I just watched "An Inconvenient Truth" - the Al Gore documentary on global warming. I definitely believe it is real(as I did before the movie). The movie explains it in and easy to digest format. My 10-year-old daughter had been asking about global warming, and rather than trying to explain it, we watched the movie as a family. It was very informative and even a 10-year-old can come away with an understanding of why global warming is happening and the ramifications it will have on the future of our planet. It is a problem that we should probably be trying to fix sooner rather than later.

I love this debate. I've never taken a position on this issue despite the impact this has on my career as an engineer designing energy consuming buildings. Adminttingly...I'm not "well read" on this topic enough...nor have I watched the Gore movie (never been a big Al fan!). I tend to be a slight skeptic however...and I do get a kick out of the "point, counter-point" info provided at www.junkscience.com. Give it a look if you'd like some water-cooler fodder.

Global Warming sites to help people become more "well-read" on the subject.

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science/global-warming-faq.html?log...

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/8742123/global_warming

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/

Mr Sandey,
Your theory may seem right on, but consider the fact that polar ice caps are melting at an alarming rate. This, in turn, creates more water, which is then evaporated into the atmosphere and is returned to the Earth in the form of rain. Rain can fall anywhere. Even in North Dakota.

So, what caused the warm up after the ice age? Man wasn't around in the same capacity as what we are today... And in turn, what caused the ice age and previous cooling cycles? True, you have those who mention Vesuvius, Krakatoa, and other volcanic/natural actions as causes for the cooling cycles, but couldn't this just be part of the cyclic weather pattern?

I'm glad there are skeptics in the world that keep the system as honest as possible; I'm kind of one myself. But the IPCC was created by mandates from the U.N. and the World Meteorological Organization, with funding coming from various governments around the world, not big oil.

Any "research" sanctioned by oil companies would clearly be biased, whereas studies paid for by a panel of different goverments would be far more, if not entirely, objective. All goverments stand to pour tons of money into trying to curb climate change, so there's no profit incentive for them to produce a report saying the world needs to change its ways. Quite the opposite. The reason for contracting such studies is out of concern for humanity, not money.

You can check out a free screening of "An Inconvenient Truth," fresh from its Academy Award win. For more information, go to http://www.jordannews.com/node/1928. Check out a fun preview of the movie made by the creators of "Futurama" and "The Simpsons" at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KIJZ4d892kI.

http://www.tennesseepolicy.org/main/article.php?article_id=367

Interesting article on Mr. Gore's power usage at his Nashville mansion...

And in regards to his "concert series" (http://liveearth.org/?p=22), a couple of ecological questions:

Will the power grids be strained due to the concerts, and if so, how many other gas/nuclear/coal/oil plants will be utilized to supplement the power grids?

Will the concerts be done during the day, so that extra lighting won't need to be used?

How will waste products (food, drink, human, other) be disposed of? We're talking around 1 million fans worldwide eating, drinking, etc...

And since most will take place at outdoor arenas/stadiums, won't this cause more noise pollution in those areas?

Lastly, how much in emissions will be generated by airplanes (private or commercial) and other vehicles needed to transport performers, fans who want to attend more than one concert, VIPs, stage crews, stage sets, etc., to and from the concerts?

Some questions to think about, and to wonder if it's worth damaging the environment any more...

Basically to get the word out on the amount of energy one of his three houses uses versus the rest of us.

The power needs to come from somewhere, whether it's hydro (clean), nuclear (somewhat clean), wind (clean), or oil/coal (dirty). The question would be which one... And if it's either oil or coal, it all adds to the fossil fuel emissions...

If he wants the rest of the world to cut down on power usage and pollution, he also needs to step up and do the same.

Gore's concert series will employ a green-friendly, carbon-exchange program, just like many environmentally conscious bands have in recent years. Concert organizers reportedly plan to approach the Live Earth series with a similar "carbon neutral" strategy by working with the U.S. Green Building Council to write green standards for entertainment venues.

Pearl Jam is one of the bigger bands using this type of platform from which to engage in touring. They call their system the Carbon Portfolio Strategy. (http://www.pearljam.com/activism/carbon.php)

Essentially, carbon use is measured and then mitigated through donations to organizations that do everything from plant trees in the rainforests of Madagascar to researching sustainable energy solutions. An interesting article in Q&A format about Pearl Jam's project: http://www.grist.org/news/maindish/2006/07/21/vanschagen/

Well stated, the consumption of one person is a drop in a very large bucket but if his idealogy changes the actions of many, then regardless of how he lives. It is also stated here

http://www.newshounds.us/2007/02/28/keith_olbermann_kos_fraudulent_accus...

that Gore's exorbitant electric bills are because he buys green, renewable power.

A video on global warming is at the following link: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4520665474899458831. Thanks to Gene Sieve, a reader of this Web site, for forwarding it to me.

(Mathias Baden is the editor of the Jordan Independent. He can be reached at editor@jordannews.com.)

Well said Brandon, as I stated earlier on this thread, if global warming is eventually proven to have been nothing but hype and as humans we made changes to avert what was billed as an impending crisis, were the changes all for nothing? I don't think so. Making changes for the better, regardless of what they were initially for, are still for the better. Wasting less in the form of packaging uses less energy which, in turn, burns less coal which is the majority fuel used to produce our electricity which is pretty sad in the so-called technology age. As for proof in one direction or another on warming, take a step back and look at the big picture... although with this being billed as the warmest winter on record thus far...

More and more people are taking 'global warming' as a serious matter - which it is - but we don't want to, nor need to 'throw out the baby with the bath waters.' So the thread in the JI is a good approach.
Keep in mind that all fuel is renewable, some just take longer to renew than others. The wind blows and creates energy instantly, crops grow (and are converted into ethanol) that takes a bit longer, other vegitation grows, is covered the result of global activity and (in millions or billions of years) is converted by time and pressure into coal and petroleum. We are using the energy created in millions of years in a few 'thousand' years.
All of these 'sources' of energy depend on the energy received from the sun, without which 'non' of the 'renewable' sources would 'renew'. Even the wind is dependent upon the sun for energy.
So, and this is my point, if we are using energy, on a daily or yearly basis, at a rate faster than energy is received from the sun, 'we have a problem Houston'. There is a bottom in the well. I don't expect crisis (or solution) in my lifetime, but don't ignore the fact that 'the camel has his nose in the tent'. Keep in mind, that small problems yield to solution easier than big problems. Tarry not along the way!

I recently read a news item referring to the 'warming up of Lake Superior', and wrote the reporter chastising his failure to indicate the effect of warming on 'smelt fishing'. Which was a 'staple' in the life of Minnesotians not that long ago. Been there, Done that. He responded with this website that I found quite interesting, that covered much more than smelting.

http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/areas/fisheries/lakesuperior/smelt.html

Just about anything you need to prove about anything can be found using the 'Internet' as a source. Often it is revealing to seek the 'providers' of the facts you harvest and drilling down in their website is revealing. One of the problems with 'global warming' is that we may run short (out) of easily convertable fossel fuels and then find, as we have in Iraq, that the bell is not easy to unring. Gore is far from the 'end all' authority, but there are many who think it unwise to treat the matter lightly. I think more 'valid' thoughts are found in: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1998/04/980423071434.htm
In this game, you picks your horse, then bets your money.

It might be all a hoax, but remember Chicken Little, "The sky is falling, the sky is falling". We are now paying $2.699 for LF Reg here, should that be attributed to a decline in projected reserves or just to greed in the petroleum industry. Many think that 'to protect our interests and our supply' we are involved in the Middle East. Let us hope this isn't all 'ranting and raving'. Remember about 'unringing' the bell, we have an exercise trying to do just that right now. It isn't working out too well.

The governor believes in global warming. Here's a press release that came this morning from the Office of the Governor of Minnesota: 

ST. PAUL -- In an important step forward for Minnesota’s environment, Gov. Tim Pawlenty’s newly appointed Minnesota Climate Change Advisory Group held their first meeting today. The new group is part of the governor’s Next Generation Energy Initiative announced in December and will develop a comprehensive plan for reducing the state’s greenhouse gas emissions.

“Our global climate is warming, at least in part due to the energy sources we use,” Pawlenty said. “We cannot solve it by ourselves, but we need to lead and do our part. We also need to push for an effective national and international effort."

Earlier this year, the governor invited the Center for Climate Strategies to facilitate the advisory group. The CCS is nationally recognized for its efforts to develop emission reduction plans through carefully structured and broadly inclusive stakeholder processes.

CCS has helped 10 states complete their greenhouse gas reduction strategies, and Minnesota joins eight other states now in the planning stages. CCS will work closely with the Minnesota Department of Commerce, the Minnesota Pollution Control agency and many other state organizations to advance the work of the advisory group.

Development of the stakeholder process is a key component of the Next Generation Energy Initiative. This comprehensive energy initiative calls for more renewable energy, more energy conservation and lower carbon emissions.

One facet of the Next Generation Energy Initiative has been already adopted as a result of legislation signed by the governor in February. Minnesota now has one of the most aggressive renewable energy laws in the country and requires 25 percent of the electricity used in Minnesota to come from renewable sources by 2025.

In addition, Xcel Energy must achieve a 30 percent renewable rate by 2020.  The governor’s energy conservation initiative is also nearing passage in the state legislature.

The 51-member MCCAG includes representatives from business, utility, environmental, academic, and religious organizations. Private citizens, farmers, local government, and tribal leaders are also represented.

A final report by MCCAG will be presented to the governor and legislature by February 1, 2008.

For more information about the Minnesota Climate Change Advisory Group, visit www.mnclimatechange.us. For more information on Center for Climate Strategies, visit www.climatestrategies.us.

To read about who are the members of MCCAG, go to http://www.jordannews.com/node/2721. If you are not a member of the online group called Government Observers, you will be asked to join before you can see the blog.

(Mathias Baden is the editor of the Jordan Independent. He can be reached at editor@jordannews.com.)

Jordan High School will host a presentation about global warming at 6 p.m. tonight. The information will be presented by one of only 1,000 people authorized by former Vice President Al Gore to deliver his global warming message. You can read more about it here: http://www.jordannews.com/node/2921.