When considering "things Al Gore" it is always helpful to remember Stalin's term, "useful idiots." It seems to me that any individual wanting to espouse a certain point of view would want it to be as accurate as possible, exposing it to the latest scientific investigation for a rigorous examination.

I am puzzled by several things: 1. Gore's refusal to debate the subject; 2. His refusal to subject his "so-called science" to scrutiny and 3. His refusal to take a pledge to consume no more energy than the average American household (in his testimony before the U.S. Senate Environment & Public Works Committee).

Judging from the media in recent months, the debate over global warming is now over. Kudos to the Bee for daring to print a conflicting viewpoint. For the most part, the media is not guiltless, justifying the non-reporting of dissenting views.

Scientists, who cannot accurately forecast the weather a week from now are now claiming to predict temperatures 50 and 100 years from now using inherently untrustworthy computer climate models.

The only thing we can say with certainly about climate is that it changes. Big deal, it's been changing for the entire history of the earth!

A couple of quotes: "... a Hoover Institute study revealing that earth's temperature fluctuations correlated with solar activity. When seeking to determine if human industry had any affect on global temperatures, the institute's study declared. 'Nothing -- the relationship wasn't there.'" Another - " ... a Danish Meteorological Institute, which has tracked solar cycles for centuries..... The data shows that when the sun heats up, the earth heats up. (Duh!) On the same day Mr. Gore was lecturing Congress on man-made global warming, NASA announced that the sun is hotter than expected and that the temperature on Mars is rising right along with that of earth."

It's really all about the money. If you want to find any agenda, follow the money trail, watch for the power and prestige it can offer - the agenda will be revealed. The flow of government and grant monies is dependent on perceived problems getting worse. Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson figured that out years ago.

I think there is room for reasonable minds to debate the specifics of Gore's proposals. I think Gore would agree with that, as well. I don't find Morriss' arguments very persuasive, however. He relies primarily on a single scientist's estimates of the costs of implementing Gore's proposals (an estimate which is highly disputed), and follows with a claim about the relative safety of hybrids, which isn't even on topic. And although he grants the reality of global warming for the sake of his argument, he completely ignores the economic costs of doing nothing, as well as potential economic benefits from pursuing "clean" energy sources, etc.

And like Mr. Morgan, above, he resorts to ad hominem arguments against Gore, which have no value whatsoever in determining the underlying facts of climate change and the economic costs of taking action or doing nothing.

when i follow the money, it leads me to the global warming denyers, and the oil companies that pay their salaries...this is not about al gore. it's much more important than one man.

Just becasue something is highly disputed does not mean that it is not true.

Disputed by whom, Faux news conservative bias, corportions that spew out dirty air? That helped fix our EPA laws? Helped lower our Federal standards?

Let Gore use up all the energy he needs to educate and speak to the leadership and masses, he is not a hypocrate for doing so. Otherwise let all the leaders of this Country stay home.

I used the term "highly disputed" to refer to Lomborg's estimate of the economic costs of Gore's proposals (I was actually probably being too kind to Lomborg). It's kind of ironic that Mr. Morgan ridicules the science of weather forecasting (which is actually usually pretty accurate, within a few degrees), but seems willing to accept without question Lomborg's economic forecasts. Economic forecasts make weather look like an exact science in comparison, and I don't think Lomborg even has any particular qualifications in that area.

If big business is buying into the idea of Climate Change or Global Warming, then you can be SURE there's profit in it for them - and lots of it, or they wouldn't bother.

Today, in an article in MacLean's Magazine, a writer pointed out that Gore's predictions may well come true - in 4 milliennia.

Oh. And why does Mr. Gore's house use in one month the energy used by 20 averages households over a year?

Isn't this the same man who is so prone to hyperbole that he claimed to have invented the internet?

How soon we forget.