Gore's Big Plan

Earlier today, Al Gore made a Kennedyesque challenge to Americans to completely abandon fossil-fuel-generated electricity by 2018.

“The survival of the United States of America as we know it is at risk,” Mr. Gore said in a speech to an energy conference here. Gore “The future of human civilization is at stake.”

He said the goal of producing all of the nation’s electricity from “renewable energy and truly clean, carbon-free sources” within 10 years is not some farfetched vision, although he said it would require fundamental changes in political thinking and personal expectations.

“This goal is achievable, affordable and transformative,” Mr. Gore said in his remarks at the conference. “It represents a challenge to all Americans, in every walk of life — to our political leaders, entrepreneurs, innovators, engineers, and to every citizen.”

Gore cited not only consequences of global warming, but national security, as part of his motivation.

Two major studies from military intelligence experts have warned our leaders about the dangerous national security implications of the climate crisis, including the possibility of hundreds of millions of climate refugees destabilizing nations around the world. Just two days ago, 27 senior statesmen and retired military leaders warned of the national security threat from an “energy tsunami” that would be triggered by a loss of our access to foreign oil. Meanwhile, the war in Iraq continues, and now the war in Afghanistan appears to be getting worse.

The speech has been largely ignored by the righties and CNN wonders if Gore is relevant anymore.  What do you think--does the US have the will to do it?  Should we?  Discuss.

The full speech is here; you can watch it here

Comments

  • bedtimeforbonzo (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Gore should have ran for president if he wanted to command the bully pulpit.

  • Bill Jones (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Gore: “The survival of the United States of America as we know it is at risk,”... “The future of human civilization is at stake.” JK: He got that right, but for the wrong reason: The real danger is destroying the world’s economy while trying to fix a non problem. The real danger is Al Gore.

    Remember the chart of CO2 & Temperature going up and down together, in his book and movie? When the book was written, everyone assumed that the CO2 rises and falls caused the temperature to follow.

    Later research showed that actually the temperature changes THEN, 800 YEARS LATER (on average) the CO2 changed. Since a cause cannot follow an effect, the chart does not show that CO2 affects temperature. Some speculate that after some unknown factor caused the initial temperature increase, the CO2 increase could have caused it to continue. But why introduce a new factor, when the original cause could merely have caused the whole cycle? Here is what the web site of one of Al Gore’s advisers has to say: At least three careful ice core studies have shown that CO2 starts to rise about 800 years (600-1000 years) after Antarctic temperature during glacial terminations. (realclimate.org/index.php?p=13)

    I argue that, since the chart DOES NOT SHOW CO2 CAUSING TEMPERATURE CHANGE, the fact that Al included it was with intent to deceive and thus he lied.

    He also openly admits the deceiving people: I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous it is, (Al Gore in Grist, 09 May 2006, grist.org/news/maindish/2006/05/09/roberts/ bold added)

    So, why does anyone still listen to this admitted liar?

    Gore: He said the goal of producing all of the nation’s electricity from “renewable energy and truly clean, carbon-free sources” within 10 years is not some farfetched vision JK: Already Europe is finding that wind doesn’t work, so why is Al still pushing unrealistic dreams as if they actually worked? Already millions have been put into poverty by the bio fuels mania. Do we want to be next into poverty by following these nuts?

    Gore: ... although he said it would require fundamental changes in political thinking and personal expectations. JK: Think about that line: fundamental changes in political thinking That means giving the faceless bureaucrats more control over energy. It impoverished the Russians and it will do the same here.

    personal expectations. This can only mean reduce you expectations for a better life - you must sacrifice you future prospairty to Al’s false green god.

    Gore: “This goal is achievable, affordable and transformative,” JK: Unfortunately, the only PROVEN, carbon free, energy source, nu-clear, is not being pursued.

    Blue Oregon: The speech has been largely ignored by the righties ... does the US have the will to do it? Should we? JK: The righties should be screaming bloody murder about what cannot work and can only lower our standard of living. Do we have the will - I hope we have the common sense to actually look at the data (hint there is no proof of CO2 causing dangerous warming)

    Should we? Should we continue to impoverish people on false claims?

    Thanks JK

  • Brian (unverified)
    (Show?)

    He makes some good points, but am I the only one who is troubled by Mr. Gore's personal energy consumption? Call it right-wing propaganda, but the fact remains this guy gobbles up more kilowatt hours in a week than I do in an entire year, not to mention private jet trips, etc. That bothers me.

    Note: I hereby swear that my registered party affiliation is with the Democratic Party at this time.

  • Rick Hunter (unverified)
    (Show?)

    That's the best you can do for a photo...something circa 1998? You know, before he started drinking bacon grease for breakfast...you could see it oozing out of his enormous forehead during his sermon...errrrr...speech today.

  • (Show?)

    uh, anybody want to actually comment on the post? on the fact that Gore is one of the few people who comprehend the complexity of this issue? geothermal? solar power? wind power? future of the planet?

    As for me, I'm totally in. I'm calling all of my political representatives and candidates. Al Gore is a hero.

    Anybody else?

  • (Show?)

    Very nice.

    Let's attack Gore personally for the way he looks and repeat the same old tired canards, instead of dealing with the real issues.

    Wind isn't "working" in Europe, eh? Anyone who has been there recently or even knows the status of the global wind power industry would take issue with that contention. So would Vestas.

    T. Boone Pickens is a liberal stooge, right? He made his money........selling.......tofu? U I suppose the same is true of Matt Simmons?

    And expensive fossil fuels aren't impoverishing anyone right now. If they are, the current price of oil is all the fault of liberals, democrats, and environmentalists. Just ask W and Dick. They are two of the most objective analysts around on the subject.

    any more brilliant commentary?

  • billy (unverified)
    (Show?)

    any more brilliant commentary? Yeah:: Gore just lost part of his imagined consensus among scientists:

    American Physical Society, Forum on Physics & Society: There is a considerable presence within the scientific community of people who do not agree with the IPCC conclusion that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are very probably likely to be primarily responsible for the global warming that has occurred since the Industrial Revolution. (aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200807/editor.cfm )

    Day by day the case for man being guilty of warming the planet is falling apart.

    DO NOT MAKE THE MISTAKE OF hurting millions of people over this imagined danger.

    Thanks JK

  • Steve (unverified)
    (Show?)

    "Gore is one of the few people who comprehend the complexity of this issue?"

    You must be kidding, he is a lawyer who saw an opportunity to grab TV time and his book is merely a string of anecdotes with no real answers.

    However, we should look for alternative sources of energy, unfortunately solar isn't ever going to be enough and no one wants ewindmills in their back yard. Nuclear anyone?

    Please, give me a solution besides passing more laws.

  • Douglas K (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I can only hope other Democrats -- those actually in government -- will embrace the challenge. Ten years to American energy independence is a bold and inspiring goal, and probably achievable. It's also the sort of goal that Americans of all political stripes can embrace, notwithstanding the predictable screeching of oil-industry flacks and assorted delusional wingnuts.

  • TR (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Gore can start by remodeling his elitist large home into dense studio apartments, live in one of them and donate all but 30 to 40 thousand dollars of his yearly income to developing such a plan. Then, if he can’t afford to make ends meet, he will be living like the majority of the people living in this country whose income is not keeping up with inflation, let alone his grandiose ideas.

  • Bob Tiernan (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Earlier today, Al Gore made a Kennedyesque challenge to Americans to completely abandon fossil-fuel-generated electricity by 2018.

    Would be nice, but this proves he's a lunatic. If he hadn't left out nuclear power, he might be on to something.

    This has reminded me of the idiots who think they're saying the truth when they utter "We'll have widespread solar power when the utility companies figure out how to put a meter on sunlight".

    But that reveals that person's stupidity. You see, the utility companies don't own the sun, so they have no business or no power to charge you for using it. Since anyone out there can work on solar power technology, including greenie millionaires, this type of comment is an admission that it must be very diffucult to utilize sunlight to the extent solar power advocates wish to use it. If it was easy, we'd all be using it to power many things at home. So don't blame utility companies for any lack of massive use of solar power.

    As for wind, sure, but I'm waiting for the Kennedys to allow it to be generated near their gated, armed-guard-protected Cape Cod compound.

    Bob Tiernan

  • Chris McMullen (unverified)
    (Show?)

    What a crock. Gore and his entourage took two Lincoln Town cars and an SUV to get there. And one car sat idling for 20 minutes so's it would be nice and cool for Tipper and their daughter. Is there some reason he couldn't walk or take the bus -- like he urged everyone else?

    The lefties love to jump all over evangelists for their hypocrisy, but give Gore a pass.

    How typical.

    Gore a hero, my a**.

  • edison (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Hmmm ... I see the trolls are out in force on this one. Look, trolls, here's the deal, Al Gore may not be your cup of tea, I'm not a huge fan of his, but the truth is we've been f'n up this planet for some time now and to continue to do so to ah, let's see, how about to "preserve our economic security", is folly. The Bushies, who've had the responsibility for nearly everything over the last 7+ years (think deficit, the banking/mortgage scandal, the GWOT!™, etc) have done more damage than I thought was possible in their [relatively] short run. Come to think of it though, the Bushies and folly seem to go together ... I do have some good news for the trolls, though. This 'argument' about whether or not humans are a cause of climate change will be resolved soon. Then we can all have a good laugh ... or not.

    Full Disclosure: This is my opinion and I'm entitled to it. :-) Cheers!

  • no stooge (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Attention trolls, Republican stooges and industry hacks - even George W. Bush has admitted this country is addicted to oil, but doesn't have the balls to do anything about it. Hell, Bush promised to regulate carbon dioxide back in 2000, but lied about that too. I think some of you folks need a 12 step program.

    As they say in Alcoholics Anonymous, denial is the PRIMARY psychological symptom of addiction. It is an automatic and unconscious component of addictions. Addicts are often the last to recognize their disease, pursuing their addictions into the gates of insanity, the collapse of health and ultimately death. Sadly, many addicts continue to act out on their addictions while their world collapses around them - blaming everything but the addiction for their problems.

    This is true for alcohol and drug addicts, but its a good parallel for our society's addiction to fossil fuels and the behavior of the deniers above.

    All Gore is saying is that its time to face our addiction, to overcome it, and to use our American ingenuity (the same kind that put a man on the Moon) to develop new ways to conduct our lives and businesses without burning fossil fuels. Sure, society is not ready to go cold turkey, but together, as Americans, we can do over the next decade what may seem impossible today.

    It will be for the benefit of our country, our economy, our planet, our health and the health of future generations.

  • Abe (unverified)
    (Show?)

    edison ... the truth is we've been f'n up this planet for some time now and to continue to do so to ah, let's see, how about to "preserve our economic security", is folly. JK: I do not believe it is merely about economic security, it is about economic devastation. It is about making energy so expensive that only the rich can afford to heat their homes or drive cars. The counter argument to this is based on cheap renewables. Working renewables DO NOT EXIST, on a national scale, and there is no real evidence that they can. We thought that wind could do this, but are discovering that there is no way to economically fill in the times of no wind. Same for solar. No person who can do grade school math thinks this is proven as a cost competitive alterative. AND if it is not cost competitive, that means it is TOO EXPENSIVE.

    no stooge - even George W. Bush has admitted this country is addicted to oil, but doesn't have the balls to do anything about it. JK: He just did something about it – he lifted the executive order against more drilling (offshore, anwar?) That is a real step in solving the real problem which is cost, not “addiction” as you claim. If we want to talk addiction, lets talk about mass transit using more energy than small cars per person transported each mile.

    no stooge Hell, Bush promised to regulate carbon dioxide back in 2000, but lied about that too. I think some of you folks need a 12 step program. JK: Did you finally find some proof that CO2 actually causes dangerous warming? Show me the peer reviewed paper.

    no stooge This is true for alcohol and drug addicts, but its a good parallel for our society's addiction to fossil fuels and the behavior of the deniers above. JK: What addiction? Society is addicted to fossil fuels, not like a drug, but like we are addicted to food, heat, mobility and economic well being. Why do you want to destroy those with some silly war on a harmless trace gas that feeds plants?

    no stooge All Gore is saying is that its time to face our addiction, to overcome it, and to use our American ingenuity (the same kind that put a man on the Moon) to develop new ways to conduct our lives and businesses without burning fossil fuels. JK: And Al Gore is posed to make MILLIONS OF DOLLARS off of it. He is president of a mutual fund that invests in green companies. He is a partner in a venture (some say vulture) capital partnership that funds green energy companies. Today’s speech is best interpreted as :

    Use the power of government to force people to shovel money to my companies.

    Disgusting.

    Thanks JK

  • edison (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Oh yeah ... I nearly forgot. This comment is bunk:

    "Gore just lost part of his imagined consensus among scientists:

    American Physical Society, Forum on Physics & Society: There is a considerable presence within the scientific community of people who do not agree with the IPCC conclusion that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are very probably likely to be primarily responsible for the global warming that has occurred since the Industrial Revolution. (aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200807/editor.cfm )

    Day by day the case for man being guilty of warming the planet is falling apart."

    Here's a link ( http://www.aps.org/ )to the American Physical Society web site where they reaffirm their position on climate change and state clearly that the forum referenced by the commentor does not reflect the views of the American Physical Society. Interestingly, one of the proponents of this contrary view of the reality of climate change is Lord Monckton of Brenchley. He's a real piece of work. He was science advisor to Margaret Thatcher. You can learn more than you ever wanted to know about him here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Monckton,_3rd_Viscount_Monckton_of_Brenchley As usual, the trolls use whispers and distortion to imply something which simply isn't true. Sigh ...

  • edison (unverified)
    (Show?)

    The link for Lord Monckton was somehow truncated. (Gosh, I hope that wasn't caused by manmade CO2!!!)

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Monckton,_3rd_Viscount_Monckton_of_Brenchley

  • Bert Lowry (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Billy:

    Why are you trying so hard to find something -- anything -- to justify your fanatical belief that global warming is not man-made? Seriously, man, it seems pathalogical. If you keep it up you're likely to sprain something.

    Anyway, here is what the APS says on it's website:

    APS Climate Change Statement APS Position Remains Unchanged The American Physical Society reaffirms the following position on climate change, adopted by its governing body, the APS Council, on November 18, 2007: "Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth's climate." An article at odds with this statement recently appeared in an online newsletter of the APS Forum on Physics and Society, one of 39 units of APS. The header of this newsletter carries the statement that "Opinions expressed are those of the authors alone and do not necessarily reflect the views of the APS or of the Forum." This newsletter is not a journal of the APS and it is not peer reviewed.

    So, in the newsletter, someone posted a (poorly written) statement -- with the same scientific rigor as a letter to the editor or a blog comment -- saying they think there's a "significant body" of scientists who disagree with the IPCC statement that manmade CO2 is "very probably likely to be primarily responsible for the global warming..."

    It's no more credible than the letter signed by 8 gajillion people who have never studied the Earth's climate but have B.S. degrees. The number or loudness of people who have baseless opinions on global warming is not useful information. What do the people who actually study it think?

    Sadly, I don't expect the facts about the newsletter to make any difference in your beliefs or actions. I'm responding so others can see that anti-Gore crusaders of the world are either dishonest or terribly, terribly gullible.

  • kim rain (unverified)
    (Show?)

    The Sky is falling the Sky is falling.

    These scare tactics remind me of the tours democrats making through retire homes: "Grandma, remember to vote democrat or those evil republicans will have you eating dog food"

    Scare 'em and tax 'em

    you all must be proud.

    BTW, how old is that pic of algore - 20 years old? Why not put up a current pic of the bloated gore - the one you currently worship?

    peace out

  • Wait a minute! (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Al Gore has been telling us that only cavemen disagree with him, the science is settled, no credible scientists disagree, right? Haven't we heard that for years from High Priest Al, and echoed on this blog time and again?

    So now the American Physical Society itself releases a statement that acknowledges there IS NO CONSENSUS on the central scientific claim of Al Gore and his minions:

    "There is a considerable presence within the scientific community of people who do not agree with the IPCC conclusion that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are very probably likely to be primarily responsible for the global warming that has occurred since the Industrial Revolution."

    SO WHAT if the APS itself still believes in the CO2 theory? They are just on one side of the debate. They acknowledge there are many credible scientists on the other side - in other words - THERE IS NO CONSENSUS!

    Al Gore is lying.

    APS is to be congratulated for its honesty and for finally putting the wooden stake through the heart of the "consensus" argument.

  • (Show?)

    This is an incredibly fascinating thread to read through. Obviously, the issue of global warming is not fact-based, at least for those on the right. I get why this would be the case with the values issues, but global warming? There's nothing cultural at all in this issue. It's broadly accepted by most Americans, nearly every scientist, and most politicians. It's not possible to characterize the problem as partisan. The solutions, perhaps. But the screechy, ad hominem response here has nothing to do with solutions--it's all chicken little stuff about the problem.

    I think this is another legacy of Rove/Limbaugh-era politics, where issues themselves became partisan terrain, and any issue seen to be the province of the Dems is an elitist lie designed to somehow suppress the will of common good folks.

    Gonna take years to rinse that toxin from politics...

  • Wait a minute! (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Jeff: "Nearly every scientist?"

    The APS itself admits there is a robust debate on the central proposition of the GW hypothesis. You say the right is not "fact-based" and then you immediately mischaracterize reality in the next freaking sentence?

    "Considerable presence in the scientific community...."

    Does that sound to you like it is "nearly every scientist?"

  • Bob Tiernan (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Jeff Alworth:

    I think this is another legacy of Rove/Limbaugh-era politics, where issues themselves became partisan terrain

    Bob T:

    Issues have been partisan terrain for a long, long time. But I guess you;re right if history started just a couple of decades ago.

    This reminds me of a guest on a radio show several months ago - a woman who headed a small activist group claim that "Bush is the worst president of all time!" (which is what many have been saying as it has become a talking point [he's in the bottom 25% just the same, in my opinion[ ). When she was asked if she really thought that he was worse than Jimmy Carter (after providing examples of what Carter left behind), she said, "Oh, that was a long time ago". In other words, what she was really saying was that Bush is the worst of the past 25 years at most, but it just sounds better to say "of all time".

    What a bore.

    Bob Tiernan

  • Mike Schryver (unverified)
    (Show?)

    You can re-post the lie as many times as you want, but the APS DOES NOT admit there is a robust debate. You keep referring to an article posted on a forum that doesn't represent the view of the APS.

    Here, again, is the statement on the APS website:

    APS Climate Change Statement

    APS Position Remains Unchanged

    The American Physical Society reaffirms the following position on climate change, adopted by its governing body, the APS Council, on November 18, 2007:

    "Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth's climate."

    An article at odds with this statement recently appeared in an online newsletter of the APS Forum on Physics and Society, one of 39 units of APS. The header of this newsletter carries the statement that "Opinions expressed are those of the authors alone and do not necessarily reflect the views of the APS or of the Forum." This newsletter is not a journal of the APS and it is not peer reviewed.

  • quit lying (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Schryver - WRONG! It is the EDITORS of the Forum on Physics and Society who made that statement, not contributors to the forum.

    The forum is a publication of the APS. They say there is no consensus. The APS admits there is no consensus.

  • Mike Schryver (unverified)
    (Show?)

    "That's what I'm askin'!" "Third base!"

  • (Show?)

    Look, why do we always wind up with Deniers vs. Scientific rationalists.

    The fact is that when the nation decides on a course of action, regardless of the merits, billions will be spent without a murmur. By the most conservative estimates, we've spent close to $1,000,000,000,000 (Yeah there're a lot of damned zeros in one trillion) in Iraq in the last five years to overturn oil extraction leases awarded by the Iraqis to the Chinese, Russian, and European companies following the Gulf War.

    We are currently spending additional billions on the anti-capitalist efforts to bail out huge, allegedly private banks, speculators, hedge fund and futures traders, that are too big to fail, but hey, that's not commie-socialism, that's prudent scientific economics.

    Did that make any damned sense at all? Where was the scientific reason for that one?

    It's an indisputable fact that huge and long term good would come out of US energy independence, regardless of the opinions on the initial reasons not to do it.

    Geeeeeeeze.......

  • (Show?)

    What's with all the trolls on this thread?

  • (Show?)

    FYI, I no longer respond to anonymous trolls who deny global warming. Capital letters only make you look more unhinged. The consensus is fact; whether people accept that is another, tiresome, off-point issue.

  • Eric Parker (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Another gold star for the Head Ecozealot of the US.

    I guess he needs something to do since he isn't running for anything...

  • Circular proof (unverified)
    (Show?)

    LOL! Jeff you use a report by the IPCC as proof that the IPCC's claim of consensus is fact! Nice job!

    But of course you fail to address the current issue - the APS itself says there is no consensus. Of course, a troll is pointing it out so you can put your hands on your ears and say "I can't hear you."

    Nice dream worlkd you live in.

  • AJ526 (unverified)
    (Show?)

    It would certainly be nice to convert to all renewable energy.

    I would like to hear why you don't want us to drill in places like ANWR, where it doesn't seem like any significant damage would be done to the enviro.

  • Miles (unverified)
    (Show?)

    The APS put this disclaimer above the Monckton article that questions the "climate crisis":

    The following article has not undergone any scientific peer review. Its conclusions are in disagreement with the overwhelming opinion of the world scientific community. The Council of the American Physical Society disagrees with this article's conclusions.

    The right-wing deniers first said "There is no proof of global warming." When scientists published articles that supported global warming, the deniers said "Okay, but science is debatable and you don't have consensus." When scientific organizations starting taking strong positions that reflected the consensus, the deniers said "Okay, but it's not unanimous. This guy over here disagrees." And you know what? They're right, he does disagree. And thus the deniers want to base all environmental public policy on the view of that guy over there.

    It's almost funny.

    Almost.

  • jeff (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Jeff Alworth Obviously, the issue of global warming is not fact-based, at least for those on the right. JK: But, Jeff, it is fact based and the facts are not on your side. Keep in mind if Man’s CO2 does not cause warming, you have no case for changes in man’s behaviour. FACTS: FACT 1. No one has proven that CO2 actually causes dangerous warming. (In fact one recent paper claims it causes cooling.) If you believe otherwise, cite the paper to me. Note that the IPCC reports are merely rehashed reports of research, not research.

    FACT 2. We do have evidence that temperature CAUSES CO2:At least three careful ice core studies have shown that CO2 starts to rise about 800 years (600-1000 years) after Antarctic temperature during glacial terminations. (realclimate.org/index.php?p=13)

    FACT 3. CO2, at most, causes 20-30% of the climate warming effect. (realclimate.org/index.php?p=142) That means that at most, man can reduce future greenhouse heating by 20-30 %.

    FACT 4. the maximum supportable number for the importance of water vapour alone is about 60-70% and for water plus clouds 80-90% of the present day greenhouse effect. (realclimate.org/index.php?p=142)

    Add up these facts and there is no case for dangerous warming. Then you can add a few more indications:

    1. Al Gore has admitted lying.
    2. Al gore stands to make money from his mutual fund.
  • jeff (unverified)
    (Show?)
    1. Al Gore is a partner in a company that invests in green startup companies and his call for complete conversion of society to renewables is just using government force to drum up business.
    2. Al Gore has already made millions from scaring people.
    3. Even a British court agrees that AL lied in his move.

    How can anyone have an unwaving belief in view of the above?

    Jeff Alworth It's broadly accepted by most Americans, nearly every scientist, JK: No it isn’t, that was the point of my posting. What we are seeing is that scientists are taking a closer look at the smoke and finding no fire, just hype.

    Jeff Alworth I think this is another legacy of Rove/Limbaugh-era politics, where issues themselves became partisan terrain, JK: No, just the lack of facts and several admitted liars on you side. Of course the whole foundation of the modern panic is Mann’s hockey stick which is simply a fraud.

    Jeff Alworth Gonna take years to rinse that toxin from politics... JK: Right, it will be years before anyone believes anything from the greens again after the dust settles on this one.

    Oh, and don’t forget that according to the most accurate data in the world, the USHCN, 1998 is tied with 1934 as the warmest year in recorded history. What about the 10 years since 1998? They were all cooler. That means we have been cooling for 10 years. Where is that headline?

    Thanks JK

  • KJ (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Let me stress that the key issue is whether or not man is causing dangerous climate change.

    Only if man is the CAUSE, can we justify action. Further, the proposed remedy MUST address the way man causes the change. Since the current proposals involve reducing CO2, they are only relevant IF man’s CO2 is actually causing changes in climate. (I would further qualify that to “dangerous changes”.)

    In view of that, all the scare stories are just noise. Polar bears, ice caps, Greenland, hurricanes, torenados, tidal waves, earthquakes are all irrelevant to the debate if Man’s CO2 is not the cause. That is the detail that often gets forgotten. Of course the second detail is whether or not the Earth is really warming dangerously.

    As far as I can tell no one has ever proven that CO2 actually causes dangerous warming and absent that proof there is no justification for political action.

    Second there is good reason to question the data that shows dramatic (as opposed to natural) warming.

    I hope this clarifies my position.

    Thanks JK

  • Bob Tiernan (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Jeff Alworth:

    The consensus is fact

    Bob T:

    Science is not about consensus. Otherwise, it was a fact that the earth was once flat.

    Besides, there is no consensus on this.

    Bob Tiernan

  • Jay (unverified)
    (Show?)
    Bob T.: Would be nice, but this proves he's a lunatic. If he hadn't left out nuclear power, he might be on to something.

    Bob, Gore is not anti-nuke; he explicitly calls for existing US nuclear plants to stay on-line. This is important, because they provide baseload capacity. But I'm guessing he appreciates a couple of things that maybe you're not keeping in mind.

    • It's a 10-year plan, and the political reality in the US is that maybe if you're lucky you can get a nuclear plant sited and construction-licensed in 10 years, with construction and operating license 3-5 years after that. That's just how it is.
    • Even if we could magically cut that timescale to 7-8 years, we would be building conventional pressurized water reactors with all the attendant problems-- inefficient with fuel, lots of very hot, expensive waste, long shutdowns for re-fueling, etc. etc. Not smart. Better to work on a second "moonshot" plan for advanced nuclear power technology (passive-safe, maybe gas-cooled, maybe Thorium-based, etc.) with a 15-20 year timeline.

  • Bert Lowry (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Jeff:

    5. Even a British court agrees that AL lied in his move.

    That's not true. Read what the court ruled. I'd try to explain it to you, but I suspect I would get frustrated trying to teach something to someone who is actively trying not to learn it.

    Seriously, though, you guys should spend some time trying to figureout why you're so emotionally invested in believing that global warming is not caused by man. You're acting pretty weird. I can understand skepticism (I'm skeptical myself), but you're not being skeptical. You've already decided it's not man-made and now you're looking for any thing you can find to support the conclusion you already reached.

    That's the opposite of skepticism; it's fanatical belief.

  • jeff (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Bert Lowry (quoting Jeff) 5. Even a British court agrees that AL lied in his move. Bert Lowry That's not true. Read what the court ruled. JK: I did, did you?: from: cpi.cam.ac.uk/gore/pdf/Al%20Gore%20ruling%20-%2010%20Oct.pdf

    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION ADMINISTRATIVE COURT B e f o r e : MR JUSTICE BURTON ..... All these 9 'errors' that I now address are not put in the context of the evidence of Professor Carter and the Claimant's case, but by reference to the IPCC report and the evidence of Dr Stott.

    The 'Errors' 1. 'Error' 11: Sea level rise of up to 20 feet (7 metres) will be caused by melting of either West Antarctica or Greenland in the near future.

    1. 'Error' 12: Low lying inhabited Pacific atolls are being inundated because of anthropogenic global warming.

    2. 'Error' 18: Shutting down of the "Ocean Conveyor".

    3. 'Error' 3: Direct coincidence between rise in CO2 in the atmosphere and in temperature, by reference to two graphs.

    4. 'Error' 14: The snows of Kilimanjaro.

    5. 'Error' 16: Lake Chad etc

    6. 'Error' 8: Hurricane Katrina.

    7. 'Error' 15: Death of polar bears.

    8. 'Error' 13: Coral reefs.

    Bert Lowry I'd try to explain it to you, but I suspect I would get frustrated trying to teach something to someone who is actively trying not to learn it. JK: No need to, it is pretty clear that he lied (error of these magnitude do not happen be accident is a big dollar production - they are intentional “overrepresentations of the facts - see the grist interview)

    Bert Lowry: Seriously, though, you guys should spend some time trying to figureout why you're so emotionally invested in believing that global warming is not caused by man. JK: So, show me you evidence: a peer reviewed paper (or two) that proves CO2 actually causes dangerous warming. If you cannot do that, they it is YOU who “should spend some time trying to figure out why you're so emotionally invested in believing”

    Thanks JK

  • Marv (unverified)
    (Show?)

    After skimming over some of the comments which appear to be well rehearsed and too often repeated bits from the oil stooges it remains that one can not reason a person from a point of view that they did not reason themselves into. For those who would like to add some knowledge to their reasoning give David Blume's Alcohol is a Gas a read. There are solutions. Who builds the cars that Brazil uses? GM. What do they burn? Alcohol. Can we do this here? Yes. It is being done. Read the book.

  • Todd (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Interesting subject to bring up. I never understood it before why people cared if humans were causing global warming or not. I think the majority of people believe it is happening.

    I came to a realization of why people and Al Gore are claiming that humans are the cause of global warming.

    Gore and other global warming alarmists are scared. If humans did not cause global warming then a serious implication arises. Humans do not have the ability to control our environment or our destinies. They are afraid of being at the mercy of something bigger, something we know nothing about, something that we can do nothing about.

    This fear has led to global warming alarmism that plagues our country, ruins development and freedom, and promotes poverty.

    "The thing I fear most is fear. " -Michel Eyquem de Montaigne French philosopher

  • zzzzz... (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Geez, this thread sucks. You trolls are so B-O-R-I-N-G! Go spew over at NW Republican - please.

  • jeff (unverified)
    (Show?)

    zzzzz... Geez, this thread sucks. You trolls are so B-O-R-I-N-G! Go spew over at NW Republican - please. JK: Maybe you’ll find this little paper by a real scientist interesting:

    Shifting of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation from its warm mode to cool mode assures global cooling for the next three decades. Don J. Easterbrook, Dept. of Geology, Western Washington University, Bellingham, WA (icecap.us/images/uploads/WashingtonPolicymakersaddress.pdf)

    Thanks JK

  • Howard (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Progressives will do anything to avoid being wrong. Including deliberately remaining wrong.

  • Bob Tiernan (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Jay:

    Bob, Gore is not anti-nuke; he explicitly calls for existing US nuclear plants to stay on-line. This is important, because they provide baseload capacity.

    Bob T:

    But was nuclear listed as one of the producers of power in this plan? I didn't see it.

    Jay:

    But I'm guessing he appreciates a couple of things that maybe you're not keeping in mind.

    It's a 10-year plan, and the political reality in the US is that maybe if you're lucky you can get a nuclear plant sited and construction-licensed in 10 years, with construction and operating license 3-5 years after that. That's just how it is.

    Bob T:

    I understand the delay, but is there agreement that halting nuclear plant expansion for nearly three decades has hurt us? I opposed them for most of those 30 years, but then realized that my view was based on not understanding it, and the propaganda that filled the gap. In the meantime, we've had many coal burning plants (mostly out of sight, out of mind). Very dirty, and very foolish.

    All of the other stuff is fine -- I like all kinds of alternatives to all kinds of things -- but I just have doubts about wind and solar having the ability to replace what we have.

    Bob Tiernan

  • TR (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Gore’s the real troll here. Under his plan the rich get richer, including Gore himself, while middle and lower income people struggle just to keep up with inflation, ever increasing taxes and utility rates. Does this sound familiar? It is what one party is always accusing the other party of doing. Gore represents the ideology of an overpaid CEO raking in millions of dollars while the average blue collar salary does not even keep up with the cost of living. There was a time when party politics was all about protecting the little guy and representing the rank and file. No more! Now the party is about dictating to the people how they should live and penalizing them with excessive taxation if they do not follow that order. Working class people are being treated as if they are an infinite all encompassing financial resource for the all the whims and fantasies government can come up with. Bit by bit the freedoms of democracy are being eaten away by the controlling socialist mindset of the elitist far left. Gore is one of those people!

  • joel dan walls (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Go go go JK!

  • joel dan walls (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Given that JK is an electrical engineer, I expect he has engineered some sort of "bandpass filter" that alerts him whenever the word "climate" appears on Blue Oregon. He then gets to regale us with citation of people like Don Easterbrook, retired glacial geologist with no known expertise in climate issues. Cuz Lord knows JK never posts to this site otherwise.

    Question to Blue Oregon editors: why are your spam filters set up so mention of JK's actual surname sends messages directly to the spam box, do not pass go, do not collect $200?

  • Bob Tiernan (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Marv:

    Who builds the cars that Brazil uses? GM. What do they burn? Alcohol. Can we do this here? Yes. It is being done. Read the book.

    Bob T:

    Unless I'm mistaken in recalling the history I've read, in the early decades of the automobile there were three fuels used, each with roughly a third of the market. One was gasoline/diesel, but one of the others was alcohol (I can't recall the third - I doubt it was steam). No wonder Henry Ford supported Prohibition!

    Bob Tiernan

  • jeff (unverified)
    (Show?)

    joel dan walls: He then gets to regale us with citation of people like Don Easterbrook, retired glacial geologist with no known expertise in climate issues. JK: Please tell us what fields the two leading climate alarmists, M. Mann, Jim Hansen, got their doctorates in. Also, NaomiOreskes, who wrote that paper finding a consensus on global warming - what field did she get her degree in?

    I hope I didn’t leave the impression of offering Easterbrook as anything beyond being a real scientist. (Maybe you’ll find this little paper by a real scientist, instead of an scientifically illiterate “science writer” interesting He is a real scientist and time will tell if he is right.)

    joel dan walls: Cuz Lord knows JK never posts to this site otherwise. JK: I have posted stuff other than “peer reviewed” links. You just have to read the posting.

    Thanks JK

  • Harry Kershner (unverified)
    (Show?)

    While I think, "...before he started drinking bacon grease for breakfast...you could see it oozing out of his enormous forehead during his sermon..." was very funny, Gore is hardly a reason for either side of this argument to feel comfortable. When Al possessed the power to do something meaningful, he acted like just another corporatist. Remember his position on Kyoto?

    Re: "controlling socialist mindset of the elitist far left"

    This is even funnier than the bacon grease quote. What we have in the U.S. is privatized profits for the rich and socialized costs and risks for the rest of us, and it's a system that's supported by both corporatist parties. Try to keep up on the financial crises which are about to create a new depression.

    On nuclear: you who support this should pool your money to pay for it, since having the public cover the costs is another of those "socialist" solutions.

    Amory Lovins (Expanding Nuclear Power Makes Climate Change Worse):

    "...nuclear cannot actually deliver the climate or the security benefits claimed for it. It’s unrelated to oil. And it’s grossly uneconomic, which means the nuclear revival that we often hear about is not actually happening. It’s a very carefully fabricated illusion. And the reason it isn’t happening is there are no buyers. That is, Wall Street is not putting a penny of private capital into the industry, despite 100-plus percent subsidies."

    Progressives should be skeptical about support for any candidate who supports corn ethanol and nuclear.

  • jeff (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Er, there are a number of nu-clear plants in the approval pipeline right now.

    If they are so un-economic, why are they continuing to run the existing ones and why are they applying for permits to build more?

    PS: Can anyone show us the peer reviewed paper that proves CO2 increases will cause dangerous warming? (Empirical proof, not a playstation model, please.)

    Thanks JK

  • Bob Tiernan (unverified)
    (Show?)

    By the way, if carbon dioxide is a pollutant, is oxygen also a pollutant? It must be.

    Bob Tiernan

  • Tom Civiletti (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Bob Tiernan wrote:

    By the way, if carbon dioxide is a pollutant, is oxygen also a pollutant?

    If oxygen release were large enough to overcome natural atmospheric concentration control mechanisms, and O2 concentrations went over 25%, catastrophic wildfire would be a much greater problem. Oxygen would certainly be a pollutant under such conditions.

    jeff wrote:

    Can anyone show us the peer reviewed paper that proves CO2 increases will cause dangerous warming?

    Anyone asking this either does not understand the science very well or argues disengenuously. Absence of proof is no excuse for absence of responsible action.

  • jeff (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Tom Civiletti: jeff wrote: Can anyone show us the peer reviewed paper that proves CO2 increases will cause dangerous warming? Tom Civiletti: Anyone asking this either does not understand the science very well or argues disengenuously. JK: Do you understand the importance of that question? The warmers appear to have no proof of very foundation of their case. If CO2 does not cause dangerous warming, then there is no reason to do any of the things being proposed to reduce CO2. (Of course the 2nd step is, is man really responsible for the CO2 increase? And step3 would be: is the warming really harmful, or is it likely to prevent the next ice age?)

    Tom Civiletti:Absence of proof is no excuse for absence of responsible action. JK: Absence of proof IS A VERY GOOD REASON TO NOT TAKE STEPS THAT WILL HURT MILLIONS OF PEOPLE. Look it as spending one million on an insurance policy on a $100,000 house. Bad deal. Cure is worse than the disease. Only Al Gore and his cronies gets rich.

    Or do you want to re-arrange the world economy every time some unproven crackpot, hysteria sweeps the country? Is that the progressive way?

    Have you read Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds? Google it - you will find that it is a classic and a free download.

    Thanks JK

  • Bob Tiernan (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Bob T:

    By the way, if carbon dioxide is a pollutant, is oxygen also a pollutant?

    Tom Civilleti:

    If oxygen release were large enough to overcome natural atmospheric concentration control mechanisms, and O2 concentrations went over 25%, catastrophic wildfire would be a much greater problem. Oxygen would certainly be a pollutant under such conditions.

    Bob T:

    Yeah, you needed to added those conditions. Even with that condition, this is not what people consider to be a pollutant. I'd like to see Gore try to convince people that they are polluting just be breathing, and are actually exhaling something that trees and plants and grasses need. The people might actually see this kind of talk for what is is, finally.

    So, will the courts now force the EPA to consider oxygen a pollutant? Or will it be kept off the list for politcal reasons (i.e. political backfire reasons)?

    Bob Tiernan

  • Harry Kershner (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Jeff asked, "If they [nuclear plants] are so un-economic, why are they continuing to run the existing ones and why are they applying for permits to build more?"

    Renewables last year got $71 billion of private capital (not including big hydro). Nuclear got zero. It is only bought by central planners with a draw on the public purse.

    What does this tell you?

    Libertarians like me are opposed to all anti-democratic institutions, not just government. You should be opposed to welfare for the rich.

  • joel dan walls (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Mr. Kershner, is your figure about nuclear only pertinent to the United States, and if so, do you draw any conclusions from that?

    As for "central planning", it's a nice phrase for conjuring up bogeymen and ideological responses. I can't get on board your libertarian kneejerk rejection of "central planning", however, nor your implicit embrace of free-market capitalism as some sort of panacea. (I have to admit, I have a hell of a time seeing how you reconcile this brand of libertarianism with supporting Ralph Nader....)

  • Tom Civiletti (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Bob Tiernan,

    It's really quite simple: if humans release something into the environment that has a negative effect, that substance is a pollutant. What is there to argue about, for goodness sake?

  • Harry Kershner (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Mr. Walls: My figure was drawn from Amory Lovins' interview on Democracy Now (Expanding Nuclear Power Makes Climate Change Worse), and the context is worldwide.

    I do believe that central planning is sometimes worthwhile, but when only central planners are willing to invest, it should tell us something important about the desirability of investment in nuclear.

    I am no "free-market capitalist", i.e., I don't see any "free" markets and I don't see any "capitalism", but central planning, as the Soviets should have taught us, is also no panacea.

    What Nader says is, "No to nuclear power, solar energy first", and his argument is similar to Lovins': "The nuclear power industry is demanding 100 percent federal government loan guarantees because Wall Street won't loan the money for new nuclear plants without those taxpayer guarantees" (Nader on Energy).

  • jeff (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Tom Civiletti: if humans release something into the environment that has a negative effect, that substance is a pollutant. What is there to argue about, for goodness sake? JK: So you are telling us that natural processes are the biggest polluters (97% of CO2 release if from natural processes, only 3% is man made.)

    Thanks JK

  • Bob Tiernan (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Tom Civilletti:

    It's really quite simple: if humans release something into the environment that has a negative effect, that substance is a pollutant. What is there to argue about, for goodness sake?

    Bob T:

    That's a new definition. Sorry. Using your logis, if the earth gets covered with H20 then plain, clear, clean water will be called a pollutant.

    I'm not buying that. Sorry.

    Besides we could use more oxygen. There used to be more in the atmosphere. I think we're healthier when there's more oxygen.

    Bob T

  • Steve (unverified)
    (Show?)

    "97% of CO2 release if from natural processes, only 3% is man made"

    Why is it that things like this never phase liberals?

    Why doesn't it matter that Humans produce so little CO2 and liberals buy the entire AGW theory that increasing that 3% to 4% spells doom?

    And this is hardly the only troubling component of the IPCC story so I'm not suggesting one should disregard the IPCC soley on the 3% human emissions.

  • Tom Civiletti (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Bob T:

    That's a new definition.

    Air pollution is the human introduction into the atmosphere of chemicals, particulate matter, or biological materials that cause harm or discomfort to humans or other living organisms, or damages the environment.

    Steve wrote:

    "97% of CO2 release if from natural processes, only 3% is man made"

    Why is it that things like this never phase liberals?

    I will not speak for liberals, but perhaps it is because the concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide has increased by about 35% since the beginning of the age of industrialization.

  • Steve (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Humans are responsible for only part of the 35% and CO2 only causes 9–26% of the greenhouse effect.

    Water vapor, causes about 36–70% of the greenhouse effect on Earth. methane, causes 4–9% ozone, causes 3–7

    And the greenhouse gases are not the only influence on global temperature. Solar flare activity and other influences are major contributors.

  • Bob Tiernan (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Bob T:

    That's a new definition [of pollution].

    Tom Civiletti:

    Air pollution is the human introduction into the atmosphere of chemicals, particulate matter, or biological materials that cause harm or discomfort to humans or other living organisms, or damages the environment.

    Bob T:

    So the spread of oxygen-generating plant life, w/o our help, won't count. That's what I'm talking about -- not people causing the oxygen increase.

    Besides, we once had more oxygen content in the atmosphere so if that percentage goes up we'll only be getting back to where we were and where we should have stayed.

    Sorry, but I'm still having problems with your classification of oxygen as pollution. That'll only encourage some to cut down trees or something.

    Bob Tiernan

  • Tom Civiletti (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Steve,

    The NOAA piece I reference above says:

    ...human activities have increased the concentration of atmospheric CO2 by 100 ppm or 36 percent.

    So, your first point is mistaken. Your overall argument falls flat because you ignore the way systems work. Absolute measurements are not as important in understanding performance as are changes from homeostatic conditions.

    For instance, on a cold winter day [0 degrees F. ambient temperature], your metabolism will keep you a cozy 98.6 degrees. If you contract an infection which increases you temperature to 105 degrees, you will feel very ill. You could argue that a less than 7 degree change is relatively small, so the infection could not be causing your discomfort - but you would be wrong.

    It a metaphoric sense, consider the straw that broke the camel's back. As long as the load is within the camel's carrying capacity, the animal can keep up with the caravan. Once its maximum load is reached, a small addition can lead to catastrophic breakdown.

    The situation with global warming is similar. The greenhouse effect is not a bad thing. It is part of what makes earth habitable. Complex physical and biological systems regulate the amounts of naturally occurring greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. This has kept earth's climate roughly constant throughout historic time. Problems arise when changes in greenhouse gases are too large for natural feedback systems to absorb. A huge increase in volcanism could do it, as could combustion within a few hundred years of a large part of the planet's stored hydrocarbons. It is not absolute amounts of greenhouse gases, whether water, carbon dioxide, or methane, but instead it is change from equilibrium concentrations that makes the difference.

  • Tom Civiletti (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Bob,

    Your seem unable to understand that a substance you consider beneficial, like oxygen, can be a problem at higher than normal concentrations. Try this experiment:

    Buy a cylinder of oxygen from a welding supply shop. Empty it into a small, well-sealed room. Place a pile of crumpled newspaper on a fireproof surface in the room. Light it on fire. Get back to me with your findings.

  • jeff (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Tom Civiletti: The NOAA piece I reference above says:

    ...human activities have increased the concentration of atmospheric CO2 by 100 ppm or 36 percent.

    JK: Got a peer reviewed source for that?

    Thanks JK

  • Tom Civiletti (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Jeff,

    The IPPC process is peer reviewed consensus, though you seem to dismiss it as a conspirational coterie of scientists with what motivation, I cannot imagine.

    CHANGES IN HUMAN AND NATURAL DRIVERS OF CLIMATE

    Carbon dioxide is the most important anthropogenic greenhouse gas (see Figure SPM-2). The global atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide has increased from a pre-industrial value of about 280 ppm to 379 ppm3 in 2005. The atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide in 2005 exceeds by far the natural range over the last 650,000 years (180 to 300 ppm) as determined from ice cores. The annual carbon dioxide concentration growth-rate was larger during the last 10 years (1995 – 2005 average: 1.9 ppm per year), than it has been since the beginning of continuous direct atmospheric measurements (1960 – 2005 average: 1.4 ppm per year) although there is year-to-year variability in growth rates.

    The primary source of the increased atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide since the pre-industrial period results from fossil fuel use, with land use change providing another significant but smaller contribution.

  • Sam Geggy (unverified)
    (Show?)
    <h2>JK overvalues the rubric "peer reviewed". What set of peers will please the gentleman? Rand? Heritage?</h2>
open discussion

connect with blueoregon