The man has ascended to the ultimate heights of public visibility and honors, yet when asked simple questions, he bristles at having to answer.

But then this is the Gore polemic...all who oppose are evil...all who submit are good.

Last night I watched "Inherit the Wind" on KCLS.    While watching Fredick March play Matthew Harrison Brady (read: William Jennings Bryant), I thought of Gore...a man who made his own populist following...but was not electable.    Only this time the tables are turned...it is the model building rationalists who have to defend an ill defined "religion".    Challenges cannot be met logically, so sneers and IPCC Assessment thumping are returned.

I wish that all sides could be heard.    Yes, Gore as a businessman has every right to spend his money as he sees fit.   That is the American Way.    However, I fail to see why people cannot also appreciate the 1 Billion per year that George Bush funded for hydrogen and other technologies that will truly reduce CO2 pollution and bring us to a greener future.

Tell us, why re you saying reducing CO2 a desirable goal?  Why do you think less CO2 is greener?

As for why we pay no attention to the token efforts of GW Bush? Because he did his absolute best to defeat any true effect those token efforts had. Witness the endless round of soap opera drama he played with the California waiver request, and the fact that the same Supreme Court who decided his electoral fate had to tell him it was his job to actually do something about climate change.

It took the man 6 years to mention that it was a problem. 6 valuable years.

This will depend on what you call greener.  Unless you wish to deny the basic relationship between CO2 and temperature, or are ignorant of it, greener appears to mean avoiding a man-made environmental catastrophe.  I think a better name for climate change or global warming would be global flooding.  There will be lots of jobs in the future for architects, civil engineers, and moving fan drivers as humanity faces the reality of rising sea levels.  Anyone who has seen the historical graphs of CO2 versus temperature could only come to one of three conclusions:

1.  Rising CO2 levels cause rising temperatures

2.  Rising temperatures cause rising CO2 levels

3.  Some outside factor(s) cause both to move in sync

There are those who claim that rising temperatures cause the oceans to release CO2.  While gases are less soluble in warmer liquids, from what I have read, the oceans are becoming more acidic due to absorbing CO2, so that appears to dispel option 2.

I am assuming that Mr. Johnson is aware of the fact that CO2 absorbs the wavelength of radiation that is re-radiated into space by the earth, thus causing the increase in temperature that we are observing.  That is the basis for the science.

I have not heard of any outside factors that have not been explained by the climate scientists.

In case Mr. Johnson does not believe that we are warming, I can partially understand that.  I did a bit of research on my own a few years ago.  My premise was that people who lived in warm climates do not notice any difference in temperature.  I live in a Minneapolis suburb, and summers do not appear to be any different than 40 years ago, however winters have changed drastically.  I researched temperatures at the Minneapolis-St. Paul airport, from 1960-1967 versus 2000-2007.  July highs are 1.x degrees warmer than 40 years ago.  Hardly noticable.  July overnight lows are 4.x degrees warmer than 40 years ago.  Who notices overnight lows in the summer?  January highs are 6.x degrees warmer than 40 years ago.  This is noticable.  January overnight lows are 9.x degrees warmer than 40 years ago.  Very noticeable.  Mr. Johnson is not going to have to deal with the most serious consequences of global flooding, but Mr. Johnson's grandchildren may have to put up with million of refugees in this country who have to relocate because  Miami, or Houston, or NYC has flooded.

Funny how money and re-election are more important to these people than food and water. Just wait til the food and water start running out in North America (which won't be too far off) -- they'll be stepping on their kids to get to whatever's left first. Such a brazen display of gall and slimy lack of compassion. "Intergenerational remote tyranny" is what Bill McDonough calls it, although it ain't so remote anymore (can you say Californian drought?).

If it looked like Gore was bristling, it was probably due to a great deal of inner struggle not to blurt out what he really thought of her and her insinuations. He is such a gentleman for one who takes such crap from the country that once elected him their president. He is such a hero to the rest of us.

Sorry you had to write all of that out.  OMG Im laughing so hard.