Al Gore's Logo Looks Very Familiar

Interesting. Have a look for yourself at the Women's Entertainment logo: http://www.wetv.com/

i think the 'green circle' also represents a 'green planet.'

and i think those who wish to go off-topic might be better served if they also went off to a more politically-oriented website. this one was devised to focus on advertising.

Regardless, it is uninspired, unoriginal, and, dare I say, downright old-fashioned in appearance --- not the sort of words you want brought to mind when you are trying to prod people into a "new" way of thinking.

i'm sitting here on the horns of a dilemma - with serious concerns about the effects of human-activity-induced global climate change and the realization that i do not personally have command of all the salient facts.

forget about gore. the key question is: should i align myself with thousands of highly-credible ipcc scientists from more than 160 countries around the world who have seriously investigated the issue for decades and have almost unanimously conluded that people on this planet are facing a potential calamity of unimaginable proportion - or should i side with the politically-biased opinions from a handful of advertising practitioners who probably have professional client and/or industry relationships to promote and protect?

what does one do? what should anyone who truly values intellect, logic, reason, clear thinking and common sense do? [no need to reply, these are retorical questions]

this is last call for me on this topic, but with all the misleading information floating around here, i feel compelled to respond.

[1] maybe even four billion years, or more. climate fluctuation is a thoroughly natural and normal result of the physical changes planet earth experiences during its on-going evolution.

[2]since the industrial revolution began more than 200 years ago, human induced activities have released billions and billions of tons of co2 into the air.
http://micpohling.wordpress.com/2007/03/30/math-how-much-co2-by-weight-in-the-atmosphere/].
that co2 does not just magically disappear or float harmlessly away into outer space - it remains trapped in the earth's atmosphere where it in turn traps increasing amounts of heat. and there is simply so much of it in our atmosphere now, that it is adversely affecting global climate conditions. and this situation will continue to worsen as long as humans continue adding co2.

[3] i wouldn't put much faith in any information noaa has released to the public regarding global climate change because, like many other official government agencies, noaa has been muzzled for several years by the now-universally-discredited, 'we don't need no stinkin' science' bush administration. suggest you fire up the google and see for yourself: "noaa muzzled by bush." here's the link. adios.

http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en-us&q=noaa+muzzled+by+bush&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8

[1] No duh.
[2] c02 isn't the only issue - http://www.michaelcrichton.com/speech-ourenvironmentalfuture.html
[3] You put no faith in NOAA, but instead place your faith in a guy who "invented the internet" and whose own scientists don't agree with his findings

Have another glass of koolaid, dude.

re: 'your [1]' - no big deal. you originally quoted a number of "about three billion" but according to information at my disposal, you've come up short by about a billion or a billion-and-a-half. a significant discrepancy. may I assume it was just a rounding error on your part?

re: 'your [2]' – checked out the content from your link and concluded that i can't put much faith in michael crichton's statements either. you are aware of the fact that he's a novelist, right? he writes fiction. he fudges facts. here are three helpful links offering critical but valid assessments of crichton and his misleading and/or outright erroneous declarations, from his book 'state of fear.'

http://www.edf.org/article.cfm?contentID=4371 [environmental defense fund website with specific content on crichton and book] http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2005/2/1/162744/5081 [review of crichton's book: 'state of fear']
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=74 [climate science from climate scientists – website run by gavin schmidt, climate scientist at nasa's goddard institute for space studies]

re: 'your [3]' - i certainly have no faith whatsoever in anything the bush regime corrupts. i'll leave you with a few quotes followed by the appropriate links, so that you may easily explore them at your leisure, if you have the curiosity and courage to do so.

"...tailoring scientific fact for political purposes has become a problem across many federal science agencies...under the bush administration examples of political interference in science no longer appear to be to isolated incidents but 'a system-wide epidemic'..." – dr. francesca grifo, director of the union of concerned scientists' scientific integrity program

"...interference with communications of science to the public has been greater during the current [bush] administration than at any time during my career..." – james hansen, director of nasa's goddard institute for space studies and one of the first scientists to raise concerns about climate change in the early 1980's

"a 2006 report by the union of concerned scientists and the government accountability project included a survey of hundreds of federal scientists at seven federal agencies and dozens of in-depth interviews that revealed 73 percent of [the] respondents perceived inappropriate interference with climate science research over the past five years."

other fields have also been threatened: the department of the interior [endangered species, conservation]; the food and drug administration [contraceptive drugs] and the environmental protection agency.

http://www.tjcenter.org/muzzles/muzzle-archive-2007/

and finally - reserving the best for last - one professional historian's description of bush as someone "...encouraging a mindless retreat from science and rationalism..."

http://hnn.us/articles/48916.html [i gotta sneaky feeling you're gonna love this one]

Personally, I'd rather trust the people than self-appointed pundits. And I'd trust the guy who never claimed to have invented the Internet rather than the liars and fools who still claim he said it.

http://www.snopes.com/quotes/internet.asp