Al Gore's Electricity Plan 100% Renewable in 10 Yrs.

I'll ask again, why wasn't Gore all over this topic when he was in office, with more power and Clinton's ear? Did the earth only begin warming when he left office?

 

I'll ask so what?

 

I was just thinking the same thing.

I recall, I believe in 2002, when Al Gore was selected for the "random" second screening. I remember thinking how painfully stupid it was to select the former Vice-President of the United States for a secondary terror screening.

 

Government will have to take action in order to have meaningful change in this regard. Most things of this magnitude are done via a phase in. That is because things of this magnitude do not pay for themselves. The money has to come from somewhere.

We need government action. We do not need government knee-jerk reaction. There are history books filled with examples of the latter that ended quite poorly.

 

He has always been into environmental issues -- plus, we've learned a lot since last century.

 

Apparently he flies both commercial and charter. I have posted video evidence from 2007. Someone else has a recollection that dates back to 2002. The real questions are: 1) how often does he fly charter as oppposed to commercial and 2) why does he need to fly charter at all (and how can he justify it).

Politicians are know to create photo-ops.

 

So what? Just think of the jump we might have had on all of these issues had he not waited until after he lost in 2000 to try to keep his name relevant.

And, yes, the same could have been said for many administrations before his. We've heard about electric cars since the 70s (maybe before) but nobody ever took it to the next level.

 

I read it, and then I read the APS analysis by Lord Monckton.

All I said is, maybe it's not settled after all. What did you think of the analysis? Or did you just stop when you saw that it was not peer reviewed?

 

As a public figure, I believe that he is safer flying charter.

 

Because he's running for president? what are you guys' issue with this guy, this is classic hatorade, just baseless accusations

 

Here's an interesting read: http://roicopy.com/2007/10/19/john-stossel-guest-posts-exposes-gores-marketing-through-intimidation/

John Stossel Guest Posts! Exposes Gore’s Marketing Through Intimidation

John Stossel inconveniently busts Al Gore and exposes the phony motivation driving the new religion of global warming activism.

Got an email from Stossel recently and I was so impressed with what he said and how he said it, I secured his permission and let him have the entire slot today.

Actually I was so envious of how well he made his case that, for a brief time, I regressed to freshman year at J-school.

So, take it away John:

“This Friday on “20/20″ (at our new time, 8 p.m. EDT) I say “Give Me a Break” to our Nobel Prize-winning former vice president.

Al Gore says, “The debate is over,” and those who disagree with his take on global warming have been “purchased” in order to create “the illusion of a debate.”

Nonsense.

It’s as if Gore and his allies in the environmental movement plan to win the debate through intimidation.

I interview some scientists who won’t be intimidated, even though one has had his life threatened for speaking up.

Gore’s much-applauded movie, “An Inconvenient Truth,” claims global warming is man’s fault and a coming crisis! While the earth has certainly warmed over the last century, plenty of independent scientists say they cannot be sure that man caused the warming or that warming will be a crisis.

They say the computer models that are used to predict the disasters don’t include important variables, because scientists don’t fully understand them.

For example, warming may cause cloud formations that reflect sun and cool the earth. The computer models cannot know. These scientists call global warming activism more of a religious movement than science.

Misleading By Misinformation

Mr. Gore’s movie is filled with misleading messages.

It suggests polar bears are disappearing and that “sea levels worldwide would go up 20 feet.” I interview children who are scared. They believe the polar bears are already going extinct and that the oceans will soon rise even higher than 20 feet, drowning them and their parents. [blogger's note: I remember a similar instance back in '69, only we were told we'd all freeze to death in 20 years!]

But polar bear populations appear to be steady or increasing, and a 20 foot rise is a theoretical possibility that wouldn’t happen for millennia.

The IPCC, the group that shared last week’s Nobel Prize with the former vice president, says in 100 years the oceans might rise 7 to 24 inches, not 20 feet. Now a British judge has ruled that British schools must disclose to students nine inaccuracies in “An Inconvenient Truth” if they play the movie in class.

Mr. Gore suggests that we can stop global warming by doing things like changing light bulbs and driving less.

Nonsense.

The only practical thing we can do today that would make a difference in CO2 output is to launch a major shift toward nuclear energy. But the environmental movement rarely utters the word nuclear.

Exposed! What Gore & Co. Stand To Gain

I suspect that next year’s government boondoggle will be massive spending on carbon-reducing technology. It reminds me of George Mason University economics department chairman Don Boudreax’s suggestion that such schemes really mean “government seizing enormous amounts of additional power in order to embark upon schemes of social engineering — schemes whose pursuit gratifies the abstract fantasies of the theory class and, simultaneously, lines the very real pockets of politically powerful corporations, organizations, and ‘experts.’”

He is so right. The abstract fantasies of the theory class will soon send huge chunks of your money to politicians, friends, activist scientists and politically savvy corporations.

The debate is over? That makes me say GIVE ME A BREAK!”

**BREAKING NEWS**

My good friends at JunkScience.com have the scene-by-scene breakdown on how much footage would have to be excised from Gore’s film, if all the scenes containing the “nine factual errors” were cut.

Here’s a hint, 25 minutes of the 98 minute film would have to be cut. Yowza! Nothing like losing a third of your film due to things that just aren’t true!

Does Gore owe you a reimbursement if you paid full price at the theater? Bought the DVD and/or the accompanying book? Hmmm . . . wonder how much of his carbon offset investment company he would have to sell off to pay everyone back?

 

yes, what does al gore stand to gain from being an environmental activist?

 

1. A Nobel Prize
2. Wouldn't his business stand to profit from the expansion of this theory?
3. He hasn't lost his voting privilege so he could also run for some other office.
4...

I'm glad that Gore is goosing the discussion, but his questionable certitude is off-putting. Hey, rimrocker even quoted him... "The debate is over." Well what about those 9 points and the should-be missing 25 minutes of his award-winning movie?

You are trying to silence the critics as only offering "hatorade"-- whatever that is.

 

as usual a ridiculous statement. secondly, you're whole criticism is based on him flying in a private jet, which was proven wrong, yet you're still arguing. thirdly, would you agree that asking american to change their energy habits is not the most popular issue to get you elected. has this ever worked for anyone?

 

the problem is this isn't a debate, this is a I hate al gore and therefore I think he's dishonest about his passion about the environment even though the only proof i have is his huge house (which is an office) and that sometimes he flies on a private jet.


if you actually wanted to debate whether the proposal to be 100% renewable in 10 years, I would say that's a ridiculous statement. but YOU guys are focused on Al Gore the man, not the message.

 

You made it; I just quoted it.

That was just one item of criticism. Are you then saying that that was a body double seen exiting the Lear in 2007? I'm not going to hammer the guy because he flew on a Lear jet a few times. We have a third-hand report dating back to 2002 and video evidence from 2007 and you think I was proven wrong? Sheesh!!! As I said, I'm sure he does both but he is stuck with the image of the Limousine Liberal and no one has proven that he doesn't deserve it.

I don't think anyone has tried, but I agree that I doubt it would appeal. Better to give them incentive-- economic incentive, because the scary theories just don't seem to be changing behavior. Go Al go-- just don't ask us to suspend our critical thinking because you may be overboard with your theorizing.

 

I'm not the one who said "debate over." You've ignored all the encouraging things I've said to and about Al Gore. I think his urgings are good for the national debate; I don't like the arrogant way he (and his supporters) act certain of the argument in the face of legitimate criticism.

 

no, i'm referring to your accusation that i'm censoring criticism by posting on a basketball web site

has al gore criticized your use of travel? or has he just said we need to switch, if there was a viable alternative, even if it was more expensive, than I'm sure he would use it, just like he spends extra on his own home

how is al gore suspending critical thinking, that's ridiculous. any scientist can say whatever they want.

 

Here's what you wrote: "this is classic hatorade, just baseless accusations." What are we to think when you call our video evidence of a double-standard and our scientific contributions to the discussion "baseless criticism." You allowed that someone's "recollection" of a SWAir flight to trump an actual video of Gore de-boarding a Lear Jet as "proof" of his travel habits. That's just kooky...

1. Isn't it about our individual carbon footprint?
2. What a great time to be trying to guilt people to spend more money on more earth-friendly ways of living. Not everyone is an Al Gore. Isn't that kind of out-of-touch with 2008 reality?

Did you read Stoessel's piece? Have you observed the behavior of Gore's backer's in this thread? It mimics Gore's stance. "The debate is over."

Of course the problem remains as always, what do people mean when they say something. In the first place, the term "global warming" is infused with a correlation to human causality. There seems to be no doubt that there is some kind of warming trend globally. Is it significant? Jury is out. Is it reversible? Jury is out? Is it a normal fluctuation? Jury is out.

I too recall being told as a young student that the ice caps were encroaching on North America. Fact is we humans don't know half of what we think we do!

 

I want a solar powered car that can fly me to the moon!!!