Gore is committed to improving his own political climate

In his acceptance speech, Gore reminded his audience that solving global warming is all about taking one achievable step at a time. "For instance, my first steps for combatting the climate crisis have involved getting rock-star levels of popularity and swanning around the world," he told the audience.

"But this broadcast has gone beyond that and touched the world. By watching us tonight, people the world over have learned that when they want to make an ostentatious environmental statement, all they need to do is hire a hybrid limousine."

But despite Hollywood's enthusiasm for Gore, others have criticised the creator of An Inconvenient Truth for his electricity-guzzling mansion, forcing the former Vice-President to angrily deny being a hypocrite. "My message isn't about making radical life changes. It's about wringing my hands, saying that something really ought to be done and encouraging rich people to talk about climate change at their dinner parties so we can feel morally superior," he said. "I live my life entirely consistently with that vision."

Gore's film inspired a number of environmental elements in this year's ceremony, including the recycling of a contestant from American Idol as Best Supporting Actress. Jennifer Hudson won further green plaudits by also reusing Gwyneth Paltrow's embarrassing emotional meltdown. "People have criticised me for gushing about my family when I had my moment on the global stage," she said. "I guess I was just thinking locally and acting globally."

Despite the enormous public support he now commands on the back of his film, the Oscar-winner claims he does not intend to return to politics, a statement that has attracted even more scepticism than his warnings about climate change. Gore has instead committed himself to doing "whatever it takes" to combat global warming other than taking on the one job where he could actually do something about it.

[Article]Al Gore plants a tree to offset speech at Oscars Keep Left    April 12th, 2007 - 10:35 AM this article is such a rip on the south park george clooney smug cloud episode. a rap across the knuckles for whomever wrote this!

Re: [Article]Al Gore plants a tree to offset speech at Oscars Thowluikhain    April 15th, 2007 - 7:31 AM Still, could have been much worse...no, serial, it could have been.

Re: [Article]Al Gore plants a tree to offset speech at Oscars Enquirer    May 3rd, 2007 - 10:35 PM Why aren't green house gases contributing to global cooling?  If they can keep heat in, why can't they also keep heat out? Is our obession with trying to do something about greenhouse gases based on our belief that can always "beat nature" with technology?

Re: [Article]Al Gore plants a tree to offset speech at Oscars Night Blindness    May 4th, 2007 - 12:09 AM If I tell you you're a moron, does that count as flaming? Do I have to give all the reasons you're a moron? Go do some research.

Re: [Article]Al Gore plants a tree to offset speech at Oscars Enquirer    May 4th, 2007 - 1:17 AM Yeah. I am a moron, but you haven't answered my questions.

Re: [Article]Al Gore plants a tree to offset speech at Oscars Mr Pants    May 4th, 2007 - 6:51 AM Okay I'll try to put this as simply as possible... It can't contribute to global cooling because the suns rays are bounced off the Earths surface into the upper atmosphere. Under normal conditions this energy (except for a small amount) would return to the spacial vaccum from whence it came. However a growing amount of light and heat energy are being trapped by greenhouse gases in the Earths atmosphere. The amount of light and heat energy which hits the Earth surface is constant. Greenhouse gases do very little to prevent the suns rays entering the atmosphere for a number of reasons. It's mainly due to the nature of the sun as an energy source, the way that energy enters the atmosphere and the way it reflects off the Earths surface. In other words it's not a two way street. Light gets trapped leaving the Earth not entering it. Like a drunk man and a phone box, it has no problem getting in, it has trouble getting out. Think about it like this... Sun to Earth = straight line. Earth to space (because of the Earth surface being spherical) = hundreds of different angles. Essentially it is much easier for energy to travel through the Earths atmosphere in a straight line. There has always been global warming for many millions of years. It's doubtless the reason why we can actually suppourt life however it has remained at a constant level until human interference. This is the reason why a few fractions of a degree over a decade or so is so important. The global temperature has not changed any more than a degree for hundreds of millions of years.  That's my basic rundown of my understanding of the phenomena.  No legitimate scientists have come up with any evidence suppourting the theory of 'global cooling' for about thirty years except for those working for conservative think tanks, which basically just find evidence to suppourt the theories they're told to suppourt. So at one time the scientific community did theorise global cooling but this is how the sciences work. Ideas are theorised and then scientists find evidence to either suppourt or disprove their theory. The political interests claiming that the scientific community is backflipping in order to drag down the scientific communities credibility is ridiculous. Almost as ridiculous as claiming there's some liklihood of the Earth being the centre of the universe. Just because it was once theorised does not make the now proven fact any less conclusive. Have you been listening to Alan Jones by any chance and/or reading the Daily Telegraph. I know they have publically embraced the skeptical 'global cooling' argument.

Re: [Article]Al Gore plants a tree to offset speech at Oscars Night Blindness    May 4th, 2007 - 9:43 PM Thank you. I tend to get too irritated to come up with logical arguments some times. I like the drunk in the phonebox metaphor

Re: [Article]Al Gore plants a tree to offset speech at Oscars Enquirer    May 5th, 2007 - 8:10 AM Thank you for a reply that does not inculde the word moron.  I voted Greens at the last election. Why is the impact of the heat and energy of the sun coming in on the earth constant but the heat and energy going out of the earth not constant? If greenhouse gases are having an impact, shouldn't it be both ways?  If we agree that they keep energy from going out of our atmosphere why don't they also stop energy coming in? I agree that climate cange is happening, but what is causing it?

Re: [Article]Al Gore plants a tree to offset speech at Oscars Night Blindness    May 5th, 2007 - 10:12 AM *thump* Nope, frustration levels rising again. Verbosity declining... Long story short, if you couldn't be bothered to read what Andy Pants just posted: The energy coming in is at a certain wavelength. It goes straight through the layer of greenhouse gasses no worries. It hits the earth's surface, and because it's refelected off things, it changes in wavelength. Like the way that sunlight (the visual part of the spectrum) shining on things, makes them feel hot. Some of this reflected energy heads back up again, but it can no longer pass easily through the greenhouse gas layer. All these gasses that stop the sun's energy leaving happen to be the sort emmitted by industry and cars. So human activity has dramatically increased the thickness of the greenhouse layer. So significantly less energy now escapes, despite the same amount coming in. And the world gets hotter... It's slow, but fairly inevitable unless we can cut down the amount of greenhouse emissions.