An Inconvenient Truth

[cjboog]

Has anyone seen Al Gore's new movie? I saw it and I really didn't know global warming is as serious a problem as is it. The movie is incredibly informative and is one of the best reviewed of the year. If anyone here has seen it, what did you think? If you haven't seen it, why? Also, a lot of people have said this is just Gore trying to get more publicity/support for a 2008 election bid. Does anyone think this is true? He has said many times that he doesn't plan to run again and I believe him, I think he really honestly cares about global warming and after watching an interview with him on yahoo movies, I think he's a changed man since 2000. Your thoughts on the movie and Gore...

 

[Lila64]

Interested in seeing it, just haven't been able to. I think it only started playing locally about 1-2 weeks ago - don't know if it's still here or not

 

[cjboog]

This weekend would be a good time as it has now expanded to its highest theatre count in the US.

 

[AtomicBono]

Has anyone seen Al Gore's new movie? I saw it and I really didn't know global warming is as serious a problem as is it. The movie is incredibly informative and is one of the best reviewed of the year. If anyone here has seen it, what did you think? If you haven't seen it, why? Also, a lot of people have said this is just Gore trying to get more publicity/support for a 2008 election bid. Does anyone think this is true? He has said many times that he doesn't plan to run again and I believe him, I think he really honestly cares about global warming and after watching an interview with him on yahoo movies, I think he's a changed man since 2000. Your thoughts on the movie and Gore...

word, I believe him too. I don't know if there is a such thing as a sincere politician, but he comes off as pretty honest to me, at least when it comes to his concerns about global warming. I don't know a lot about it but I'm sure it's a serious issue.

I'll see the movie eventually; I have yet to see it. I think the people that really need to see it are people that are convinced global warming isn't an issue at all.

 

[Salome]

Re: Re: An Inconvenient Truth

I think the people that really need to see it are people that are convinced global warming isn't an issue at all.

if by now someone is still not convinced re. the effects of global warming then he/she has his/her head so neatly tucked up the own arse that they wouldn't be able to see this (or any) movie

 

[joyfulgirl]

Everyone should see it.

 

[trevster2k]

Regardless of whether climate change is a natural occurring event or man-made or accelerated by human activity, it is definitely happening. Too bad politics is skewing the opinions of many people who are the decisionmakers.

Al Gore is definitely correct in his point that at the end of the day, the Earth will survive, we may not. For me, these past few thousand years are just our time on the planet and it will run out eventually. It's the nature of the cycle of life on Earth, certain species dominate for a time and then disappear due to a cataclysmic event beyond their control whether it be an ice age, meteor strike, volcanic eruption or rising temperatures. Some of these events are instantaneous while others may take thousands of years to occur. The history of our planet is filled with catastrophe on a global scale, some species survive, some don't.

My layman POV

 

[nbcrusader]

Don't Believe the Hype

{quote]Al Gore is wrong. There's no "consensus" on global warming.


According to Al Gore's new film "An Inconvenient Truth," we're in for "a planetary emergency": melting ice sheets, huge increases in sea levels, more and stronger hurricanes, and invasions of tropical disease, among other cataclysms--unless we change the way we live now.

Bill Clinton has become the latest evangelist for Mr. Gore's gospel, proclaiming that current weather events show that he and Mr. Gore were right about global warming, and we are all suffering the consequences of President Bush's obtuseness on the matter. And why not? Mr. Gore assures us that "the debate in the scientific community is over."

That statement, which Mr. Gore made in an interview with George Stephanopoulos on ABC, ought to have been followed by an asterisk. What exactly is this debate that Mr. Gore is referring to? Is there really a scientific community that is debating all these issues and then somehow agreeing in unison? Far from such a thing being over, it has never been clear to me what this "debate" actually is in the first place.

The media rarely help, of course. When Newsweek featured global warming in a 1988 issue, it was claimed that all scientists agreed. Periodically thereafter it was revealed that although there had been lingering doubts beforehand, now all scientists did indeed agree. Even Mr. Gore qualified his statement on ABC only a few minutes after he made it, clarifying things in an important way. When Mr. Stephanopoulos confronted Mr. Gore with the fact that the best estimates of rising sea levels are far less dire than he suggests in his movie, Mr. Gore defended his claims by noting that scientists "don't have any models that give them a high level of confidence" one way or the other and went on to claim--in his defense--that scientists "don't know. . . . They just don't know."[/quote]

 

[AliEnvy]

"It's DIFFICULT to get a man to understand something when his SALARY depends upon his NOT UNDERSTANDING IT."

~ Upton Sinclair

This quote is at the front of climatecrisis.net and fits perfectly into the current political climate on global warming.

 

[joyfulgirl]

When Mr. Stephanopoulos confronted Mr. Gore with the fact that the best estimates of rising sea levels are far less dire than he suggests in his movie, Mr. Gore defended his claims by noting that scientists "don't have any models that give them a high level of confidence" one way or the other and went on to claim--in his defense--that scientists "don't know. . . . They just don't know.

Have you seen the movie? Have you read other books from nonpolitical people on the subject? The fact that our glaciers are disappearing is compelling evidence. Would it matter if Gore and scientists are off by, say, a century? Do you honestly think there is insufficient evidence that we need to change our lifestyles now for the survival of future generations? What would qualify as sufficient evidence for you? How many scientists need to agree? We can't really afford to wait for everyone to agree. If the scientists who agree that the threat of global warming is real and imminent are correct, the risks of ignoring them are great and potentially devastating. If we heed the warnings and implement new energy sources and change our lifestyle only to discover the threat of global warming was overstated, what harm has been done?

 

[Irvine511]

Don't Believe the Hype

{quote]Al Gore is wrong. There's no "consensus" on global warming.

[q]Al Gore's "Inconvenient Truth" Movie: Fact or Hype?
Stefan Lovgren
for National Geographic News

Updated May 25, 2006
The message in An Inconvenient Truth, the new movie starring former U.S. Vice President Al Gore, is clear: Humans are causing global warming, and the effects are devastating.

Most scientists agree that the Earth is heating up, due primarily to an atmospheric increase in carbon dioxide caused mainly by the burning of fossil fuels such as coal and petroleum.

But how accurate are some of the scientific claims made in the documentary?

In an attemp to clear the air, National Geographic News checked in with Eric Steig, an earth scientist at the University of Washington in Seattle, who saw An Inconvenient Truth at a preview screening.

He says the documentary handles the science well.

"I was looking for errors," he said.

"But nothing much struck me as overblown or wrong."

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/05/060524-global-warming.html

[/q]

[q]Exx-Cons
by the Editors
Post date 05.25.06 | Issue date 06.12.06

Al Gore seems to have touched a nerve. An Inconvenient Truth, his new documentary about global warming--a simultaneously frightening and inspiring film--hadn't yet arrived in theaters last week when a guerrilla movement to discredit the movie had already begun. A network of oil-funded think tankers and conservative media outlets have joined arms to launch the most massive offensive against a PowerPoint presentation ever recorded by man. But there is one salutary effect of this new campaign. The Swift-Boating of An Inconvenient Truth has brought into public view yet another shining star in the right's anti-science constellation. While the fundamentalist theo-conservatives sowed doubts about evolution during the debate over "intelligent design," the Exxon conservatives are storming into battle against global warming....

https://ssl.tnr.com/p/docsub.mhtml?i=20060612&s=editorial061206

[/q]


[q]Case Closed: The Debate about Global Warming is Over

Issues in Governance Studies, June 2006

Gregg Easterbrook, Visiting Fellow, Governance Studies, Economic Studies
Executive Summary

Here's the short version of everything you need to know about global warming. First, the consensus of the scientific community has shifted from skepticism to near-unanimous acceptance of the evidence of an artificial greenhouse effect. Second, while artificial climate change may have some beneficial effects, the odds are we're not going to like it. Third, reducing emissions of greenhouse gases may turn out to be much more practical and affordable than currently assumed.

This brief will address the three points above and, in an appendix, offer non-jargon explanations of the most important recent findings of greenhouse science. But the pressing point of this briefing is not so much scientific as it is practical—that action against artificial global warming may not prove nearly as expensive or daunting as commonly believed. Greenhouse gases are an air pollution problem, and all air pollution problems of the past have cost significantly less to fix than projected, while declining faster than expected. This gives cause to hope that artificial greenhouse gases can be controlled reasonably cheaply and without wrenching sacrifices to the global economy. And if there is a chance of an economical approach to greenhouse-gas reduction, then what are we waiting for? Let's start now.

http://brookings.edu/views/papers/easterbrook/20060517.htm

[/q]




but keep trying -- one day you'll find someone who isn't published in a right wing, anti-environmental/pro-business newspaper, magazine, or journal (like the WSJ) who denies global warming.

 

[nbcrusader]

I guess the truth of global warming is that junk science replaces understanding and conclusionary statements replace honest discussion (stepping beyond the tiresome claims that facts not supporting global warming are just propaganda from right-wing, big business supporting conservatives).

Relying of visual images can be very persuasive, but also very misleading (like statistics, it sound dramatic one way, but given perspective means something else). Visuals of the shrinking Antarctica miss the fact that snow packs are increasing on the continent and that calving of icebergs can be attributed to the excessive weight due to the snow pack buildups.

The political groups selling global warming are very savvy. Carefully selected facts help complete an existing picture in one’s mind the same way random occurrences during the day verify the truth of a daily horoscope.

 

[Lila64]

Can't this not be a political issue for once?

<why do I enter FYM :runsout:

 

[AliEnvy]

The political groups selling global warming are very savvy.

They've been screaming for decades to a population who hasn't been listening and generally doesn't give a shit beyond separating recyclable garbage so they really aren't that savvy now are they?

Now that the tsunamis and Katrinas have captured people's attention they can FINALLY flex some political muscle and grab their huge rightful piece of government spending on research grants and tree-planting programs...YEAH. That must be it.

 

[AtomicBono]

Have you seen the movie? Have you read other books from nonpolitical people on the subject? The fact that our glaciers are disappearing is compelling evidence. Would it matter if Gore and scientists are off by, say, a century? Do you honestly think there is insufficient evidence that we need to change our lifestyles now for the survival of future generations? What would qualify as sufficient evidence for you? How many scientists need to agree? We can't really afford to wait for everyone to agree. If the scientists who agree that the threat of global warming is real and imminent are correct, the risks of ignoring them are great and potentially devastating. If we heed the warnings and implement new energy sources and change our lifestyle only to discover the threat of global warming was overstated, what harm has been done?

there is never going to be an issue that EVERY scientist agrees 100% on, but it seems most are in agreement on this one, and when it's such a big deal I don't see how ignoring it is gonna help, even if the threat is overstated. We're going to need alternate energy sources soon enough anyway, regardless of global warming - if the scientists don't convince you, maybe the price of gas will changing our lifestyles to make the planet healthier would not be a bad thing, I agree.

 

[Irvine511]

I guess the truth of global warming is that junk science replaces understanding and conclusionary statements replace honest discussion (stepping beyond the tiresome claims that facts not supporting global warming are just propaganda from right-wing, big business supporting conservatives).

Relying of visual images can be very persuasive, but also very misleading (like statistics, it sound dramatic one way, but given perspective means something else). Visuals of the shrinking Antarctica miss the fact that snow packs are increasing on the continent and that calving of icebergs can be attributed to the excessive weight due to the snow pack buildups.

The political groups selling global warming are very savvy. Carefully selected facts help complete an existing picture in one’s mind the same way random occurrences during the day verify the truth of a daily horoscope.

amazing -- just flip things around, and you'll see that you're doing EXACTLY what you accuse others of doing, you know, the tiresome claims that facts supporting the evidence of man-made global warming are just propaganda from left-wing, environmentalist supporting liberals (complete with "my website is more accurate than your website").

try as we might, we cannot get around this statement of fact from National Geographic:

[q]Most scientists agree that the Earth is heating up, due primarily to an atmospheric increase in carbon dioxide caused mainly by the burning of fossil fuels such as coal and petroleum.
[/q]



and even your article agrees that:

[q]"There is little disagreement that levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere have risen from about 280 parts per million by volume in the 19th century to about 387 ppmv today. Finally, there has been no question whatever that carbon dioxide is an infrared absorber (i.e., a greenhouse gas - albeit a minor one), and its increase should theoretically contribute to warming. Indeed, if all else were kept equal, the increase in carbon dioxide should have led to somewhat more warming than has been observed, assuming that the small observed increase was in fact due to increasing carbon dioxide rather than a natural fluctuation in the climate system. Although no cause for alarm rests on this issue, there has been an intense effort to claim that the theoretically expected contribution from additional carbon dioxide has actually been detected. Given that we do not understand the natural internal variability of climate change, this task is currently impossible.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008597
[/q]



so even your article is advocating the reduction of carbon dioxide emissions. it is saying that global warming is indeed real. the real question is not "global warming: yes or no?" but to what extent has man-made global warming harmed the planet as well as whether or not it has reached a dangerous tipping point. i will agree that there is much we do not and cannot know, but, it seems as if the only thing to do is to take the risk seriously lest we drown in the consequences in 100 years. it strikes me as amazing the lengths people will go to in order to try to exempt themselves from feeling any sort of regret or remorse about their lifestyles and the imprint their lifestyles have on the planet.

anyway, want some good news? check this out:

[q]U.S. carbon dioxide intensity (energy-related carbon dioxide emissions per unit of economic output) fell by 3.3 percent in 2005. From 1990 to 2005, the carbon dioxide intensity of the economy fell by 24.3 percent. By 2004 (the latest year of data for all greenhouse gases), carbon dioxide intensity had fallen by 21.8 percent and emissions of total greenhouse gases per dollar of GDP had fallen by 23.4 percent. The 3.3-percent drop in carbon dioxide intensity of the economy in 2005 is greater than the average reduction of 1.8 percent per year experienced since 1990.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/neic/press/press272.html
[/q]



why has this happened? because gas is more expensive! we're driving less because -- shock! horror! -- Americans do respond to price pressure. say it with me: GAS TAX!

 

[nbcrusader]

I appreciate how well my points about the lack of honest scientific dialogue have been underscored (even when words are added to my mouth). Global warming is predicated on summary statements of opinion as fact and is supported when snippets of science are used out of context to support the overall theories. The bottom line is a disinclination for honest scientific debate in favor of political control of the discussion, complete with ready made labels for each side’s position! In the global warming court of law, the political discussion prevents an inquiry of guilt or innocence, only welcoming the question of “how guilty are you?”

 

[Lila64]

Sir David Attenborough shows how global warming is real and down to us. This small clip was shown on the programme 'Are we changing planet Earth?'
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rD1dnP_k8Yc&mode=related&search=

 

[melon]

why has this happened? because gas is more expensive! we're driving less because -- shock! horror! -- Americans do respond to price pressure. say it with me: GAS TAX!

A gas tax is generally ineffective, mainly because we're dealing with inelastic demand here. Gasoline is about on top of the list of examples of inelastic demand in a microeconomics textbook.

Most people do not wake up each morning saying to themselves, "So how can I destroy the environment today?" Most people drive out of necessity. Sure, I lived in a large city for a couple of years, but I can certainly see why people flee them. Between exorbitant housing costs, whether through rentals or mortgages; city taxes (where applicable); and/or jobs that do not pay relative to the cost of living, I can see why people flee cities.

The solution to this problem is not taxation--which will do little to curb inelastic demand, short of busting the economy completely--but through gradual regulation. Sure, it is not necessarily the place of government to interfere, but they certainly have the power to encourage and punish business practices as they see fit. If the government wants more E85 cars, for instance, they could certainly force the issue, much as they forced the issue of fuel efficiency in the 1970s or the elimination of leaded fuel in the 1980s.

However, you can see the priorities of our government, when there are tax credits that encourage outsourcing of U.S. jobs to foreign countries, and tax credits that encourage buying SUVs. Put this in contrast to half-assed tax credits for hybrid vehicles that puts on such severe restrictions as to be utterly meaningless.

In other words, if our elected officials were as serious about creating fuel efficient transportation as much as they are serious about building a missile shield, we'd make sure to get it done in a reasonable amount of time. But, as we have seen, we know where the loyalties of our government lie, so why rock the boat when Big Oil is making Big Profit?

Melon

 

[Sylvia127]

I saw it this weekend. A very important documentary. No, I don't think Gore is using it as any kind of lead in to a political run-he just happens to have been a US Senator who took a keen interest in the science and data that started trickling in. He's delivering a message-he could be a D, a R, a communist or socialist. It can't be denied, and he doesn't deny it, that his view on the tobacco industry now is of course influenced by the fact that he lost his sister, a smoker, to lung cancer. That's what brings change-finally having that first hand experience. The first clear look. The decision to contribute no longer to that, to say No More.

The melting of the glaciers, the intensifying weather patterns, the collapse of Larsen B and similiar type happenings on our planet reinforce the idea that we have an unfavorable impact, and the skyrocketing population means there are more of us to do it.

It's so late in the game. And the damn car industries either won't offer the hybrid or other type low emission car, or they do, but have now jacked up the price... as they have their eyes on the gold bars on the weight demonstrated in the movie.

I hope more people will contribute by following the environmental measures available in whatever area-recycling, driving the most efficient vehicle possible, safe disposal of chemical cleaning agents, etc. I hope many, many people see this movie. (documentary)

 

[Irvine511]

I appreciate how well my points about the lack of honest scientific dialogue have been underscored (even when words are added to my mouth). Global warming is predicated on summary statements of opinion as fact and is supported when snippets of science are used out of context to support the overall theories. The bottom line is a disinclination for honest scientific debate in favor of political control of the discussion, complete with ready made labels for each side’s position! In the global warming court of law, the political discussion prevents an inquiry of guilt or innocence, only welcoming the question of “how guilty are you?”

whenever you're ready to point out examples of actual "honest" scientific debate that's free of "ready made lables" (like "junk science") and offer arguments with substance against the overwhelming accumualation of evidence in support of man-made global warming due to carbon dioxide emissions, please do so.

 

[swizzlestick]

If we heed the warnings and implement new energy sources and change our lifestyle only to discover the threat of global warming was overstated, what harm has been done?

An inconvenient over-exaggeration?

 

[verte76]

I'm going to see this movie this afternoon.

 

[joyfulgirl]

An inconvenient over-exaggeration?

I can live with that.

 

[nbcrusader]

Truthiness

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

I really want to see it, of course it's not playing at my friendly neighborhood evilplex

Wall St Journal - Former Vice President and environmental activist Al Gore is planning to address Wal-Mart Stores Inc. executives next week at the retailer’s quarterly conference on sustainability, part of the company’s recent efforts to become an environmental leader, a Wal-Mart spokesman confirmed.

Gore will speak on global warming, the subject of his recently released documentary “An Inconvenient Truth.” The conference is an outgrowth of Wal-Mart’s mission, outlined by Chief Executive Lee Scott last November, to minimize its negative impact on the environment. At the time, Wal-Mart committed to, among other things, reduce energy use in its stores, improve the fuel efficiency of its truck fleet and substantially cut down on solid waste produced by its stores.

Wal-Mart has seized on the issue of sustainability in an effort to bolster positive public relations at a time when its various business practices have been heavily criticized, from its worker pay and health benefits to its effect on smaller retailers. Still, the company has attempted to make changes. For example, it outfitted its trucks with an alternative power unit that uses 90% less fuel than its engines do while idling. The company created 14 internal networks to explore and implement more environmentally sound business practices. The 14 groups, made up of both Wal-Mart executives and outside experts, focus on different business areas, including operations and logistics, food and agriculture, textiles, global greenhouse gas and jewelry and mining.

Called the sustainable value network, the groups meet individually throughout the year. They also hold their own conferences. Last month, for instance, Wal-Mart held a two-day conference on sustainability and textiles. It brought together Wal-Mart executives, environmental consultants and members of nonprofit groups to discuss issues surrounding organic textiles, including certification and standards. Next week’s meeting, held at the company’s home office in Bentonville, Ark., is one of four where all the company’s internal groups working on sustainability issues get together to discuss progress, stumbling blocks and other issues.

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

(AP)Tom Brokaw is giving Al Gore some company in the effort to raise awareness of global warming. The former NBC anchorman is host of "Global Warming: What You Need to Know," which doubles as an explainer and call to action for average Americans. It premieres Sunday at 9 p.m. on the Discovery Channel.

Brokaw said he has seen and was impressed by "An Inconvenient Truth," Gore's documentary on the subject.

"It's the same science that we are drawing upon and it's irrefutable," he said. "I thought there was too much of Gore, but that's not my call. I thought it was very effectively done. To give credit to him, he's been on this issue for a long period of time."

Discovery, which has a partnership with NBC News, asked Brokaw last year if there were any projects he would like to work on. He said he was interested in the environment, and Discovery mentioned its global-warming project, which it was making in partnership with the BBC.

Brokaw's wife, Meredith, is vice president of the environmental organization Conservation International. They've traveled to some of the places featured in the Discovery documentary, like Patagonia and Mongolia, and have seen firsthand the effects of global warming.

He's tried to alter some habits to save fossil fuels: changing light fixtures in his homes, for example. He owns a hybrid car, and so do both of his daughters.

"It's not affecting our lifestyle at all, not one whit," he said.

On the Discovery documentary, producers travel great distances to make the case that man has contributed to a rapid warming of the planet's atmosphere that has already had noticeable effects and will potentially have much more.

A scientist in the Arctic explains how the increased melting of summertime sea ice is slowly starving the polar bear population. Rising sea water seeping through the ground threatens to eventually swallow entirely the South Pacific island of Tuvalu. Drought threatens the giant Amazon rain forest. Explorers bring cameras beneath ice sheets in Patagonia to show the melting.

More frightening are the scenarios that scientists can see for the future: increased sea levels swallowing cities like New York, more vicious hurricanes like Katrina, more land turning to desert. One expert even envisions half of the planet's species disappearing by the end of this century.

"By the year 2100, in the lifetime of our children and grandchildren, our world will be a drastically different place," Brokaw says in the documentary.

In helping put together the film, Brokaw said he was surprised at the speed with which everything is happening and the growing agreement among scientists about what was once a controversial notion.

Producers speak to no one, at least on film, who believes the current warmth is part of the Earth's natural cycle and who minimizes the importance of what is happening.

"You go around the world and it is the overwhelming number of people in the science of climatology who say this is happening," Brokaw said.

Discovery does intend to alter one part of the film that, in a preview tape, talks about the United States' refusal to participate in the Kyoto international treaty to reduce greenhouse gases, he said. During the discussion, a picture is flashed of a demonstrator holding a picture of President Bush emblazoned with "toxic Texan." Brokaw said that political blame should be distributed more broadly.

The same scientists who warn of dire consequences also say that there are things that can be done to greatly slow the rate of global warming.

In the film, Brokaw presents examples big and small — from New York City promoting more energy-efficient mass transportation and environmentally friendly building construction to families that can save a remarkable amount of energy by simply unplugging television sets when they aren't being used.

 

[A_Wanderer]

If your going to see the Gore movie then at least read State of Fear, it's your usual Crichton techno-thriller but with the a global warming message.

 

[Doozer61]

saw it yesterday

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

I still havent seen it but I don't know how people can't connect the dots. Yes I know it is summer, but I read the other day that the first half of 06 is already the hottest on record, something like that. I would have to look that up again..

huffingtonpost.com

by Toby Barlow

I'm once again completely blown away by the inability of the major media to connect the dots in even the most simplistic way.

This Associated Press article on the heat wave is full of all sorts of cutesy comments about the current record heat, "I could use a pool out here", "Oh, I love it balmy." etc, but there is not ONE mention of the fact that this current trend is - in fact - a clear sign of global warming.

This is how it has been for the last couple of decades, an endless drumbeat from the news at five chanting "record heat", "record temperatures", "record highs" while it's left to the "left" to point out that maybe this is part of some much larger event, one that threatens life everywhere on this planet.

The only consolation, and it is a small one, was that yesterday in the Burlington Airport I overheard a man on his cell phone saying "Yeah, I'm going down to New York... yeah it's hot...hey did you see that Al Gore movie?...Yeah, it's good." So maybe the message is getting out there. Then again, that was Vermont.

Meanwhile, we have George Bush for two more years and a rate of incumbency in the House and Senate making it hard to believe that any change is going to happen. And no matter what happens here, the Chinese are still building coal plants at a nice clipped pace and every species that doesn't have the blessing of central air (armadillos, crayfish, etc.) just keep heading north, you know, up to where the polar bears are dying. And the life that can't move, like the coral reefs, are slowly being cooked to death in the ocean's warming waters.

Once the heat gets high enough, melting the permafrost and releasing the enormous quantities of methane trapped below, our "record temperatures" will leap even higher. Then it's going to be real "balmy." Oh, yeah.

But there's not a single prominent world leader doing anything about it. Nero only had one fiddle; we've got a whole damn orchestra.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,12374,1546824,00.html