What Gore does get about the climate change discussion is that it is an opportunity to try for political power that was denied him when he lost the Presidential Elections of 2004. Anyone who was truly sincere about preserving the environment would not spend thousands heating his Tennessee mansion, while jetting around the globe on private jets.

The climate is changing, as it always has over the long term. For us to think that we are responsible over two hundred years for influence that is causing a "global catastrophe", is naive. The planet's climate has always changed in the long term, over thousands of years. Sorry but it will continue to change long after we are all clamoring about the next "crisis."

Sadly, there is nothing like a good "crisis" to create good copy for the news media (hopefully attracting viewers), or to try to lend credibility to far left socialist crusaders (Soros anyone?), and to provide grant money to a certain percentage of scientists that have become far too dependent.

Gore is about his own power and that of the ultra liberal concepts of one world government in which a few will decide for the many. Not the premise that America, or any free society was founded upon. There is no doubt that if the mass media were present during the medieval ages (when there was a much longer warming period) there would have been shrill clamor for the regulation and elimination of campfires. That is to say, except for those campfires of those who would be King.

If you are writing a post that tries to argue against scientific consensus about man made climate change, you should not start it with referring to Gore's election loss in 2004. Inability to get even the simplest facts straight gives you a bigger credibility problem than Gore's environmental sins ... if a nutritional expert is fat and untrained, do you conclude that there is nothing to obesity and exercise?

Amen. It's tiresome to read the far-right's Gore bashing. Give it up. Try actually addressing some data about climate change for instance. The bit about the 2004 election was priceless. Check your facts before posting. Could we take this discussion out of political drivel and actually talk about science?

The posting was concerning Gore's motivation. Losing the election certainly weighs to that. I'm sorry, however Gore is just not a scientist by any stretch of the imagination, he is a politician. Science is best left to scientists, not politicians, the media, or those who dislike free markets and personal freedoms.

Your example of the nutrition expert who is fat is far more removed from the topic. I would say however that a person's beliefs can best be demonstrated by his personal actions (or lack of).

The clear lack of consensus concerning climate change being a 'Crisis' means we must look at a persons motivations, and that of organizations. The sky is falling message has been used too many times to try to enforce changes in the short-term that have no relation to the issue.