TED releases Gore's new thinking on Climate change

Al Gore makes a pile of money off global warming and the fools who buy into it. Don't be a fool. If he could substantiate any of his findings he may actually engage in debate rather than causing panic among the masses so that he can profit from fear of the weather.

He admits freely that he is invested in "green" technologies that would benefit him should they go mainstream. What ever you think, the loss of ice is real and it is worrying. Ice is what keeps us warm in the winter and cool in the summer. And, it is the later effect that is most worrying.

It may be troubling to you, but it is hardly a crisis. This year we actually had lower than average temps and in Minnesota it snowed in april (I'm happy we're not playing outdoor baseball yet). If the cooling trend continues does that mean we're headed for another ice age? What's the answer then more CO2 to add more green house gas to warm the planet?

Seriously the thing that bothers me most about gore is his unwillingness to debate the issue. He is allowed a forum to say whatever he wants uncontested and that is never a good idea. In addition to this he profits from the hysteria he creates. How does admitting it make it right?

Come spend a winter here in Minnesota and you might have second thoughts about global warming.

Well, maybe global warming isn't the best label. The ice pack acts to moderate. Without it we will be subject to wild swings. That means both colder and warmer at the same time. Depending upon where you are in Minnesota you may miss out on lake effect. Which is to say being near the water, a large heat sync, doesn't allow weather too cold or too warm. Deserts have no capacity to dampen and they suffer from large swings in temp. State change from ice to water takes a lot of energy for a very small change in temp. This implies that after the ice is gone we could see wild swings with temps much higher than what we are experiencing today. Water will still moderate but it can't do as good a job as ice does.

I'm with Rob on this one. Gore's "facts" don't match with reality. Here's one article on the arctic ice issue that contradicts his statements (http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=8583): One of the most dramatic results of the record cold over much of the planet is the reversal of the much-reported melt of the icebergs in the Arctic Ocean. Last autumn the world was alarmed to hear from certain climatologists that the ice in the Arctic had melted to its "lowest levels on record." What was carefully omitted from those scare stories was the fact that those records only date back as far as 1972, and that there is anthropological and geological evidence of much greater melts in the past.

Now, as a result of the recent record cold weather, the ice is back. According to Gilles Langis, a senior forecaster with the Canadian Ice Service in Ottawa, the Arctic winter has been so severe the ice has not only recovered, it is actually 10 to 20 cm thicker in many places than at this time last year.

What few people know and what the Global Warming lobby seems at pains to keep known is the fact that there is considerable seasonal variation in how much pack ice of the Arctic ice pack covers the Arctic Ocean. Much of the ocean is also covered in snow for about 10 months of the year. The maximum snow cover is in March or April - about 20 to 50 centimeters over the frozen ocean. The thickness is not one of the universal constants, never was.

Isn't there a great similarity between benchmarking and interpretation of physical phenomena? It's so easy to miss the truth if you haven't deep understanding of subject. And I'm afraid that Gore and his green fellows don't know about principles of correct result's interpretation.

Good point Vladimir. Gavin Menzes wrote about how China discovered the world in the early to mid 1420s. In his writing, he mentions evidence that one set of ships sales *around* Greenland. Even in the ice depleted state we are in today, this isn't possible. If Gavin is correct, it does suggest that Gore and his cronies are crying wolf. I've also heard a theory (and this is stretching things as I can't reference a source for it), that a cosmic event resulting in a lowering of temperatures was in part responsible for the dark ages. Google found this link http://www.sott.net/a rticles/show/150499-The-European-Dark-Age-And-Welsh-Oral-Tradition-on-the-t rail-of-The-Dragon-.

So, do I agree that there is much we don't know? For sure! There have been periods lasting millions of years where temps never reached a high of -40 at the equator. However, if man is responsible for changing the climate and there was something that we could do about it that was also better for the environment, isn't it worth trying? I don't really care if Gore gets rich over it if there is an overall benefit. Other parties will continue to get rich if we follow the status quo. Someone is always going to get rich and others will lose. But in the end if there is a net + gain.....