

A parallel inconvenient truth to global warming, touched on briefly in Gores film, is the exploding human population. While birth control is an inconvenient subject for some organizations that thrive on large families of legacies and captive followers, it has become a global imperative. Do the math. Even if each person somehow reduces his energy consumption by 50%, but the population keeps expanding at the current unprecedented rates, then the atmosphere cannot make the necessary u-turn, and global warming will, pardon the expression, snowball. Have a nice day, and if you refuse birth-control, then do the world a favor and restrict yourself to masturbation. If the Bush administration is any indicator, it appears to be a very common practice.

This administration seems to believe the population of the USA is totally retarded. They will find different in November. All the phony science, worthless war and the "keep them scared all the time" approach is not fooling anyone.

The phrase sounds comical, but the reality is simple. We can spend money on reducing pollution which may or may not significantly reduce global warming at the certain expense of human poverty and therefore human life. Nothing shocking here.

On 5/30 Jake Broman wrote about an "opposite argument." This is Junkscience.com and another Exxon/Mobil funded effort at misinformation aimed at gullible people like poor Broman.

I challenge anyone to find a climate scientist involved in current research and not directly or indirectly paid by Exxon/Mobil who questions that human greenhouse gas emissions have caused a major part of the observed global warming.

The arguments posed by the JunkScience website attempting to debunk global warming theory are, ironically, the best examples of junk science to be found anywhere. My guess is that they're also funded by Exxon-Mobil, or they're simply run by friends and/or family of people who work at the top of those industries. It makes them feel good to deny the preponderance of evidence. It is not "smug" to understand that it would be unwise to wait for the naysayers to catch up before we actually take some kind of effective action to actually counter global warming. I think the JunkScience crew should locate their headquarters on the most vulnerable coastline in America, and agree to stay there for the next 50-60 years. I think global warming is real, and that doesn't make me happy at all.

I just listened to Fresh Air, wherein Terry Gross asked Gore if he could have foreseen such changes as George W. Bush has caused in just six years. Gore said that he could not have foreseen the changes. Well Al, I’ll tell you, many of those who voted for you foresaw them. You politely called Bush "incurious." Some of us call him a megalomaniac.

New Competitive Enterprise Institute Ad:

George W. Bush. Some call him the worst president in U.S. History.

We call him "life."

I think a lot of people are really smug on the issue and never try to figure out the opposite argument.

The add also shows a crumbling ice flow played backward while mentioning that a few studies show ice flow grow as if to illustrate this point. According to this logic, Kennedy actually shot a bullet out of his head and into a gun on the grassy knoll.

I'm sure recent reprints from recognized sources like Scientific American will never appear in CEI publications. The source for their backing is very obvious.

My vote in November will be more because of global warming than Iraq.

-- A former conservative.

"Some call it s*@#, we call it life" would be a stronger tag line, no?

There are so many ways to mock this! I've already thought of really horrible ones for slavery, cancer, death, taxes, birth defects, and infant mortality... the list is ever growing! They have opened up Pandora's box for all the writers who have dreamt of the moment someone would have the insanely large brass balls to make a commercial like this. Although the commercial is 100% true, it contorts the icecap and glacial research to its own agenda. Everything else though is 100% accurate as far as I know. Unless animals started breathing out something else... like butterflies or rainbows. Can you imagine the commercial for that?

How about a little flower garden with diesel trucks parked all around it, their exhaust pipes directed straight at all the flowers, all of them thriving in the thick black smoke?

Al Gore offered to show President Bush "An Inconvenient Truth" at the White House. I hope he takes him up on the offer.

Meanwhile, we can all choose between the global scientific consensus or the view of ExxonMobil.

If you want to know what you can do in response to the movie, you can send an alert to President Bush entitled "Bush Climate Plea: Confront An Inconvenient Truth, Lead on Global Warming" on the Climate Ark.

They showed parts of it on the Daily Show last week. And Stewart kept saying, "We are not making this up." It was nice of the CEI to give TDS writers the day off.

Mr. Lessig posted about this on his blog yesterday. One of the ads claims that there's evidence that the ice caps are getting thicker, not thinner, which prompted a rebuke from the scientist whose research is quoted: "These television ads are a deliberate effort to confuse and mislead the public about the global warming debate," Davis said. "They are selectively using only parts of my previous research to support their claims. They are not telling the entire story to the public."

I hope someone in SNL/Daily Show/Colbert Report hasn't come up with this

Picture a child on the potty, someone from somewhere in the developing world squatting astride a hole in an outhouse...

"Theres something you can't see in these pictures..."

Followed by a picture of lush green forest...

"Plants take it in..."

Next, a dog doing its business, then being sniffed by another...

"Humans and animals make it...

Now, picture of amber wheatfield...

"For generations, human and animal wastes fertilize our land for agriculture, feeding cattles, poultry and people...

"Now politicians want to regulate the disposal of faecal matter. Imagine if they succeed...

"Some call it pollution. We call it life."