Discover and share stories

of adventure, connection, and change making.

131 people think this is good


  1. {{}}
  1. {{fields.video_link.url}}

Ready to post! You’ve uploaded the maximum number of images.

Your video is ready to post!

Oops! Nice pic, but it’s just not our (file) type. Please try uploading a .jpg or .png image.

Well, this is embarrassing. Something went wrong when posting your comment. Care to try again?

That image is too large. Maximum size is 6MB.

Please enter a valid URL from YouTube or Vimeo.

Embedding has been disabled for this video.


Posting comment...

  • chrisplumber

    Al Gore won't know the difference between a rainy day or a snowy one

  • connor.patterson2016

    Hey, I created this petition on and am trying to get 25,000 signatures by December 13th. Check it out and stop #DirtyWeather

  • Vegas Vicky

    If Al Gore would only decrease his carbon footprint, THAN I could take him seriously. This is like President Obama talking about fiscal responsibility!!

    You need people who walk the walk and talk the talk, for others to take you seriously...


      so are you walking the walk as you talk the talk? Or, are you just waiting for some perfect being to step forward for you to follow? Sounds like you are giving yourself an excuse to do nothing.

      • Vegas Vicky

        Listening to Al Gore Blame everybody but those who pay him money, is an excuse to do nothing.

        Doing something is pointing out this fraud you are protecting. Al Gore?? The man who invented the Internet needs to take a trip to the Grand Canyon, Death Valley. See what climate change looked like 100's of millions of years ago..

        But then he would realize he really is just a sideshow carnival barker selling snake oil to people who no longer think for themselevs

      • graceadams830

        I wish Al Gore would decide to insist on conferences over the internet instead of in person myself. I gave up driving in 1999, more because I was a bad driver and could no longer afford insurance than because I had even heard of global warming. Walking for transportation not only gets most places I need to go, it also helps keep me more or less fit. I pick up at least some litter along the way, much of it deposit containers (I love Connecticut's mandatory deposit container law--it is very much part of the social safety net here in Willimantic), some of it scrap aluminum that can be sold for $0.40 a pound to our local trash collection and recycling firm, some of it items of clothing or towels or other useful stuff left lying around by college students living off campus. A few things like the last dollop of shampoo left in a bottle I can use myself. Most of the clothing and towels I wash and dray and take to the local no-freeze shelter where the director has enough sense to laundry and reuse stuff instead of thinking it is worthless because given to the shelter. She is glad to use as cleaning rags what isn't good enough for its original purpose.

  • bdale.lal

    Climate change? Really? Defeating climate change? All the money spent pursuing the fix (to move the needle a blip) would be better spent addressing actions to cope with the change, as well as world diseases, providing clean drinking water, helping the hungry. Take all the humans off the Earth and you will still have climate change. Has human activity been the smoking gun for climate change? You must think so, if you also believe human solutions can stop it. Better get busy dealing with it rather than trying to stop it. Reducing pollution in and of itself is a just and noble enough goal, and doesn't need to be saddled to saving the world from global warming.

    • graceadams830

      Both natural variation and human activity have contributed to climate change over the few thousand years humans have been active enough to really affect climate, with most of the human contribution being over the last sixty years. The Industrial Revolution started in the 1700s. But the quantity of greenhouse gases from human activity has increased a lot since about 1950. Yes, we will need to adapt to climate change as well as do what we can to at least slow it down. Desalinating seawater for irrigation will be a big help in adapting to climate change, in addition to the fact that water is also needed for cooling electric power plants. Between petroleum products burned in transportation and coal and natural gas burned to produce electricity, we are putting CO2 into the atmosphere far faster than our crops are taking it out again.


      Most people who are truly concerned about climate change devote their lives to the issues you speak of AND they work on the issues of climate change. They are not loftily trying save the world from global warming for the sheer heck of it. They get it that it exacerbates all of the very problems you think should be of more concern to them. That's why they also focus on those issues. So they don't need to get busy. They are already busy doing exactly that. How about you? As for how much money is being spent on the move the needle a blip. Your sarcasm smacks of someone sitting in a comfy armchair smoking your pipe while spitting at the efforts of those who understand the complex connection between working on the "blip" and the human lives that saves. Finally all these people you cast your ugly cynicism at have so much integrity about their concerns and work they don't look at it as being "saddled to save the world" from anything. They are simply moved by compassion. How about you?

  • EVsRoll

    The rhetoric in this article is overwhelming. Big names like Mr. Gore tell the little people what to do as they ride jet contrails across the globe.

    If you really want to do something, use less. Get out and walk, ride a bike, eBike, EV or take transit. Get out of your comfort zone once and awhile.

    • FarmerGiles

      I actually did that. For 14 years my chief way of travelling to work, 7 miles away, was a bicycle. By actual, coincidental, measurement I could leave home as my car-driving colleague passed my door, and on these two occasions we arrived at work essentially simultaneously. At times other than rush hour of course, a car would take 20 minutes for my 30. But I decided that I cannot universally recommend this method, until complete bike paths are available utterly separate from gasoline powered vehicles . My front wheel was hit by a car which had violated a red light on a 6-lane thoroughfare. My injuries were slight, but I decided to use the Metro thenceforth. It took longer.

  • Vast Shadow

    Hell Yea, its Al Gore! Awesome.

    I enjoyed all the incentive and motion you placed into teaching people of Global Warming.
    If only USA would have placed full momentum into Global warming in the 80s we would have brought it to Global Warming to a crawl. At least Mr. Gore came along and endeavored into it.

    The only thing Obama has Administered is giving things Green titles. I hope that wasn't all he has done for his month of being a environmentalist, but who knows. I really hope they do not sit there and stop gouging budget cuts into environmental funds. It may be one of those things they go, "This doesn't seem important!" *snip* no more analyzing of pollution and other environmental things. The Massive pipe line they are building through the USA from Canada, shows they have a miniscule care of the environment.

    Pollution is something one country can't fix alone... You can give other countries resources, they may not even use them, but you are only better off making a shop there and keeping in control of it.
    The images they show is just a CGI render, but they are being designed and aiming at making it look like a tree, but cleans the air. It would be brilliant if they could be integrated into the electric grid, cell network, or run off solar power... Evenly be able to self-sustained... Capture monoxide, clean it, but creating zero waste. That is their challenge.

    • Vegas Vicky

      Now That is some good Sh*t. Whatever drugs you are on, please pass them around.

      4 Ice Ages before you were even thought of, and you think idolizing some over paid snake oil salesman will stop global warming??

    • graceadams830

      Global Thermostat invented by a married couple of MIT chemical engineering professors looks more like a giant hat box sitting on top of a cube slightly larger than the giant hat box than it looks like a tree. It captures CO2; its inventors claim that it does so at a cost of $210/metric ton of CO2 captured, by dividing the money spent so far by the amount of CO2 captured so far. I suspect that between a better estimate of service life and going from working prototypes to a production model, the price will come down to $60/ton or less. MIT School of Engineering dept of chemical engineering again wrote a report for federal government in 2007 about Enhanced Geothermal Systems. Reading between the lines of a 64-page report it costs about $40/ton of CO2 to store CO2 in one and use it as hydraulic heat-transfer fluid to generate base-load power.

      • Vast Shadow

        LOL... I think somewhere I said I wouldn't give much detail about stuff, for a few months, but lets get back to your statement.

        "By a married couple of MIT chemical Engineering professors"... So were they students or were they the teachers??

        Were they just like University of Phoenix/Kapalan/WGU(Apollo subordinates) and they were the board members(owners), teachers, and students who gave themselves certifications & Degrees? I bet they save a lot of money awarding themselves degrees without paying for an actual lesson.

        I hear Apollo group have been maken even more Online schools... Going around with a lil `help teach the world motto... Getting Government officials of all sorts to sign, endorse, and donate for Apollo's bogus cause to imply for advertisements that the Apollo school is a Good group.
        Only to be found advertising a Government official key-notes about the online institutes' plan and Apollo turns around attempts to imply the gov official is more than someone who thinks they have a good organization.

        I think those type of institutions, like Apollo and it's private subordinates should be cracked down on and fined substantially. Unfortunately there is no law inside doing sorts of certifications, self-enrollment orientation programs aka charter schools. Either way... It is wrong about how Apollo attempts to keep a person enrolled, continue to take grant money -- As that person withdrawn... Apollo makes quite the buck from people. People, of whom not knowing they should turn off their student grant on withdrawling acknowledgment. I could give you a bunch of documents that evenly shows that Apollo's staff is not even intelligent enough to even call themselves professors' and they shouldn't even be trying to teach anyone. As I think its a crime for what Apollo does.
        But that is all about Irrelavent stuff, now.

        What do you even mean by, "Global Thermostat" ... Irrelevant.

        Either way... You could get a lil robo-tree with a ionic breeze quatra tied to a stick... I think that would be a tiny bit lighter than a metric ton.

        Ask me again in a few months, after the USA pulls its head out of its own ASS. Maybe I will be more comprehensive inside a rational, plausibility of how to purify air. You could try reverse engineering a Ionic breeze, just don't get sued.

        I'm being only opinion and posting of facts you can find elsewhere. Anything I post wont be rennovative, new found or what ever until USA gets fixed. Sorry, I know that wont help.
        Good luck with all that... Global Thermostat.

  • Liam Henry Bildsten

    By the way, Mr. Gore: Climate Reality is preaching to the choir. Wait, no actually, it is the DEFINITION of preaching to the choir. People indifferent about climate change or those who deny it will not spontaneously watch this webcast. We all must go door-to-door, neighbor by neighbor to raise awareness. Defeating climate change requires confrontation.

    • Vegas Vicky

      Nobody DENIES global warming except the liberal politicians who have ot change it to climate change because they keep getting called out as frauds when discussing this topic.

      Its the fact that people like Gore gets paid millions to get people like you to believe that if we tax every business out of business and we all live on government hand outs, that global warming will be solved. Its been here for 4 billion years!! It will not stop until the earth stops revolving around the sun.. Deal with it!

    • graceadams830

      It is not the average man on the street who denies the reality of global warming--it is the CEOs of all the too big to fail fossil fuel firms. I believe it would be a lesser evil to BUY out the interest of these plutocrats at an amount equal to what they would make with business as usual (with payments spread out over the 200 years fossil fuel reserves would last with business as usual) than to allow global warming to destroy farming.

      • FarmerGiles

        I've an even better idea -- put them out of business with a government program. The USA owns two reactor designs that could produce as much energy from the uranium and plutonium already above ground, and in dumps, These reactors, the LFTR and the IFR, are very proliferation resistant, terrorist-proof (the terrorists die before they can get away) and meltdown-proof by design and actual test. Because fissile nuclei are produced from non-fissile nuclei, they are renewable. Because the quantity of energy that can thus be extracted exceeds the USA's total profligate current consumption, it is sustainable.And its visual footprint compared with the number of wind turbines, or desert- situated solar mirrors, needed to produce annually the same amount of energy, is tiny.

      • FarmerGiles

        I've an even better idea -- put them out of business with a government program, as France did to avoid having to buy coal from Germany. 'Electricit'e de France (the apostrophes should be acute accents) which is now, because the power companies of the EU couldn't compete, proprietary, has supplied France with clean electricity since it began, and done so at a lower price than coal.

        The USA has actually pioneered two technologies which generate fissile fuel from sufficiently plentiful resources to be sustainable for this entire millennium, provided only that our world population goes no higher than, say, 10,000,000,000 individuals.
        U-238 (non-fissile uranium) and a neutron ->Np239 ->Pu-239.
        Th-232 (thorium) and a neutron ->Pa-233->U-233.

        Any fissile nucleus, just like the U-235 which forms 7 parts in a thousand of the natural uranium, fissions when struck by a neutron, producing two unstable nuclei and two or more neutrons, and about as much energy as a million atoms in chemical reactions. There's more.

        • FarmerGiles

          The USA has already developed, at the AEC, a reactor that took in thorium, and produced fissile uranium U-233, the whole business going on in a molten solution of the fluorides of uranium and thorium, dissolved in a lithium and beryllium fluoride mixture. It is believed that the AEC cancelled this program, under Nixon, because it wasn't a very effective way to produce bomb grade uranium in large quantities.

          Then later, a project called the Integral Fast Reactor was begun, with the intention of developing a civilian nuclear reactor that was meltdown-proof, self-sustaining of fuel, and very low in nuclear waste. Note that even the USA's annual wasting of 24,000 tons of uranium is trifling compared with the hundreds or thousands of tons of carbon dioxide that fossil carbon consumption creates. The actual mass of the annual fission wastes to produce 20% of our electrical production, is appreciably less than 100 tons. But for one million kilowatts, for every hour in a year, night and day (that's a gigawatt year), the IFR needs less than a ton of fuel, and produces less than a ton of waste, whose activity at the time of refuelling is way far lower than you'd get if you added up the radioactivity of the rods once a month. That's what half-life means. The most persistent dangerous fission product, cesium-137, has a half life of 30 years. So if you reload at 20 years, something like a third of the first year's production of Cs-137 is gone, there's slightly more of the second year's production,and so on. All of this cesium, and all of its daughter products, and all of the other radioactive fission products together, amount to less than 20 tons.

          • graceadams830

            If the United States would use a reactor that would make good use of the fuel left in spent nuclear fuel rods, that would really be a blessing. By the the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's own admission, it takes 3,000 years for the radioactivity in a spent nuclear fuel rod to decrease to the same amount that was in the ore from which the fuel rod was made. King David of ancient Israel reigned 3,000 years ago. I worry about all the leftovers from our light water nuclear power plants having to sit around for 3,000 years to become as safe to have around as the raw material from which they were made.

            • FarmerGiles

              I reckon that the annual quantity of spent fuel rods is about 3000 tons, of which about 75 tons is short-lived, highly radioactive fission products, less than 50 tons is plutonium, and the rest is the original uranium. The half life of the longest lived fission product that matters is 30 years, so in 300 years there's less than a thousandth of the fission products left. The half life of the plutonium is 24 thousand years, which is eight times the age of ancient Israel. But plutonium could be chemically separated from the uranium, far more easily than the original enrichment process. The fission products should be buried separately, and are little enough that they hardly matter after 50 years. But the IFR is a far better technology than either kind of LWR, and in my opinion superior to anything at the EIA or NRC sites.
              One thing worth knowing, although it ought to be obvious. If it takes 24,000 years for half of isotope Pu to decay, and 3.8 days for half of isotope Rn to decay, and the decay process in both cases is the emission of an alpha particle, the number of milligrams (mg) of Pu that will shoot as many particles at you as 3.8 mg of Rn will be the same as the number of days in 24,000 years. That's 8,760,000 mg, 8.76 kg, about 19 lbs. isotope Pu is the dreaded plutonium-239, and isotope Rn is radon, which you might breathe in in your basement, and if it decays while it's in your lungs, its daughter and granddaughter decay products are going to irradiate you too, quite soon after. Radon drifts through the soil from natural ancient deposits of uranium.

            • FarmerGiles

              Actually grace, thank you for your interest, and I believe that the duration over which we must sequester the present spent fuel by the currently approved means is far longer than 3000 years. EIA reports that about 25,000 tons (actually, 50 million pounds) of uranium oxide has been purchased annually to fuel our nuclear reactors. That's not very much compared with the millions of TONS of coal we blast away mountaintops to get. I compute that there's 24,000 tons of uranium in it. That contains 7x24 = 168 tons of U-235, the fissile isotope. About half of it is moved into about one eighth of the total, by a physical process that's akin to distilling alcohol to make beer, if it were present at 0.7 percent in water, and the water boiled at one degree higher than alcohol. the rest of it is the "depleted" uranium.
              The resulting fuel uranium, enriched to 3.6% U-235, goes into the fuel rods. When about half of it is burnt up, the rod is considered "spent". While in the reactor, some of the neutrons that cause the fission, which continues to produce enough neutrons, are captured by U-238 and the capturing nucleus become the fissile plutonium isotope Pu-239. Some of that is fissioned, neutrons don't care, and that adds to the power produced.altogether, by my reckoning, the 24,000 tons of uranium create about 60 to 75 tons of fission products, less than 50 tons of plutonium not fissioned, an there is still the very long lived slightly radioactive original uranium. It is the idiotic policy of the USA not to separate the fission products from the rest, nor to reprocess the rods and capture the plutonium to use as fuel.

    • Liam Henry Bildsten

      No means to disrespect your hard work and good heart, but the strategy must change. It's not about who achieved what; it's about it being achieved at all.

  • Liam Henry Bildsten

    People don't like lifestyle change. We get it. Al Gore is going into territory that is controversial. But he is doing so for the good of the world. Short-term thinking is no way to go about life. An issue as big as this requires significant sacrifice.

  • Barri

    If you don't like Al Gore, there's always Bill McKibbon (see Rolling Stone) and Hurricane Sandy.

  • Demeter Torrance

    If Al Gore, the alarmist crackpot, the Rothschild-designed carbon credit exchange shill and uber-hypocritical eco-profiteer is sending any message to anyone, it should be that he is going to live in a mud hut in Burundi............permanently. And take you partner in this scam, the not so-long-ago Goldman Sachs bankster, David Blood, with you. Bugger off, you Malthusian scumbags.

    • Vegas Vicky

      I always imaging people like Al Gore and Obama have to go off stage to a sound proof room and laugh out loud for 20 minutes when they realize people actually believed what they just spoke about..

    • Sam Walker

      Nice thought, but I doubt you will see Al in a mud hut. Carbon credits are an amazing con. Sell credits for millions to companies who merely pass the cost to the little people. Al is actually a brilliant businessman, hardly a crackpot.

      • FarmerGiles

        Sam, I agree with you on the carbon credits. See my recipe, worthy of the international-socialist-atheist-nuclear conspiracy. Nothing else will save us. I do not, however, think that Mr. Gore is in on the swindle. He has even enough brains to realise, and enough honesty to admit, that ethanol subsidies will not work.

        • Sam Walker

          no subsidies will work. They just give false hope and enrich the snake oil salesmen.
          Your other comments show there are solutions which would actually work if the problems of politics were removed and the solutions were made as fashionable as the current alternative energies. Thanks for sharing.



      What you have written here will come back to haunt you one day.

      If you had a sick loved one, brother, sister, parent, child and the Doctor told you that they were pretty sure they had a particular condition whose outcome could be fatal if you/they didn't take certain steps, which may initially feel like a huge sacrifice. Would you want your loved one to continue doing what they were doing for their short term fun and ease of life or would you want them to err on the side of caution?

      It would behoove you to rethink your accusations of those who are concerned about the effects on this planet of our runaway CO2 emissions. .........for you, your children and grand children.

      The only profiteers to date in this "scam" are the big oil and coal lobby interests whose mouthpieces are the likes of the Koch Brothers who also make out like bandits financially. without a peep from the likes of yourself. I don't like the carbon credit exchange idea either. There should be no breaks for businesses/ companies who are spewing CO2 emissions, period. Our economy now and in the future is dependent on the health of the planet. So, again I ask why would you not err on the side of caution?

      Alas, to date, the biggest scammers have succeeded in blinding so many .....maybe once decent ......people like you.

      • graceadams830

        I don't doubt that the CEOs of fossil fuel firms are extortionists--but they do have us over a barrel. I sincerely believe that a HUGE PILE OF DEBT to our descendants for the cost of BUYING all remaining fossil fuel reserves, leaving those CEOs with as much of an oligopoly on energy in the new renewable energy economy as they have now in the old fossil fuel energy economy, and capturing and storing as much carbon as necessary to get concentrations of greenhouses gases in air and water back to something our farms can live with will be a lesser evil than leaving our descendants with NO FARMS AND NO FOOD.


          Hello Grace

          Well put and thank you for pointing out this important point. I totally agree we need to do whatever we can. I was just responding to the extremely crude and shortsighted Demeter Torrance. That is, if all the Demeter Torrances had the guts and courage to recognize their (and our....I include myself here) part in the western world's contribution to the greenhouse effect thus far at the very least these Demeter Torrances wouldn't be squawking as crudely as they are about the minimal steps we are taking to try and leave our descendants with a semblance of what this beautiful planet once was.
          I agree and feel the same rage as you that the CEO's of fossil fuel farms will continue to be the fat cats.

            • graceadams830

              Firm and company are close synonyms. Don't worry about an occasional typo. I just hope our politicians manage to convince each other that since our fossil fuel firms so much do have us over a barrel, it really would be a lesser evil to leave our descendants with a HUGE PILE OF DEBT than to leave them with NO FARMS AND NO FOOD. If we wind up with a world as hot as the dinosaurs had, Alaska will be the only state able to grow much of anything in the way of food. Canada, Greenland (part of Denmark), Iceland, North Ireland and Scotland (part of United Kingdom of Great Britain), Scandinavian countries, much of the former Soviet Union, Antarctica, and the southern tips of Argentina and Chile will be able to grow some food but will have huge problem with too many would be immigrants. Most humans worldwide will die of famine, plague, or war, with death itself being the fourth horseman of the Apocalypse. If you were a human alive at the end of this century wouldn't you rather face an austerity program imposed by banksters you might possibly be able to rebel against than starvation brought on by weather-related disaster.


                You make a very valid point Grace .......and you didn't even need the fourth horseman.