Barbara...since I doubt Al will answer on this page, I will...I guess to follow this people will have to have 2 windows open:

1: I noticed the same thing, and mentioned part of it in my post (the small scale ice at the glacier front). I could expand on this by guessing that since it was calving into the sea, if it was an Alaskan glacier it may have been healthy. But, the collapse of the Larson Ice shelf on the Antarctic peninsula, which was shown in the film, is not considered normal. (Yes, the graph showed damage which includes what is being built, but this may have been fair enough if explained a little better if it was to represent what is at stake from more severe storms. Tornado counts cannot be compared over decades because detection is better now. So, OK, was misleading in film.

2: I generally disagree with #2...I can't say whether in fact there have been a few peer review studies that dispute warming is man caused. It would not surprise me if AAPG would publish these (petroleum geologists, see earlier thread). A national USA National Science Foundation program director in a talk to the public that I attended a few years ago said that theer are 1000 scientists who think it is man-related, while 4 do not, but the 4 get a lot of press....as pointed out in the press coverage statistic in the film.

3: I though the politics was limited and mild....and depends on how you took it.....his graphs showed CO2 increasing almost as fast in the Clinton administration as the Bush administration...I think Gore's point was that the problem was not being taken seriously enough by almost anyone, and he is frustrated by that.

4: My first impression was "so"? It's probably both...orbital factors modulate the climate on 100,000 year time scales (and 40,000, etc), and orbital-induced warming may contribute to enhanced CO2 release, which accelerates the warming. That is the point!

5: Irrelvant to the science of whether there is a problem. Relevant to the solutions, but that is not what I am focusing on. This guy seems to be grasping....has a very weak case.

6: The was a really stupid comment on the polar bear animation...of course it is not likely that there would be a film of a polar bear drowning (the whole sequence) far at sea. As for sea ice concentrations, there are historical records to a point, but not satellite based. I think it highly likely that the last couple years the sea ice covered area of the Artic Ocean were far less. If that is not know now though, it may be unknowable.

7: I'll pass on Kyoto...I am more interested in this post on whether:
global warming has occurred the last 50 years
whether it is related to man's activities
how severe the consequences might be on various time scales.

8:...Al may have made the solution look a little easy. I was pretty low carbon user when I worked for an oil company in New Orleans: I did not own a car, biked to work most days and bus some, needed to use heat very little, and window airconditioner only on bedroom....my big carbon uses were related to my office building, and flying once in a while. I am responsible for far more CO2 release now, and it seems like more each year, and I am concerned about that...I talk the talk but don't walk the walk...despite some efforts to do so.

There is nothing very serious in this link questioning that there is global warming, and that it is man-induced. It sounds more like this guy was more miffed that Al called him "phil Jones"

Chris