Interesting how I quote scientific group after scientific group on this subject to prove my points, and you quote a politician.
I imagine when you were having a problem with an advanced calculus problem in high school, you went to your P.E. teacher for advice? Or maybe your History professor? (I always thought it was best to ask a math teacher about math problems.)
Do you think that Al Gore took political science classes, thus he must be more of an expert on science than groups like NASA, the national academy of sciences, etc..?--LOL
I truly fail to see any logic in your points or credibility in your sources. Why would you quote a politician when we were having a debate about science?
Also, when are you going to get around to answering the questions I have posed to you, like I have consistently answered yours? When are you going to prove a point, or try to disprove one of mine, instead of just continuously asking me to prove that mine are correct?
To anyone else reading this, who is interested in the global warming debate, I ran across another very interesting article.
Did you know that the initial interest in global warming came when a NASA scientist testified to congress (about 14 years ago) and that he told congress he was 100% sure that global warming existed. Later, it was discovered that there were errors in the computer model he was using that came up with this scenario. When the flaws in this program were fixed, he recanted and said that there is no evidence of global warming! Sounds just like the UN's computer model problems that keep changing their global warming projections. You won't here that in Al Gore's speech!
Or how about this info from NASA. (I told you about this in an earlier post, remember? (one of the ones in which you said I was delusional. I guess the scientists at NASA must be delusional also, since they don't agree with Al Gore either!) The one about satellite info. contradicting land based temp. measurements and how it is believed that urban sprawl has created a lot of concrete structures which corrupted those land based measurements due to the heat holding characteristics of this concrete/urban sprawl. Thus the temp. measurements were also corrupted. Most temp. measuring post are located around airports or in developing areas, not out in the forest somewhere where developments won't affect their readings)
here's a short excerpt from the article
Unlike the surface-based temperatures, global temperature measurements of the Earth's lower atmosphere obtained from satellites reveal no definitive warming trend over the past two decades. The slight trend that is in the data actually appears to be downward. I can just see pulatus's brain working hard and saying, "Darn, there's that pesky cooling problem again! How am I ever going to prove Global Warming exists with data like that around!" The largest fluctuations in the satellite temperature data are not from any man-made activity, but from natural phenomena such as large volcanic eruptions from Mt. Pinatubo, and from El Niño. So the programs which model global warming in a computer say the temperature of the Earth's lower atmosphere should be going up markedly, but actual measurements of the temperature of the lower atmosphere reveal no such pronounced activity.
The whole article is at this URL.
http://science.nasa.gov/newhome/headlines/essd06oct97_1.htm
Now if only I could find a politician or environmental group to say this same thing instead of actual scientists, then It could finally be considered credible info! 
Rodney