QUOTE(Allen @ Nov 25 2006, 07:37 PM)
Here is an interesting site with a link to 17,200 scientists that disagree with Al Gore. "Facts" indeed. One glaring error is blaming the lack of snow at Kilimanjaro on global warming. The real culprit is deforestation by the locals. Also who's to say that snow atop Kili doesn't come and go? His movie is a one sided diatribe filled with errors and conjecture. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. Do you really think that if we wanted to change the Earth's temperature one degree in either direction, we could? http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm
Not sure how you think he could have stopped the so called man made warming trend. And that is the real discussion, whether the trend is man made and not a natural cycle. Scientists 30 years ago were calling for something to be done about global cooling. There have been warming periods and cooling periods long before man. Gore may have tried to pass Kyoto, but that would have done nothing to stop India, China and others from polluting the atmosphere with what he calls harmful gases. Look beyond the rhetoric to find answers. And as usual follow the money. No one gets follow up grants to claim that global warming is not man made. However there is an almost endless supply of money if you claim that man is the cause of all of the Earths problems.
Here is a Canadian response to AGW.http://www.canadafreepress.com/2006/harris061206.htm
Have I decided? No. There are tons of research for both sides. I am not an alarmist. I am not claiming you are either. There is a lot of info out there.
The thing about action by both the US and Canada to prevent global warming would be that it would allow, humbly
, leaders of these nations to say to other countries "Hey we have taken steps to prevent this danger, could you please too." Do the risks of no action out weight the inconveniences of taking action?