Eric, you say "There is nothing to be gained by trying to disprove Global Warming." Of course there is. If I'm the CEO of a company whose factories are pumping pollutants into the air and I can convince people that they're doing no harm, than I won't have pay to filter the factory output. If I work for an oil company or a car company or an airline, it's in my best interest to keep people buying and using my product, and if people believe in Global Warming then there maybe a decrease in my revenue.
And what about the political gain? If I'm a politician denying Global Warming and I can convince voters that people who believe in Global Warming are idiots and my opponent believes in Global Warming, than I might gain an election win.

Global warming has never been proven to be caused by man to begin with. "They" and the "scientists" that Gore refers to are never named in the film. He makes some claims, points to a chart and the sheep believe him. A CEO of a company has nothing to disprove. He only has to defend himself and his product from zealots who are eager to blame some one rich. No one protests the poor Africans or impoverished folks of Madagascar who have destroyed countless acres of trees as a fuel source. It is only the wealthy companies who feel the sting of accusations from environmentalists, as there is much to be gained by blaming companies with money. Money that can be taken from them through regulations and taxes. Personal individual gain by a CEO or a politician is nothing compared to the power gained by a government able to fool millions of people into thinking that regulations, higher taxes and restricting their freedom is good for them.

The point Nancy makes is valid. CEO's stand to gain monetarily by disproving Global Warming as it will mean less costly restrictions on the pollution from their factories and capitalism is all about the bottom line as we all know. It doesn't matter that you think they shouldn't have to disprove it.

Eric, do you disagree with evolution too, that has never been proven either?

Or how would they keep selling those gas guzzling SUVs if people started actually worrying about gas mileage or pollutants?

Of course a company, any company, does not want negative aspects of it told to the public, be cigarettes, chocolate or factory polution. We are not talking about polution, we are talking about man causing global warming. There is not prove that we cause it, and much of the information used by man made global alarmist has been disproved.

Scott, People buy SUVs because they are big and you feel safer driving in them. We have all heard the alarmist tell us about pollutants. Hell, Al Gore has flown all over the world in air polluting jets and driven to speeches in air polluting limos telling any one who listens that they should not use air polluting vehicles.
Some people do not give a damn! They just want to drive their kids to school in the safest vehicle they can afford.

How ironic that the vehicle they think is safe is actually slowly destroying the planet. Eric, can you name one legitimate scientific group in the world who believes that humanity isn't at least partially responsible for climate change?

Eric you didn't answer my question about evolution.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/6815681/Climate-change-is-natural-not-man-made.html

We are discussing supposed man made global climate change, not evolution on this thread. Go to Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed review for that conversation.

I say reputable and you quote a Daily Telegraph article - the most extreme right-wing tabloid in the UK - about a group who is funded by Margaret Thatcher? Clearly we have different definitions of legitimate.

Scott, I could bring up countless articles that disagree with Al Gore, whose eveidence is anything but legitimate, but you will dismiss them all as you have your mind set. So be it. That article pointed out how much of the "evidence" used to "prove" man made global warming has been found to be false, and yet you still believe Gore. I know it feels safe to be a sheep, but sheep live in a false sense of security, thinking their numbers alone make them so. Step away from the herd and think for yourself.

Eric, anyone with any sense knows that 2+2=4. Does that make me a sheep for knowing it also? Gore is inconsequential to climate change and I have no strong feelings towards him one way or the other. What I do have is an intelligent and analytical mind that has weighed the evidence and seen that it shows that mankind has contributed to climate change.

I believe you have analyzed one side of the issue and made a decision. If you truly investigated man made global warming you would consider the cycles of nature, the cycle of ice ages, sunspots. There are so many things that affect the earth's temperature that have nothing to do with man. Global warming is bogus because of this simple question that no one on earth can answer. What is the temperature of our world supposed to be?

So you think I've never heard of the Ice Ages or sunspots?

And to answer your "unanswerable" question, it needs to be a temperature that will support enough livestock and crops to feed the world's population.

In other words, you don't know. No one does. When plants once grew in areas of Greenland that are now covered in ice. Was that the right temperature then? When we had ice covering Mighigan, was that the Earth at it's correct temp? Is todays temps correct? Maybe we are supposed to be at a higher temp. Who knows. No one.

I don't think anyone denies that the Earth's climate goes through its own natural cycles of warming and cooling. But that doesn't mean that humans aren't also adding to it. This argument is never going to be resolved as you both have your minds made up already.

I do know. I just explained it to you. There's a very narrow window of temperature that we need the planet's temperature to remain in. That's the temperature the planet is supposed to be if we want humanity to survive. So no, it's not supposed to be as cold as it was during the ice age. And no, it's not supposed to be super hot either.

Patrick I agree with all three of your points.

Maybe it is supposed to be super hot or super cold. Maybe man was not supposed to be here to begin with?

Obama gave 500 million dollars, that he borrowed from China, to a green company that makes solar panels. It ends up going belly up very soon afterwards. Where is the money? How do you guys not see that man made global Warming is more about politics and power than the environment?

Eric, how can you not see that all the politics in the world does nothing to change the science behind global warming?

I'm not interested in nor advocating any political solution to global warming. I'm the most apolitical person I know. I find all politics to be boring as hell and suspect all politicians of being phoney and corrupt. I certainly don't deny that liberals will try to use it to their political advantage, but I also know that conservatives will deny it for the same purpose. None of that changes the science.

That is where our argument truly lies. You see this as a scientific problem and I see it as a political one.