"Btw. taks, why do you have so much against Al Gore? Do you have some grand overall knowledge of what he's doing? What is it he stands to benefit if he can convince people to help reverse climate changes? I mean he's already rich, he already got cheated of the presidency, so what is it?"
He just took the 'must hate' crown from Michael Moore among everyone but democrats is all.
"I do agree w/Sawyer that environment issue doesn't need to be "proved" before being acted upon - at the rate we consume things combined with population the past 100-150 years, it'd be naive to think we won't need a lot of changes sooner than we'd like to think, regardless of global warming...even if it means some eventual government "interference" and possibly some loss of what we now consider to be our inalienable rights, or whatever."
Humans have too short a lifespan to act on threats that follow a geological timeline. Even 'doom in 300 years' is too long to really concern us, we would rather pretend the problem doesen't exist, and have been doing a pretty good job of it, and there is a more valid question of whether trying to solve poverty and overpopulation is not a more worthwhile use of the resources spent on cutting carbon gass emissions, especially since even under the best case scenario we are only able to postpone the problem.