Sigh. Yes, the interviewer is a dolt. Yes, the guy doesn't say much except he doesn't believe the science.

Here's a tidbit for you. ANY scientist who's not being bought (fewer than you'd think) knows that this is cyclical. I work with a solid state physicist/theoretical particle physicist/climatologist. Best way to make him laugh? Just say global warming.

No doubt if we were experiencing global cooling, Al Gore or some equally undereducated individual would find something equally inane to blame. Maybe we're using up to much O2 (oxygen) with all of our wasteful, selfish breathing? I'm not exaggerating; this whole thing has the scientific community LOLing all over themselves.

Ice is actually increasing in the Antarctic according to many reports I've seen. As for the Arctic, there was an unsually heavy melt in the Summer of 2007 which was widely reported. What wasn't so widely reported was that this past winter the Arctic ice returned in larger amounts than usual. Apparently there's a heavy melt again this Summer which according to an article I was reading on the BBC's website is the 'heaviest melt since records began'. What the BBC didn't mention was that records only began thirty years ago. And that global temperatures fell from 1940-1975 (even though CO2 was steadily rising). And then from 1976 to 1998 teperatures rose. For the last ten years global temperatures have 'plateaued'. So if you take the last thirty years you're bound to find the heaviest melt in the last ten years as it represents a peak.

John Coleman has a lot more to say than you claim. You have to wonder why Al Gore won't debate. He's happy to take $100,000 to $200,000 to lecture on global warming but won't take the opportunity blow these global warming skeptics out of the water with his science. Why is that? If he's so committed to the cause you'd think he's relish the opportunity to embarass these people into silence.

I'm all for taking care of this planet. It's a beautiful place. But this state of perpetual fear we're kept in (global warming, terrorism, Iran nukes, peak oil, bird flu, crime, etc) is not healthy and only seems to empower those who have too much money and too much power already. We should be taking power back not giving it away. And we hould be taking wealth back too and sharing it with those who really need it. But so much of the 'solution' to global warming seems to be more taxation, less freedom, more surveillance and more power in the hands of fewer people. And maybe that's the point?

First of all, John Coleman has no standing to sue Al Gore over the content of his movie. Fraud torts require a showing of actual harm. Trying and trying and trying to get a debate with Al Gore does not qualify as harm.

When he says stuff like "CO2 is a natural compound in the atmosphere. It's not a pollutant. Plants have to have it to grow", while true, just makes the guy look like an idiot. I need water to live, but I can still drown.

As to CO2 being in our breath, yeah, CO2 is a by-product of animal metabolism. Animals turn O2 into CO2 and plants turn CO2 into O2 as a by-product of photosynthesis. In a stable planetary chemistry, the net gain of each molecule balances to about zero over the year and decade timescale.

The carbon that's going into the atmosphere from fossil fuel burning has been gradually sequestered underground over billions of years as huge amounts of biomass are geologically enveloped. By digging this stuff up and burning it without doing the math, we're turning back the clock on our planet's chemistry to a time before human's existed. The Earth had more atmospheric carbon, and was much hotter billions of years ago.

If that's what you mean by cyclical, then maybe it is cyclical. Several billion years of geological sequestration are undone in a couple-of-hundred-year fossil fuel binge, causing mass extinction, including humans. Then the whole process starts over again, evolving something other than humans. Cyclical.