WOW, that trailer was INCREDIBLE! I think be massively influential towards convincing mainstream america of the dire situation we've caused.

I agree with the above comment which is saying something because I generally don't respect Al Gore.

If you go to archive.org and search for "Al Gore", you can at least one of his hour-long speech on global warming and the environment.

The FX in that trailer were incredible.

Gore looked so... lifelike.

Sorry.

I couldn't resist.

He stopped listening to consultants and to his heart and intellect instead. So begins reality.

Wait, I didn't know Jerry Bruckheimer knew Gore....

Great hype. Hope the movie's less alarmist, and half as obnoxious as that trailer makes it seem. Hollywood trailers are so crap anymore.

Took them long enough. I mean, it's not like the star of the movie isn't on thei freaking board of directors.

Oh yeah, and that scared the shit out of me.

And Al Gore is awesome.

All the humor and hyperbole aside, we need to face the fact that we now—today--have a very serious and escalating environmental problem not restricted to any one nation, kingdom or commonwealth or limited by political boundaries. We are on a catastrophic collision course of such impact we cannot realistically imagine or assess all the cataclysmic implications. You can call that “alarmist”; you can call that unreasonable and excessive exaggeration if you want but to willing remain naïve to the increasing number of environmental warning signs today is both irresponsible at best and absolutely and utterly devastating at its worst.

Nations, governments industries and corporations all driven by human greed and a ravenous, insatiable appetite for greater profits at any cost, apathetically embrace irresponsible and short-sighted policies ruthlessly insouciant to the staggering ultimate consequences of such indifference.

Now excuse me but I’m going to head down to Blockbuster to rent a movie, stop on the way home at McDonald’s to get a Big Mac and then watch American Idol….What me worry?

I'm looking forward to this: should provide some good laugh material.

The science is not yet "in" and we would be wise to keep this in mind. I am not a denialist, but I also am not yet convinced. This will be interesting.

On such a complex phenomenon, by the time we understand everything completely and the science is fully "in", it'll be too late.

Doesn't mean we don't have enough "in" to convince pretty much everybody who knows what they're talking about. I suggest you read this and then try to go argue whatever point you defend at realclimate, and blog full of climate scientists.

From the first link: "That hypothesis was tested by analyzing 928 abstracts, published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and listed in the ISI database with the keywords "climate change" (9).

The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position."

Most of the "disagreement" doesn't actually come from peer reviewed scientific papers. It's basically special interest groups and think tanks that don't have credibility.