American Morning

Tune in at 6am Eastern for all the news you need to start your day.
December 8th, 2009
03:42 PM ET

Al Gore answers your climate change questions

Former Vice President Al Gore answers your climate change questions on American Morning Wednesday.

Former Vice President Al Gore answers your climate change questions on American Morning Wednesday.

By John Roberts, CNN

The intersection of the Copenhagen Climate Summit and the e-mail controversy colloquially known as “Climate-Gate” has cast new suspicion on what many people had taken to be decided science.

How much of an impact it will be remains to be seen. Professor Peter Liss, who has taken over as interim director of the prestigious Climatic Research Unit, says it is bound to have some impact, particularly among nations who are looking for reasons to resist the call for new curbs on greenhouse gases.

Supporters of anthropogenic global warming will no doubt get a boost from Nobel Laureate Al Gore, who will be attending the conference. Gore’s visit coincides with the release of his new book, “Our Choice,” in which he lays out in simple, but lengthy detail the green technologies he believes can reshape America and the world.

While Gore has legions of supporters, he also has his fair share of critics, who charge that the book is “emotionally charged propaganda” and that Gore – the venture capitalist – stands to profit handsomely from the very technology and policy he promotes.

The former vice president joins us tomorrow in the 7am hour of American Morning, and we’d like to throw open the discussion to you. What would you like to ask him about global warming, the environment and green technology?

Post your question below, call our show hotline at 1-877-MY-AM-FIX, or send us an iReport.

We’d really appreciate you being part of the discussion.

Filed under: Environment • Politics
soundoff (192 Responses)
  1. inversesquare

    Hmmmmmm, I wrote this question here 8 hours ago, but it got moderated out of existence.......

    I'll try again:

    Mr Gore,

    I asked, what do you think about the Data from the ERBE satellite that shows Long wave solar radiation is exiting the atmosphere at a rate inconsistent with the positive feedback forcing used in the CRU / NOAA / GISS computer models?

    December 9, 2009 at 7:40 pm |
  2. Jack

    The climate issue is a hoax. In fact the earth has been in a coling cyclying. Also none of the material that has been put our there has never been vetted. But when does that matter when the politicians press for it. It's a mute point. It may have been vetted by scientist of like mind but is that really vetting, that's one opinion. Let's getthe opposition to comment, but each time they do, to many jet hopping actors, atctresses and the VP get on some private jet. Do they know how to spell public airlines? If it is so critical, why don't they fly public.

    December 9, 2009 at 7:17 pm |
  3. scott

    Al Gore:
    Quote " The North Polar Ice Cap will be gone in 5, 10, 15 years " ! ?
    Come on guys use your reporting skills? Hold this guy responsible for his outlandish comments!
    I suggest that the reporting profession is contributing to this man made climate hysteria.

    December 9, 2009 at 6:16 pm |
  4. Ecotretas

    Al, will you return your Oscar and Nobel Prize, if climategate is proven right?

    December 9, 2009 at 5:06 pm |
  5. bubba551

    Given your ability to predict the weather for the next hundred years, could you let me know what it will be doing a week from Tuesday.

    I have that day off and was think of going fishing.

    December 9, 2009 at 4:31 pm |
  6. Susan Wagoner

    How can we ignore what scientists are telling us? And the facts presented by Al Gore? This is not a political contest, this is not a get-Gore-rich-quick scheme! This is our earth. We (or our children or grandhcildren) will pay in the end unless we act– what's the price? Give up our mega-consumer ways, create green jobs and practices, and listen listen listen to what the experts say.
    "Popular opinion" is often dead-wrong.
    Sue from Aurora, illinois

    December 9, 2009 at 4:07 pm |
  7. Austin S.

    Mr. Gore,
    How do you try to change the world when the power consumption of your mansion must be out of this world?

    December 9, 2009 at 3:00 pm |
  8. joe, nj

    Mr. Gore, please explain how the ice cap that covered NJ
    melted a few thousand years ago??
    Who or what put the CO2 into the air?

    December 9, 2009 at 2:43 pm |
  9. David R

    Mr. Gore, why did you push so hard for MTBE to be added to oxygenate gasoline over the objections of the Oil Companies, and why was your voice so critical of MTBE's environmental properties 20 years later? The information was out there that MTBE is water soluable and a small amount polutes widely, yet you chose to ignore it.
    Did MTBE help? Not really. Gas mileage went down in markets where it was used. Did Fossil Fuel consumption go down? No, because MTBE is refined from Natural Gas, a Fossil Fuel.

    Own up to your mistakes, not just the good you did, and people on both sides will respect you more. Do your research like the rest of us must do before you jump on any band-wagon.

    If you do anything now, push for legislation requiring all new single-family homes to use Geothermal Heat Pump technology. It is proven technology, older than you are for that matter, and even though some more electricity would be used, the total amount of energy is less than burning a fuel to heat a home. It would reduce CO2 at the individual level, and with the new requirements in some states for the pwoer companies to produce 20% of their electricity via Solar or Wind, in the long run it gets greener.

    December 9, 2009 at 2:06 pm |
  10. larry schaubhut

    Equal time? What happened to balanced presentations of facts. Al Gore says lots of things, were are the fact checkers? What about the fact checking of his older "presentations" . I am struggling with people being positvie when the facts do not seemed to be positive at all.

    December 9, 2009 at 1:12 pm |
  11. tom skinner

    Why do you still promote the 'hockey stick' graph when you were told not to by the National Academy of Sciences/Wegman report. It's a statistical "trick".

    Why did Phil Jones block access to raw data? Isn't this the essence of scientific discovery?

    Why do you say the science is settled when science is NEVER settled. It must constantly withstand the attempted falsification. When nobody can falsify it scientifically, then it becomes accepted. Most of what is going on with temperature reconstuction can be easily falsified, yet you don't listen. Al, I believe you are an opprotunist and a liar. You should be ashamed of yourself. How do you go about your daily life with such baggage? I desire the worst for your efforts.

    December 9, 2009 at 12:36 pm |
  12. Doug Arthur

    Mr. Gore,

    At what temperature does oil drilling equipment melt, and at what depth in the earth would that temperature be reached?

    December 9, 2009 at 12:28 pm |
  13. Tricia

    Al? Why do you need people to censor questions for you? Is it so you can avoid the fact that you are a traitor and a criminal?...AL?

    December 9, 2009 at 12:27 pm |
  14. Frank

    If we paid less attention to politics and more to our own common sense, this media big play on global warming would not matter much. Most americans cannot locate Europe on a map, and now they grasp climate change in the world. Mr. Gore hopefully you will be able to get past the politics and remain true to your objective and dedicated to make the environment safer for all. Of course the weather patterns and cycles are an important part of the equation, but there is no doubt that man made activities are making matter worst. The carbon dioxide emissions are obviously harmful and they cannot be confined geographically region where they are emitted. The merit of the cause is too important to let the issue be played out for ratings by the media.

    December 9, 2009 at 6:22 am |
  15. durox

    Mr Gore how is it possible to state that the earth's core has several millions degrees? The Sun has 13mil degrees -Kelvin! (you were presenting your new book, one would expect you do your homework. Are you the one who writes your own books?)

    You said that the emails that started the scandal are 10years old. Why are you dishonest about that? There are emails in that list that were written this year, nov.

    CDIAC reports that the CO2 emissions have increased in the last years. The Global temperatures according to CRU have decreased in the last years. Please explain it … I made a graph, and you can see the data/numbers in there:

    December 9, 2009 at 6:12 am |
  16. Jimmy G

    How much of the climate change is thought to be as a result of solar wind. Our solar cycle is approx. 11 years, and we are approaching the peak of the cycle. The above average radiation being released has to affect the earth...?

    December 9, 2009 at 6:02 am |
  17. Wahid

    Mr, Gore, reducing of corbon emission means for example if a car factory make 100/day it should reduce it is prodact 50/day,
    so how can make some one accept the risk for others lifes?
    do you accept to give half of your monthly income for poor people?

    December 9, 2009 at 5:25 am |
  18. Yogesh.

    Mr. Gore,

    Climate change is known devil. Why it's not understood that if we stop progression of this known devil, the unknown angel will always be better than this current devil (climate).

    December 9, 2009 at 4:59 am |
  19. Jim Neumann


    All else aside, I cannot take seriously the claims or advice of a man who does not take his claims serious him–at least not enough to follow the guidlines he wants to give to everyone else. Why, for instance, is Mr. Gore's monthly power bill around an average $2,800 (again, that's per month!)? Most Americans don't even make $2,800/month, but he spends that on power at his mansion. I refuse to listen to anyone who does not listen to his/herself. Giving that man a Nobel Peace Prize was an insult to everyone in the world who has ever actually DONE good and not just told others they should.

    By the way, I care deeply for the environment, but let me also bring up this point: in the 1970s there was a scare about "global cooling," and the possibility of another ice age. Scientists considered covering the ice caps with soot. Now imagine if they had...we'd be in a lot of trouble. So who is to say that some of our current plans wouldn't simply spend a lot of money to make the planet even worse? The planet has been around for millions of years and has gotten along without our help for all of that time. Nature has a way of self-correcting over time. We tend to screw it up more than anything else. Why not just stay out of what we really don't understand that well anyway?

    Of course, use the cleanest technologies: common sense dictates we should do that anyway, and for God's sake and ours stop polluting this beautiful planet. But beyond that, let nature take care of itself, it doesn't need our interference.

    December 9, 2009 at 4:46 am |
  20. Mojilei

    It seems to me there is a hype cycle over environmental issues and related technologies considering not only this peak of inflated expectations over copenhagen summit and feel-guilty ads but also growing concerns over partiality and intellectual honesty of GIEC members (real causes of supposed man-caused global warming vs merely solar activity variations), some scientits revealing a "global period of cooling wthin the global warming"...To me, the latter questions raised may be signs of the start for trough of desillusionnement slope.Indeed anytime some say "That or this period of time is the warmest since 1800's ou 1900's" is a hint that weather is about a succession of periods of natural warming following periods of natural cooling and so is obvious that such warming has occured in the past whithout so much human-made CO2 emissions...What do you think?

    December 9, 2009 at 4:15 am |
  21. Ben

    Mr Gore,

    Why do you claim the leaked e-mails (ClimateGate) are at least 10 years old? They clearly are not.

    December 9, 2009 at 4:01 am |
  22. Kim Lee Homme

    Mr. Gore,

    Could the current assault on the theory of global warming be in part owing to an exploitation of the public understanding of the relationship between scientific theory and fact? That is, in science, theory has a higher status than do facts. Theory is supported by a large body of facts and well tested, whereas isolated facts are not. Then, since in common language the word 'fact' is synonymous with the word 'truth,' interest groups inflate the value of isolated facts and make it appear as if the theory has been refuted, when it has not.

    Many so-called facts are spread like viruses through the media and on the net, yet none refute the scientific theory. The debate therefore is misleading and false.

    December 9, 2009 at 3:42 am |
  23. alex ormeno

    Davinci Alba, wow, you are the typical case of chronic ignorant. CO2 traps heat.That is a fact and we spit tonnes of this gas into the atmosphere. There are other gases that we in modern society produce that were not produced or released to the atmpsphere before and not even in the scales we do in modern society. Do you think that has no consequence whatsoever? aha, where it will go? where will it sink? oh, I see, since you do not see these gases they do not exist right? wow from davinci you have unfortunately only the name

    December 9, 2009 at 3:23 am |
  24. Jim

    Please ignore all these conspiracy theorists and get on with the work you've been doing to try to convince people that we need to change our ways.

    December 9, 2009 at 3:17 am |
  25. Erin

    Mr. Gore,

    I am, by training, a biologist. It seems to me that two fundamental changes will occur as a result of Global Warming that will do more harm than rising coastlines or any other changes to which we can easily adapt. Firstly, that plankton blooms in the arctic and antarctic flow ice will lose their "breeding ground" – dramatic because they are the base of the ocean's food chain, and secondly, the uncoupling of the biological symbiotic phases that have evolved (such as flowers blooming when their pollinating insects are most prevalent so as to ensure likely pollination /pollinating insects breeding/maturity coinciding with available foodsources). Either one of these things could spell a complete collapse of the food chain and mass starvation over a very short time frame. Is there any institution that is currently overseeing or coordinating reasearch and preparation for any such eventualities?

    December 9, 2009 at 3:16 am |
  26. alex ormeno

    Ezra In Bainbridge you are so ignorant. What does have climate to do with politics or even religion???? CO2 traps heat and warms the planet. FAct. We spit millions of tons of this gas every year into the atmosphere. Fact. this in turn warms the planet. Fact. Is that so difficult to understand???

    December 9, 2009 at 3:16 am |
  27. Nidia

    Most individuals in the U.S. think in terms of "see to believe" in reference to global warming and environmental issues. You are one individual whom has understood that frame of mind however, I have never heard you speak on "The Giant Swirling Mass of Plastic in the Pacific Ocean" off the coast of California and I really think that this particular issue is to say the lest, alarming. Are you currently working on this issue in any way? And if so were would someone like myself a “pay check to pay check” American go to help?

    December 9, 2009 at 2:54 am |
  28. David

    The oil and coal industries will interfere with progress on environmental issues. They spend large sums of money on lobbying and on mis-shaping public opinion. Realistically, how will we overcome this problem?

    December 9, 2009 at 2:42 am |
  29. wtc

    I would like to know how the ozone layer and rainforests play into all of this. I attended school in the 90's and dutifully learned of the dire situation these 2 natural forces faced. However, once global warming burst onto the scene, it seems as though the problems with the rainforests/ozone layers fell out of favor. Now, climate change is the focus as though it is the newest fad. What will the focus be on next?

    December 9, 2009 at 2:25 am |
  30. Ken Campbell

    While it's obvious our climate is changing, it's not obvious that this change is of anthropogenic causes. We may very well find out that our climate will change dramatically even if we returned to stone age living. During the Mesozoic and Cenozoic eras there were periods where global temperatures were greater than 10 degrees celsius above today's average temperature, and global CO2 levels are estimated to be 4 times that of today. Ironically, these periods produced such an abundance of life that it didn't have time to decay normally and produced the fossil fuels we are burning today.

    Its time to do the right thing for the right reasons. Anthropogenic climate change is just a hotly debated theory while anthropogenic pollution is fact. Interestingly, if we reduce pollution we reduce CO2 emissions (and many others) and we achieve the same goals that the climate change evangelists seek, but for reasons based on facts, not theory. That is doing the right thing for the right reason.

    December 9, 2009 at 2:06 am |
  31. Erin

    Mr. Gore,

    I am, by training, a biologist. It seems to me that two fundamental changes will occur as a result of Global Warming that will do more harm than rising coastlines or any other changes to which we can easily adapt. Firstly, that plankton blooms in the arctic and antarctic flow ice will lose their "breeding ground" – dramatic because they are the base of the ocean's food chain, and secondly, the uncoupling of the biological symbiotic phases that have evolved (such as flowers blooming when their pollinating insects are most prevalent so as to ensure likely pollination /pollinating insects maturity coinciding with available foodsources). Either one of these things could spell a complete collapse of the food chain and mass starvation over a very short time frame. Is this being studied currently by any institution that would be able to handle such large scale, globally relevant research?

    December 9, 2009 at 1:58 am |
  32. Alexander ML Jones

    I am a left leaning moderate – the one thing that makes me left leaning is that I don't even think Cap and Trade is enough. Instead, I would like to see a cap, and no trading of responsibilities like what got us into this recession. So my question is, you call for extensive measures – do you really think that Cap and Trade will be enough – and if so, why would you support the selling of the right to pollute, and why support Carbon Offsets? Let's go nuclear, and end all greenhouse gas pollution TOMORROW.

    December 9, 2009 at 1:48 am |
  33. Dan Kerkel

    I accept the data that shows carbon in the atmosphere is at an all time high, that human activity is a major contributor, and that there is a strong correlation between levels of atmospheric carbon and upper atmospheric temperatures and surface temperatures.
    If everyone acted now upon your reccomendations, would we have a guarantee of a stable climate? For how long?

    December 9, 2009 at 1:47 am |
  34. Wayne

    How can anyone say that global warming doesn't exist! How can anyone dispute the amount of CO2 pumping into the atmosphere by the second by simply the act of turning on your laptop or stopping by the grocery store for a pack of smokes!

    The planet we currently live in has a balance that's been set in place for millions of years. How can that be changed within 100 years and destroy every ecological habitat, including our own, on every corner of the earth!? "...tropical vacations at the North Pole/perfectly natural"...what a pathetic statement.

    But aside from the point, my question to you, Mr. Gore, is what will it take for the large polluters of the world, namely Europe, the United States and China to ratify any type of policy, let alone Kyoto, which, in my opinion is vastly outdated by the current rate of global warming? We saw in the past how easily it was for the American government to pass bills that can change the face lawmaking almost overnight.

    Clearly we can see that we have already reached to the point of no return. If we don't start putting out zero emission cars within the next year, it's clear that our future is in the demise of arrogant lawmakers.

    December 9, 2009 at 1:44 am |
  35. Kim Lee Homme

    As I sit here in a highly polluted South Korea, I flip the channel and see a certain "news" network broadcasting from the United States. This network broadcasts what they call the "other side" of the global warming controversy, as if that "other side" were scientific. They cite decontextuallized evidence–such as an early snowfall–as if they are being "Fair and Balanced." This misrepresentation of the controversy and science is dangerous, and far-reaching–I am, afterall, watching this US broadcast from another country.

    Can you address this issue, and help people to see what the scientific debate actually is, and what it is not?

    P.S.: My science students here at KSA in Busan support you and this cause. They want to do their part to help solve the problem.

    December 9, 2009 at 1:42 am |
  36. Gabriel in Bulgaria

    Mr. Gore,
    Has the task of collecting data or the sharing of this been more difficult? What optimism can a developing country take from this conference and assist in progressing a new era of energy use?
    All the best in your leadership. Gabriel.

    December 9, 2009 at 1:36 am |
  37. Royal Trent Sr

    Mr Gore, I would appreciate your opinion on my theory of a possible cause of Global warming, here it goes, my concern is that the amount of oil that is being harvested from our planet is having a dramatic effect in that , please correct me in I am wrong at anytime but Is it not a fact that the average temp of oil taken from the earth is about 140F, and that if you made a comparison between the earth and the engine of your car , , in which the oil provides a lubricant to reduce friction and to Remove heat and carry it away from the moving parts , now remove it and what happens , friction increases the temp goes up Right ? We know from school that heat travels from hot to cold [latent heat of convection] so in turn if you remove the Coolant from the earth wouldn't the radiant heat warm the GROUND causing the ice caps to melt and also an increase in volcanic activity, and have an effect the weather as well ? lets also not forget about increased earthquake activity. it seems that the sciencetist are all addressing global warming due to changes in the atmosphere but I have not heard anything on research \studies done on this theory, it only seems to reason that if you suck as much volume of oil from the earth every day as we do to the point that we are injecting steam into the the earth to get every last drop out,,there must be a negative to this , since the world has come into being , it has never had such an adversary as mankind , drilling holes miles into the earth to store our nuclear waste and to extract oil in huge amounts were are lucky we haven't cracked it in half already is this anyway to treat our precious planet ? we must not forget that we are only 'guests' here is this anyway to treat our 'host' ? The real question is will it survive? whats your opinion on this theory? Royal E Trent Sr White City Oregon

    December 9, 2009 at 1:07 am |
  38. Dr Howard SCOTT

    We could move very quickly by legislating electric cars as the primary transport mode. Perhaps this would remove 20 – 40% of CO2 almost immediately.

    This would "buy" us perhaps 10 years to develop clean coal technology – which in turn would remove another 20 – 40% of CO2.

    Why isn't this strategy being advocated?

    Howard – in China

    December 9, 2009 at 1:04 am |
  39. Kyle Groves

    Mr. Gore,

    Countries around the world are being faced with decisions of what to do about alleged global warming, as Australia's Senate defeated a global warming bill last Wednesday 41 to 33. If you believe so strongly in your theories, would you not accept one of the challenges to an open debate from people such as Lord Christopher Monckton or Dennis Avery? Perhaps then the global community would be more informed about both sides of the issues at hand.


    December 9, 2009 at 12:41 am |
  40. ImranCan

    Mr. Gore
    I see two truths :
    1) Whilst the climate prediction 'models' keep suggesting that global warming is 'accelerating' and 'worse than we thought', the observational data shows the opposite. Sea level rise is slowing down, tempratures haven't really risen in over a decade etc etc.

    2) You treat your crusade as a moral imperative. It appears to be a 'belief' for you.

    Given these 2 statements, what would actually have to happen for you to change your mind about mans impact on climate ? A new ice age ?

    PS and 1 more question ... WHY WON"T YOU DEBATE THIS WITH ANYONE ?

    December 9, 2009 at 12:28 am |
  41. Lekisha in Denver

    What are the top five actions Americas can take today to help improve the climate change?

    December 9, 2009 at 12:19 am |
  42. John Hunter

    What can we do as individuals here in Canada to reverse this Climate change?

    December 9, 2009 at 12:05 am |
  43. Michael DiCerto

    Mr Gore- I respect you and the work you do – but neither you nor anyone discussing this topic in the mainstream has mentioned nor addressed the fact that the polar ice caps on Mars are melting as well. In fact- there are oddities occurring all over this solar system. This MUST be taken into account. Why is this being ignored?

    December 8, 2009 at 11:53 pm |
  44. Allison Hagen

    Can you give us an update on Laura Ling and Euna Lee?

    December 8, 2009 at 11:42 pm |
  45. Kevin From Canada

    Which changed first in the past, CO2 or temperature? Which has historically driven which?

    December 8, 2009 at 11:42 pm |
  46. Saif

    Mr. Gore,
    I recall that during his campaign, President Obama promised to offer you a potion in his administration to focus on environmental issues and in specific the global warming. Did he? and why did not accept?

    Thank you, Saif, Oman

    December 8, 2009 at 11:38 pm |
  47. Allison Hagen

    How much do 'cow emissions' contribute to global warming? Has anyone found ways to minimize this short of advocating we all become vegan?

    December 8, 2009 at 11:33 pm |
  48. Greg

    Mr Gore, I am a strong believer in the case for global climate change. I know that man is responsible for polluting the planet on a massive scale and that any attention to this issue has to be common sense, whether it is immediately associated with a specific rise in temperature over time or the destruction of habitat – whatever it is, the results are absolutely clear that WE are responsible for our effect on the environment.

    However, I think that the messaging has to change. 'Global warming' is an easy monicker to knock down. The uneducated in this list have criticized it because it's easy to say that there is no predictable 'warming' – hence my use of the term 'global climate change'. I know that you have used this in previous communications, such as An Inconvenient Truth, but this clearly needs to be worked upon – the fact that 'global warming' is an overall misnomer for what is actually happening and is too easy for the simplistic detractors to undermine clearly indicates that a change of message is required.

    I would want to ask you several questions:

    – Do you think that cap and trade (again, an easy monicker for a very difficult problem) is really the right way to go? Personally, I don't believe so, although it may have some short-term benefit as it doesn't address the whole problem.
    – What are your thoughts on CO2 sequestering? It's very expensive and again doesn't appear to solve the root cause of the problem, which is massively polluting generation technology. Plus, it seems extremely risky as no-one can guarantee that it won't leak back out again in greater concentrations.
    – Why doesn't the US want to invest in re-used nuclear fuel? Is this purely to do with jingoistic protectionism – meaning, an irrational fear of the spread of nuclear fuel, instead of considering the benefits of the extra 95% of potential energy that could be realized instead of the 5% that is currently used before then finding a way to bury the stuff. Don't we have to invest in our future rather than constantly finding a cheap way out?

    My overall feeling is that we need a significant change in the communication of the science. There are too many ways for those who have political agendas or pure, old fashioned ignorance to shout down the very well documented evidence that we are having a fundamentally negative impact on the world as a whole. I'd like to know your plans to address this and I also offer to help in any way that I can.

    The best of luck to you and your very valuable campaign.

    December 8, 2009 at 11:21 pm |
  49. John Wendt

    I am amazed, really, at the lack of knowledge demonstrated in these posts about global warming. People seem to be influenced more by "what someone said"–usually someone with an agenda–than the facts surrounding climate change. All it takes is a radio talk show host or a blogger, and people think they have the facts. You have no facts. You have someone else's opinion.

    So here are the facts:
    1) Climate change is mainly about greehouse gases–those that form a "blanket" about our planet and trap more solar radiation than is released.

    2) Ice core data has shown that the primary greenhouse gas–carbon dioxide–has remained relatively constant at about 280 ppm for millions of years. The data has also shown a steady increase in carbon dioxide since the beginning of the industrial revolution until today, where it now stands at over 390 ppm. It is continuing to increase, and increase more rapidly. The source of this carbon dioxide is fossil fuel burning, supplemented by increased agricultural activity, which releases carbon dioxide from the soil (decomposing organic matter as soils degrade) and burning of trees, particularly tropical rainforests.

    3) Global temperatures do not always correlate with increased carbon dioxide, though it is a major factor. Probably the most "chilling" other factors are mega volcanic eruptions and meteor strikes, which can release large amounts of sulfur dioxide and dust debris into the atmosphere. These kinds of particles reflect more sunlight, thus chilling the earth.

    4) A heat wave here or a cool wave there are inconsequential in the climate change debate. These are local fluctuations that are the result of annual shifting climate patterns. What is important is the global trend over longer periods–say a decade. That trend indicates temperature increase at an alarming and accelerating rate.

    5) Ice caps at both poles are indeed melting at a rate that exceeds what climate models had anticipated. This has resulted in measurably higher sea levels.

    If you haven't taken the time to educate yourself–and I don't mean listening to some talk show host with an agenda–do you really have the right to post? The facts surrounding climate change are well-documented and easy to comprehend; it doesn't require a genius.

    For everyone's information, Al Gore was concerned about climate change well before he was a politician. Getting the message out requires some expenditures. Sure, he could cut back on his cars and plane trips–we all could. But in the end, this is about POLICY CHANGE–because what we do as individuals will not matter unless we work collectively in the same direction. That means requirements to produce alternative fuels, more efficient vehicles, better insulated homes, public transportation, and giving incentives to preserve rainforests (20% of annual greenhouse gas emissions are from their burning!)

    I do have one question for Al (getting back onto what this should all be about):

    Al! I am an American working in a developing country. We all have our carbon footprint–the amount of carbon we are responsible for due to our lifestyle choices–and it is pretty low in developing countries. Yet, it is increasing, particularly in developing countries like India and China, the two most populous countries in the world. Let's say everyone in the world had at least a modest lifestyle–something along the lines of a fridge, a fan, a modest house, public transport, and enough to eat. Even THAT would dramatically increase the gases that cause climate change. Can the case be made that there is really an underlying problem to climate change–that being, simply too many people? That's how I see it. And sadly, I see that in the end, we will either by choice bring down our population, or more likely, climate change will bring it down for us, and in a much more devastating fashion.

    December 8, 2009 at 10:41 pm |
  50. Bill

    Mr. Gore, i understand your position on global warming. My question is can you tell us what climatic period we are presently in and what impact that will have on the earth?

    December 8, 2009 at 10:31 pm |
  51. Simon

    A few questions to Mr. Al Gore:
    1. Can he describe the science of man-made Global Warming? What convinced him that the phenomenon is true? Was it an "act of faith" or was it a rigorous examination of the scientific evidence?
    2. Does he plan to down-size his carbon footprint? What steps has he taken? Or is he one of the hypocrites who states "don't shoot the messenger"?

    December 8, 2009 at 10:30 pm |
  52. Robert J. Brotherhood

    Mr. Gore, explain this one:
    12,500 years ago people were VERY afraid of global warming, but they did not have science or phoney science to explain it . The "gods" were angry in those days
    The last ice-age ended WITHOUT any human activity being blamed or higher CO2-levels. Temperature has been rising ever since. No Mr. Gore, NOT in a straight line, and it is still rising. It has NOTHING to do with the human race, or any of its activities. The Sun is the cause, although we do not know how the relation with Earth is.
    The hidden agenda of "anthropogenic global warming" is the economy: afraid of another (or worse) recession like 1929!
    Be honest for once, Mr. Gore!

    December 8, 2009 at 10:28 pm |
  53. Graham

    Dear Mr Gore,
    The chances are that agreements and commitments between nations on reducing CO2 emissions will either not happen or will not be met. The result will be runaway global warming. It is unlikely that we will discover or impliment technology capable of reversing global warming. Should we therefore be focusing on saving people, animals and plants by relocation to areas that will be least effected by climate change while we can do so in an orderly manner? In past climate change events our human ancestors and many animals migrated, it is the natural thing to do.

    December 8, 2009 at 10:18 pm |
  54. Gary from Lincoln City, OR

    Has there been a universally accepted answer to what everyone really wants to know established by the scientific community; "How long do we have before there is no possibilty for any reversal of climate change?"

    December 8, 2009 at 10:03 pm |
  55. stevor

    If you TRULY want to educate yourself about climate, READ "Meltdown" by Patrick J. Michaels. It is is a highly technical scientific book about FACTS about weather and climate.

    It is moronic to ignore the evidence and then say there is no evidence. (or Obamalike).

    December 8, 2009 at 9:57 pm |
  56. TJ Kotzee

    Most sensible people now realise that smoking cigarettes is not good for one health. Similarly it doesn't seem smart to pollute the air one breaths. I don't think one need "rocket science" to tell us that smoking, polluting the air we breath, using alcohol and drugs in excess, over eating etc is bad for our individual and collective heath

    I actually don't really care whether the science (I do believe science is the best way to interpret the world in which we live) can give me a 100 % guarantee that global warming is happening or not. I think it makes commonce sense not to pollute for my and my children's and all the living beings on this planet sake

    Can anyone really think polluting on our current grand scale is actually good for any living thing???

    December 8, 2009 at 9:43 pm |
  57. Daryl M

    I have another question for a Al Gore:

    It is widely known that Al Gore and his family utilize as much energy as many families combined, even more so considering that he regularly flies around the world like a rock star in a personal jet. He apparently justifies this by purchasing offsets from companies he owns. If everyone lived like Al Gore, clearly there would be no reduction in CO2 emissions. How can he justify asking the world to live on less energy when he flagrantly wastes energy in his personal and public life?

    December 8, 2009 at 9:35 pm |
  58. redpens

    Why will Al Gore not debate anyone about global warming? Because he knows it's a lie. Period. It's a transfer of wealth to third world countries from developed countries. Climate-gate proved once and for all what we always knew, man-made global warming is a hoax. Climate change has been happening for 4.5 billion years, beyond our control.

    December 8, 2009 at 9:34 pm |
  59. Bill in Cincinnati

    Mr Gore, Does the growth in polar bear population require immediate action?

    December 8, 2009 at 9:30 pm |
  60. Davinci Alba


    You can't find a real scientist in a real world who can look you in the eyes and,without hesitation,without clarification,without saying,kind of, sort of, if, and or but...say"yes,global warming is with us!

    There is no evidence whatsoever to support such of claims.
    Anyone who tells you that scientific research shows warming trends- be they teachers,Vice Presidents or Presidents- is complete wrong. There is no global warming.

    Scientific research through U.S. Government satellite and ballon measurements show that temperature actually is cooling-very slightly
    0.37 degrees celsius.

    A little research into modern day temperature trends bears this out.
    For example,1936 in the midwest of the United States experienced 49 consecutive days of temperatures over 90 degrees. There were another 49 consecutive days in 1955. But in 1992 there was only one day over 90 degrees and in 1997 only five days.

    Changes in global temperatures are natural. There is no proof that temperature is affected by anything that man has done.

    How about the reports that the polar ice cap is melting?

    Well, yes it is. In fact, it has been for a million years or so. We are at the end of ice age in which ice covered most of North American and North of Europe.

    There is at least one environmentalist, named Al Gore, who is panicking over the possibility that me soon lose Glacier National Park in Montana because the ice is melting.

    One hates to tell him that we've already lost the glacier that use to cover the whole country.

    The truth is, someday humans may be able to take tropical vacations at North pole- and will be perfectly natural.

    December 8, 2009 at 9:26 pm |
  61. John Tiller

    Why won't Al Gore debate Lord Moncton or any other scientist about his Larry Moe and Curly contention that breathing is the equivalent of spewing cyanide gas into the air,

    December 8, 2009 at 9:11 pm |
  62. Johnston

    Mr. Gore:

    What do you think should be done with an american president who committed mass murder inside and outside his country, who lied continually to his people and to the rest of the world? What do you think should we do with politicians who, following orders from individuals and corporations, plot to enslave and exterminate humanity? What should we do with individuals who, using the vast quantities of money they acquire by squishing honest citizens, plan to become the absolute an undisputed tyrants of all humankind? What should we do with all of you?

    December 8, 2009 at 9:09 pm |
  63. georg windisch

    Mr. Gore,

    what hope do we have if politics are so much controlled by oil companies lobbiests?
    how can we break this dangerous link? how can we make people understand that we have the knowledge and know-how
    to change the world if only we are prepared to change and keep politics out of our environment?

    thank you, georg

    December 8, 2009 at 9:04 pm |
  64. Junaid

    Mr. Gore! If you face such criticism that you' are earning commission by promoting new green technologies then why don't you take start from such things which are unobjectionable like starting an efficient CO2 absorbing trees plantation movement all around the world. All car manufacturing or such industries should be given a compulsory agenda to plant trees relative to CO2 emission caused by their products.

    December 8, 2009 at 8:47 pm |
  65. Chris Bennett

    Mr Gore,

    It seems to me that there are two different propositions, which are often conflated.

    1) The earth is warming
    2) The warming is caused by human activity, specifically human activities that lead to carbon dioxide being released into the atmosphere

    For myself, I'm content that the first proposition is true. However, the evidence for the second seems less certain. It seems that human originated carbon dioxide emissions only explain a very small amount of the atmospheric carbon dioxide and that temperatures have not moved as predicted by the models in response to carbon dioxide levels.

    My questions:

    What is the evidence that convinces you that global warming is due to human activity?
    What are the other explanations of global warming that you have considered? And, why did you reject them?

    Thank you

    December 8, 2009 at 8:44 pm |
  66. Barbara Otis

    Vice President Gore I recently heard you speak at Dominican College in San Rafael, California. You stated then that one of the most important factors in the environmental health of the world was "Political Will." You shared your definition with us in the audience, but can you please share with everyone else who may be watching or listening what you mean by "Political Will."

    December 8, 2009 at 8:30 pm |
  67. Pradeep, New Delhi

    While we all do need to be conscious of how much we pollute our environment, I don't subscribe to the doom theories on global warming. Our Earth is an intelligent living entity, that changes/adjusts based on what mankind does .. and yes it does compensate favourably ... all the time. For eons, the volcanoes have been emitting CO2 to keep our planet warm, and this adjusts with the times. It is a complex cycle involving oceans, rainforests etc ... and it is dynamic. The ice caps are melting due to high gamma ray activity, and are in fact re-locating as part of the dymanic adjustment of Earth; the magnetic poles have shifted over the last couple of decades ... all to make adjustments to accomodate mans growing needs. There is a theory that the ice caps melt with lead to more drinking water sources, which the increasing nbr of humans need!

    December 8, 2009 at 8:10 pm |
  68. Tony Healy

    Mr. Gore,

    Judging by the emails already sent in, shouldn't we be working on Education prior to Global Warming? English Language, Proper Grammar?

    I do appreciate the efforts you have made and are making in the quest to slow man-kinds contributions to global warming.

    Thank you.

    December 8, 2009 at 8:04 pm |
  69. Joao Almeida

    Many of the comments posted in this site show how incredibly self-centered some people are. It's obviously painful to consider the changes we may have to undergo in case half of what is being said about global warming is true. So, why not just ignore it and come up with ridiculous comments and counter-arguments that can only convince people with less than 2 brain cells?...
    Do yourself some justice and at least admit what's really going on – you either don't care or are too dumb to understand...

    December 8, 2009 at 7:52 pm |
  70. Daryl M

    Thanks to whomever the hero was who leaked the CRU files, the world now knows what everyone suspected all along. AGW alarmism is based on corruption and fraud. Just like Southpark's mockery of Al Gore's Manbearpig (half-man, half-bear, half-pig), AGW is half-religion, half-greed, half-corruption, half-lust for power and half-pseudoscience.

    My question for Mr. Gore is if he is so confident of his position, why is he afraid to have a one on one debate with any prominent sceptic such as Christopher Monckton?

    John, since you are interviewing the pathological liar Al Gore, why not provide equal time to the other side of the debate by interviewing any prominent sceptic such as Stephen McIntyre, Ross McKitrick, Christopher Essex, Timothy Ball, Anthony Watts or Christopher Monckton? There are many more.

    December 8, 2009 at 7:50 pm |
  71. ceaser

    May be nature is cycling but human is accelerating it. so the damage is enormous. what is the efficient way to avoid it?

    December 8, 2009 at 7:43 pm |
  72. Saygin Celen

    I think when we criticize people, we should look first at ourselves in the mirror. Gore had a life changing experience in 2000 and he directed his will and strength to another global topic, Global Warming. We should look at how important steps he takes for the humanity as just a person, instead of how much fuel he consumes in his personal life. Many people won´t realize the seriuosness until cities get effected by global see rise etc. Industrialization is out of control and we should ask by ´´globalization´´ together, how can we find environmental friendly solutions using technology. What is the 10 year plan? What are the exact goals of the climate talks in Copenhagen? Thank you.

    December 8, 2009 at 7:41 pm |
  73. John Scarry

    A question for Al Gore.

    We know thar the planet goes through climate cycles of warming and cooling and that right now we are in one of the warming cycles. We also know that mankind is adding to this warming cycle due to our many activites.

    Is there any hard scientific evidence that shows just how much we humans are speeding up this cycle? Can/will he give a historical/geologic time summery of these cycles and put it in perspective for our age in relation to geologic history?
    Thank you. Jack Scarry Waikiki Beach, HI.

    December 8, 2009 at 7:41 pm |
  74. Gary Stevason

    Good day,

    I will explain the solution to pollution, to Global Warming, to violence in the classroom, in fact to war on every corner, and just about every other plague we now face (except the economy): DETACHMENT. It is the only solution and it has been taught by all the saints and wise men since words were invented. Listen.

    We are all simply too attached to this phantasmagoric world, getting and spending, turning the woodland to a gutter as the poem goes.

    Unfortunately the economy (Harnessing Greed) depends on the philosophical reality prevalent of MORE MORE NOW NOW. So there are bound to be some major bumps in our road to sanity. But that road must be followed, and it starts with each and every human heart on the planet.

    We must cleanse our hearts of these unpleasant excessive urges and hankerings and get back in tune with the stars and the chipmunks. It's an wonderful world if we take time to perceive.

    Of course, it is easier to squeeze an elephant through a keyhole than for a wealthy (attached) man to become unattached to the titillating circus we have created here for our mesmerized amusement. And that, ladies and gentlemen is our folly; and it represents our only sane safe path to redemption.

    Otherwise, we will kill each other to reduce the karmic environmental footprint, that we may continue enjoying our attachments – not entirely unlike the heroin junkie who kills for his fix.

    Just being alive, just having a ticket to this amazing reality show is quite satisfying and wonderful enough for anyone. That ocean of wonderment is not increased when we throw a Cadillac into it, or take a Porsche out of it. All these THINGS are inconsequential considering the overpowering ocean's depth. So it is .....

    Love you all,


    December 8, 2009 at 7:40 pm |
  75. sandra - san antonio

    I am soooo sick of ignorant, narrow-minded bigots who wouldn't believe any science if the evidence hit them in the face!
    But, I say tell them, if they're so skeptical, they should go up to Greenland, and see the evidence first hand for themselves! And, when the water starts rising near their homes, not to cry to the people w/brains to bail them out!
    Last, I came from snow country (western NY state), and when I was a kid, I remembered huge snow storms w/very cold temps., and now it is no longer that cold nor do they get that much snow – that tells me, as well as it should tell skeptics, something!

    -Thank you

    December 8, 2009 at 7:33 pm |
  76. m holm

    Mr. Gore,

    Do you see Global Warming/Climate Change skeptics in the same light as those who believe that the earth is flat?

    December 8, 2009 at 7:26 pm |
  77. Matt

    Mr. Gore:

    I believe it makes sense, scientifically, to see the earth as a living organism. Just as any living organism is a system of complex and dynamic interactions, so too is the earth. At present, how well can we realistically say we understand the way our host works? If the earth is experiencing a warming trend, it seems to me short-sighted and careless to point the finger at the obvious correlation between global temperature and CO2 levels and say, "this is the problem, and we are the cause." How many other factors are there? How many other natural systems are at work here? What are they? How do they work? How can we account for all of them?

    I am not a skeptic when it comes to climate change. The earth is always changing. This planet has gone through many cycles of warming and cooling without the "help" of human beings. It can safely be assumed that it will continue to do so regardless of you or I. At worst, human CO2 emissions may be accelerating the current warming trend by some calcuable degree.

    My question to you is this: Are we not missing the bigger picture, Mr. Gore? Should we not, instead, be asking ourselves "what can we do now to make our species and our civilization more adaptable to inevitable climate changes in the near and long-term future?"

    Reducing human greenhouse gas emissions and conserving resources are critical measures in that they may buy us a little more time to learn and prepare for the bigger picture. But learn and prepare we must if we wish to survive. Perhaps, if we come to understand our host organism and all its complexities to a sufficient degree, we may learn to stabilize its climate. Who knows? We may even learn to become an asset; to enhance the planet and make it stronger in way that we can not even imagine today.

    December 8, 2009 at 7:26 pm |
  78. Tony Hebert

    Mr. Gore,

    What Contributions did the late Carl Sagan make to the Global Warming debate?

    I ask this question because if I am not mistaken it was Dr. Sagan who postulated in the early 60's that Venus was hot and dry as opposed to the belief by some scientist at the time who thought that Venus had a temperate climate like earth.

    We now know, thanks to Dr. Sagan, that Venus suffered from a runaway greenhouse effect with surface temperatures as high as 900 F.

    There are two extreme possibilities in the Global Warming debate.

    1. The Pro Global Warming people get their way and we try to regulate pollution to stave off the temperature rise only to realize it was a natural warming cycle and the world will suffer through another great economic depression. But then life returns to normal and we freeze dry all the liberals.

    2. The Anti Global Warming people get their way and it is business as usual then, at some point in the future, the earth's climate reaches a tipping point and the planet falls victim to the same run away greenhouse effect that Venus suffered and then there will be no one around to blame because all life as we know it will be extinct.

    I think I will go with option 1

    December 8, 2009 at 7:25 pm |
  79. VIP

    Dear Mr. Gore,
    How did you get to Copenhagen? By private jet and a limousine or did you bicycle there? It would be interesting to know.

    December 8, 2009 at 7:21 pm |
  80. Ora Ivancic'

    Dear Mr. Gore,

    First I would like to thank you for your determination to educate global citizens, including myself, about the immediacy of the global warming crisis.

    Since the consequences of warming are already upon us, and also accelerating, I consider the restraint within our leadership to be alarmingly cavalier. My fear is that the dogged cynicism of some will not thaw before all the glaciers have.

    Is there an environmental database available where global citizens
    can learn the actions of each of their representatives, at all governing levels, and determine which of them are taking serious measures to address this crisis now before the consequences are irreversible or so costly as to be economically devastating?


    Nel Ivancic'

    December 8, 2009 at 7:18 pm |
  81. Logic

    John Lockwood, did you read the emails in their entirety? Are you familiar with all the work that is being done to study the effects of Global Warming or are you just going on your gut instinct? For your information, those emails did nothing to disclaim the study of global warming and in no way did they attempt to "mask the truth." It's like if you were a scientist studying evolution. Would you include studies done by creationists that under their closed systems were able to prove that humans did indeed exist with dinosaurs? No, that has been clearly disproven, so why would anyone ruin a set of conclusive data because some idiot wanted to include their false opinions on a scientific study.

    December 8, 2009 at 7:16 pm |
  82. johnq

    How do the global warming deniers reconcile the fact, that, to date, the only criticism against global warming is rhetorical mud slinging? There has been no scientific attempt to defeat it. You can only call names for so long before people say "where's your argument?"

    They always talk about these "dissenting scientists", where are they? Why aren't they disproving things left and right? I see them mentioned, I just never see them.

    We've got all these bloggers saying "hey don't we have cycles of weather patterns" like it's some kind of winning argument.The Earth goes in cycles yes, and that's exactly how they know they are right. We are not where we're supposed to be in our cycle, the only variable is our well documented greenhouse gases.

    Global warming has been scientific fact for decades. It's not that debate is outlawed, it's that no dissenter has successfully contradicted it.

    December 8, 2009 at 7:15 pm |
  83. Logic

    Al Gore did not claim to have invented the internet. He helped pave the way for what the internet is today. Way to go David in AZ, keep watching FOX news. You're probably sitting their in your whitey tighties with a Palin 2012 shirt on. Get a job and a clue.

    December 8, 2009 at 7:10 pm |
  84. John Lockwood

    The emails show an aggressive attempt to mask the truth that there is no such thing as global warming. Mr. Gore and company are frauds. This is nothing more than a hidden cap and trade tax to pay for a New World Order Government. A government that the people of America have no control over. Kind of like the one we have now. Wake up people. Instead of discussing this nonsense we should be arresting the criminals in our government that committed the murders on 9/11 before they do it again.

    December 8, 2009 at 6:58 pm |
  85. Logic

    Are you sometimes discouraged/embarrassed when a person who has done little/no research on the subject tries to argue against global warming and man's excessive contribution to it??

    Now that a few bad apples have shed light on removing useless data from climate change studies (emails) have you noticed intelligent, logical human beings becoming skeptics of global warming?? I would be surprised but stranger things have happened.

    Do you hate it as much as me when you have to tell someone that "Yes the planet's temperature rises and falls, but due to human interference the planet's temperatures have increased significantly signaling an obvious relationship that real scientists can't ignore. If something is not done soon the future of our planet will change drastically. That's fine for ignoramuses living in cities but what about someone who lives in Alaska and relies heavily on it's NATURAL RESOURCES. Coldwater fishing in Alaska produces some of the largest runs of fish and shellfish, but with ocean temperatures rising to dangerous levels I have seen the salmon runs fall drastically and and warmer water pests increase at alarming rates."

    I don't know about you but I'm sick of people from Sacramento or someother ignorant breeding ground telling me Global Warming is a hoax. I'm sure that all the intelligent people in the world got together and decided to develop a conspiracy so big that scientists (now dead) from a century before were in on it. Wow, makes the 9/11 conspiracy look like child's play. Funny how all the crazy people seem to believe in these conspiracies, almost like they're afraid of something. They're afraid others around them will realize how dumb they are. Sad but true. You can't fix stupid.

    December 8, 2009 at 6:52 pm |
  86. james

    “In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill.”
– Club of Rome, The First Global Revolution 1991

    What do you have to say about this gore?

    December 8, 2009 at 6:51 pm |
  87. Bern Cervantes

    in the late 1800, char/coal was a suitable fuel; in the 1900 fossil fuel was economical and efficient. How suitable are renewable fuels now? If ethanol was the fuel of choice for the model T but not cost efficient then, how can it be efficient now with the rising price of corn and environmental concerns of transformed lands? What is the compromisable equation?

    December 8, 2009 at 6:49 pm |
  88. VIP

    Dear Mr. Gore,
    As a non scientist you seem to have all the answers. Here's a good question you should be able to answer: How did people manage to operate successful farms (growing wheat) in Greenland only a thousand years ago? It only came to an end with the so-called 'small ice age' since then. I obtained a global temperature chart for the last 18,000 years, put together by Cambridge University, according to it, the majority of the last 10,000 years were considerably warmer than our climate today. Without any human input and without any of the disasters you are predicting. No doubt there has been global warming, it's a recovery from the last ice age 20,000 years ago, but your 'hockey stick' is an outright lie.

    December 8, 2009 at 6:49 pm |
  89. james

    Scientific Method
    – The improper of natural knowledge absolutely refuses to acknowledge authority, as such for him, skepticism is the highest of duties, blind faith the one unpardonable sin."
    -T.H. Huxley

    Why is it when someone questions climate change you call them "Flat Earthers" or "Holocaust Deniers" How dare you attack people for asking questions. May God Have Mercy On Your Soul Al. Go ahead and laugh but inside you know you're wrong and you're doing this to make billions.

    December 8, 2009 at 6:47 pm |
  90. J virnig

    Mr. Gore,
    U.S. agriculture as currently practiced emits 1.5 trillion pounds of CO2 annually. If all U.S. crop land were converted to organic farming principles the U.S. would wipe out agriculture's emission problem, and net the U.S. 734 billion pounds of sequestered carbon (Rodale institute). Strangely, the agricultural component is not in the Cap & Trade program. Just tells me that politics caps concern for the environment, and trading gas will be big business for Wall Street. That seems fitting.

    December 8, 2009 at 6:47 pm |
1 2