Al Gore's Presentation Concludes Climate Reality Project's '24 Hours Of Reality' (VIDEO)

Over the course of 24 hours, 24 presenters in 24 time zones shared one common message: The world needs to accept the realities of climate change, and people need to act now.

Al Gore's Climate Reality Project, which launched "24 Hours of Reality" this week, featured presenters from the Solomon Islands to Cape Verde, London to Rio de Janeiro, speaking out about the dire implications of global warming. Stars showed up throughout the event, with celebrities including Mark Ruffalo and Renee Zellweger joining the fight against climate change.

When Al Gore sat down with The Huffington Post this week to speak about the climate change battle, he showed his eagerness to spread the message by saying, "If I thought it would help to stand on my head and do it in rhyme, I would do my best to pull that off."

At 7pm ET on Thursday, Al Gore closed the 24-hour event with his climate change presentation. According to HuffPost's Bonnie Christian and James Gerken, when Gore walked on stage, a ballroom full of people greeted him with a standing ovation. Reiterating his message of "reality," Gore calmly explained the dramatic and frequent weather events currently affecting our planet, and how these are linked to climate change.

Scroll down to view powerful videos from the event.

WATCH Al Gore's presentation:

Video streaming by Ustream

DOUBT narrated by Matthew Modine:

DOUBT from The Climate Reality Project on Vimeo.

CLIMATE 101 narrated by Bill Nye:

CLIMATE 101 from The Climate Reality Project on Vimeo.

GRASSROOTS:

GRASSROOTS from The Climate Reality Project on Vimeo.

CORRECTION: A previous version of this piece had incorrectly swapped the narrators for the middle two videos. The names are now correct.

Comments

[dixdarlin]

07:09 PM on 09/20/2011

Sorry, you cannot argue with ignorance or reason with insanity! Take the money and let the people kill themselves!
We don't need no stinking atmosphere!

[redsox4]

01:27 PM on 09/19/2011

Al Gore would make a GREAT used car salesman. This guy is on the ball!

[PureReason]

11:21 AM on 09/18/2011

Here's an article with an interesting take on Climate Change; that it's really just a natural cycle of the earth but with the added question on what has the increase in greenhouse (Mostly man made.) gases really done to that cycle.

http://anamecon.blogspot.com/

[banana republican]

09:16 PM on 09/17/2011

I don't understand why 24 hours of exposure to Gore and friends is legal and waterboarding isn't.

[lbsaltzman]

09:50 PM on 09/17/2011

To bad they don't offer a badge for meaningless ad hominem attacks.

[OcotilloKid]

03:46 PM on 09/19/2011

Me too....you don't have room for any more.

[Athletes Foot]

11:28 PM on 09/16/2011

There's an easily refuted claim that climate-change deniers make: If we can't predict the weather next week, we can't predict climate change.

Predicting the weather is different than measuring the climate. To predict the weather, you collect short-term data sets over a long period of time; you compare these short-term data sets, looking for relationships between them and the weather they are associated with; and you make a prediction based on these similarities.

Measuring climate is a different. It is based of long-term data sets. For example, you have thermometers across the world. When the global average temperature increases year after year, you know there is global warming. However, this increase does not mean that you will see some sort of linear increase (i.e., flat slant upwards). It will be a wavy line whose peaks are on average ever higher and who bottoms are on average ever higher as well (i.e., not as low).

And when you get weather that looks "cold", there are a number of things to take into consideration, for example, is it actually "cold" weather or is it weather due to more humidity in the air? Snow storms need to be warm for humidity to stay in the air before freezing at higher altitudes. Or for example, is ice melting having an impact? Polar, glacial and mountain ice are decreasing, leading to flooding as well as drought due temperature irregularities from cooler waters near the melt source.

[MarkJ306]

09:29 PM on 09/16/2011

Science is objective, not based on opinion or whim. The data indicates that the Earth is warming. This warming is enhanced by CO2 and other carbon-based organic compounds (aka: greenhouse gasses), which are components of the biproducts of the burning of fossil fuels. Humans use fossil fuels at extremely large rates. It stands to reason that human fuel consumption enhances global warming. The data also supports this as the release of greenhouse gasses corresponds quite well with the increased rate of fossil fuel use over the past several decades. It might also be noted that a prediction of global warming is the intensity and frequency of extreme weather conditions. While one or two big snow storms or hurricanes, or droughts or wildfires or floods does not automatically imply global climate change, when we see 100-year weather events happening every few years we need to seriously consider that the planet is warming, and that humans are contributing to it.

[urallcrazy]

09:19 PM on 09/16/2011

Remember Gore going up that scissor-lift to show the rising CO2 levels? Why didn't he have to go as high to show the rising temperatures? There is no proof the two have a cause/ effect relationship. CO2 levels have risen higher and higher at much faster rates since the beginning of the Industrial revolution. No anthropogenic global warming believer will deny that (it's the crux of their argument). Yet temperatures have clearly fluctuated over the same time period. That shows no correlation.

Without the CO2 cause, you have no reason to suspect man is causing global warming. And since man is not causing it, we should not destroy economies to "correct" it.

[MarkJ306]

09:39 PM on 09/16/2011

Actually, there is significant satellite-based research data that clearly indicates that global temperatures are rising, and correlate very well with increased CO2 levels. So therefore, according to your own reasoning, humans are contributing to global warming. So we should correct it. The reality, however is that our actions to correct it will not destroy economies - in fact by turning to green alternatives, we will actually develop and strengthen our economy.

[urallcrazy]

01:04 PM on 09/17/2011

I'm not arguing that temperatures are not rising now. There is evidence they are, very slightly. I disagree about the correlation, and am not convinced CO2 is THE cause of the rising temps.

Forcing the immediate changeover is what is harming the economy. Not using our resources to their full potential based on unproven information is hurting us. FORCING people to go a certain route (green) is expensive. Like the space program, I understand government investment in technological advancement. But to dictate what type of energy people use in homes and what type of lightbulb people can buy drives up the prices. They are not the best economically because they have had favored environments and subsidies. Ethanol is not the most cost-efficent fuel. Wind and solar are not the most cost-efficent sources of energy.

That doesn't mean I think alternative sources should not be explored. Absolutely go green. Let our companies invest, do R & D in those areas. Heck, let's even invest publicly, but to force it is not the best way to develop it.

[ifmd91]

11:21 AM on 09/19/2011

The 1973 Nobel Prize winner in physics, Dr. Ivar Giaever, has resigned from the American Physical Society (APS) over their position statement on Global Warming. The specific line he disagrees with states “”the evidence (for global warming) is inconvertible.” In a letter dated September 13th he writes the following.

“In the APS it is ok to discuss whether the mass of the proton changes over time and how a multi-universe behaves, but the evidence of global warming is incontrovertible?” he wrote in an email to Kate Kirby, executive officer of the physics society.
“The claim … is that the temperature has changed from ~288.0 to ~288.8 degree Kelvin in about 150 years, which (if true) means to me is that the temperature has been amazingly stable, and both human health and happiness have definitely improved in this ‘warming’ period,” his email message said.

He is, by no means, the only scientist who is critical of the global warming theory. Here is a sample of just a few scientists:
http://tiny.cc/26nra

Dr. Ivar Giaever certainly casts some serious doubt on the currently accepted view of global warming, his argument, is the fact that science is always about challenging ideas and theories. That is what makes the theory more valid, is the number of times it stands up to challenges, however in the global warming debate that idea has been turned on it’s head, some want no challenges at all.

[texfly]

02:26 PM on 09/19/2011

urallcrazy: "Yet temperatur­es have clearly fluctuated over the same time period. That shows no correlatio­n."

No correlation? See:

http://tinyurl.com/6dp7ett

Looks quite strong to me.

[urallcrazy]

11:36 PM on 09/21/2011

Way to put some depth in your argument. But, even in the very short time span (relative to historical 22,000 year cycles) the "trend" lines don't match. Your "strong" correlation only shows that both temps and CO2 are rising.

Nice try. Still not buying it

[Jimmy Foke]

06:46 PM on 09/16/2011

To the deniers I ask this question in all seriousness: what will it take to convince you that global warming is real? I also ask: what do you perceive to be the drawbacks of taking action against it? I really want to know.

[urallcrazy]

09:07 PM on 09/16/2011

Unquestionable proof that man is responsible for any climate change, warmer or cooler. Drawbacks are economic upheaval to implement the changes these people want. People complain about the amount of poverty now, imagine when everything costs more.

So I am not for wreaking havoc on economies around the world in attempts to change something I don't even believe we can. We will ruin ourselves and not accomplish a cooler climate.

[Jimmy Foke]

09:23 PM on 09/16/2011

Please elaborate on what kind of proof you want. I'm very interested to know.
"Unquestionable" is certainly a powerful adjective, but what specifically would convince you?

I'm not trying to argue, I want to know the perceptions of those with whom I disagree.

[doubtingdavid]

05:01 PM on 09/16/2011

The only wind turbine with a prayer of being profitable is Congress.

[ubrew12]

05:33 PM on 09/16/2011

Those 'unprofitable' wind turbines are sprouting up all over the world. Maybe if you used less prayer...

[BluePhantom2]

04:30 PM on 09/16/2011

It's all summed up in one word "FAIL". How come HP hasn't posted how many views the big event got?

[Ricky Bobby]

04:21 PM on 09/16/2011

Let's recycle Al?
He's been vetted. Obama is failing.

AL Gore For One More!
Theo the polar bear could be your VP.
http://img38.picoodle.com/i59g/pjimageframe/cvot_7d0_uc08k.jpg

[redsox4]

01:32 PM on 09/19/2011

Let's go to Applebee's!

[ubrew12]

04:08 PM on 09/16/2011

As an older guy fighting, like Gore, against global warming for 30 years, let me make a crude analogy to how I feel about you younger deniers out there: Basically, our generation, Gore's and mine, we took a dump in your bed. So I'm laughing at how ardently you deniers insist your bed doesn't smell, cuz, ya know, you're going to have to sleep in it. Your denial is often filled with ego-driven nonchalance, but here's the reality: the longer you pretend not to smell anything, the happier I get.

[doubtingdavid]

05:04 PM on 09/16/2011

As an older guy fighting for common sense for over 50 years, I'd say your right, you took a dump in the nexrt generations beds and now you want to make a profit having them clean up your mess.

[ubrew12]

05:29 PM on 09/16/2011

Well, we'll see. In my opinion, that smell is going to start reeking in about 5 years. I'm not sure how I 'dumped' on their profit margins, but I'm sure you'll think of something...

[sealtheborder1]

10:18 AM on 09/16/2011

Here is the deal....all the peeps who believe in the man made GW myth can send their hard earned money to gore or whoever.........those who do not can carry on as normal! BTW if you believe in the myth.....all your doing is voting for higher taxes, meaning less disposable income for families and further deepening the recession.....so......GW believers want to further the recession.....just like obama......

[captioned]

10:31 AM on 09/16/2011

You are falsely attributing a 'motive' where none exists. Nice straw-man argument you've got there, and I really hope you believe in as fiercely as you seem to think "GW believers" do. Meanwhile, back on Planet Earth, where mankind's industries and transportation are polluting the lower atmosphere with CO2 (alone!) at a rate of 25-32 billion tons a year, the arctic ice is receding and species are migrating at unprecedented amounts

[McGyver1]

05:49 PM on 09/16/2011

I dont believe it.

[hatenomor]

06:00 PM on 09/16/2011

Man made global warming is a scam.
You know that, that's why you've now changed the concern to global climate change, which we all know occurs, all the time. Nothing man made about it.

[sealtheborder1]

10:09 AM on 09/16/2011

This concludes 24 hours of LIES, PSEUDO SCIENCE, LOST DATA and it also concludes Al's money making scheme to bilk BILLIONS from US in new taxes on energy.....in his bid to try to control the world energy supply.......he is sick!

[captioned]

10:32 AM on 09/16/2011

And that 'conclusion' of yours is based upon what?

[BluePhantom2]

04:28 PM on 09/16/2011

How about the recentl closed "Chicago carbon exchange" that needed legislation to make it the money maker Gore hoped to cash in on.

[Dallas Dunlap]

09:47 PM on 09/16/2011

What lost data are you referring to?

[Shan Wells]

12:06 AM on 09/16/2011

Answer honestly: did you watch any of the the three videos?

[Slate 1947]

08:39 AM on 09/16/2011

Of course not. Climate deniers all seem to have some things in common. They are too lazy to investigate for themselves, and too quick to except the word of those who don't know any more about climate change than they do.

[doubtingdavid]

05:07 PM on 09/16/2011

Nope, I prefer to read non politicized science not the pap you GW religious fanatics believe in.