Science a GoGo's Home Page Forums General Discussion Climate Change Forum Al Gore

Vice President Al Gore's speech

He challenged America to generate 100% of our electricity from sources that do not lead to global warming -- and to do it within 10 years. Meeting this ambitious goal would create millions of new jobs, lead to permanently lower energy costs for families and help America lead the fight against global warming.

Watch the speech here

We Can Solve It Web Site

Hey Paul,

I noticed that Nasif Nahle responded to your post over on that "Semantics..." thread on NQSci:
http://www.scienceagogo.com/forum/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=27299#Post27299

It would be much more "On Topic" over here on the Climate Change Forum. I'm hoping, if you want to respond, that you'll copy his response over to here (...or on NQ) starting a new Topic Thread. (...and thanks again re: that old PM on "Semantics...")
===

As for Al Gore, even my mother-in-law is down on his case; but she's easily swayed by the jingoistic journalism of CNN's Glen Beck:
http://www6.lexisnexis.com/publisher/EndUser?Action=UserDisplayFullDocument&orgId=574&topicId=100007219&docId=l:826999667&start=1

With the preface, "Right now in Tucson, Arizona, a Colombia University physicist named Klaus Lackner is working on an amazing device. It's a CO2 scrubber. It could remove one ton of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere every single day."

"Yet, Al Gore is not happy about the CO2 scrubber. Environmental groups are opposed to the idea of a CO2 scrubber. Why is that? In fact, they oppose many of them, any technology that allows us to continue to live with fossil fuels. Hah. It`s almost like somebody on this program has been saying that for quite some time."

Glen's guest STERLING BURNETT, NATIONAL CENTER FOR POLICY ANALYSIS says:

"Well, it's really out there for a month. It's been out there for months, they have been talking about it but as you say, nowhere on the front page.
The "New York Times" hasn't covered it. "Washington Post" isn't covering it. It's a -- you have to find it on YouTube. I will say "60 Minutes" did a story on it last month."

Oh yea, I saw that. He soaks up CO2 with sodium and calcium hydroxide. I think he'd only need ~30 million "house-sized" units. ...but I digress. ...after lamenting the lack of media coverage, Burnett continues....

"But -- because, as you've already rightly identified, Glenn, the environmentalists, and they're the ones driving the global warming whip, they're not really concerned about CO2. They're concerned about people's lifestyles.
They want to control -- they have a vision of the world. And that vision, they continue to live in their pretty nicely appointed houses, and pay more for the cars that make them salve their conscience, and the poor people don't do that well because their vision is a simpler lifestyle for everyone but them.
In the '80s, there was a t-shirt, a group called "Earth First." Had a model called "Back to the Pleistocene" well, they don't go quite that far, but they really -- it's about, as you said, controlling how people live. I don't think it's not about money. It's about control."

Yikes! Do these people really talk like that, or is this just a bad transcript:*

* "Aired July 24, 2008 - 19:00: ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED."
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0807/24/gb.01.html
.
.
.

Yea, that's it, Paul! People like us and Al Gore don't want to save civilization, we just want to control people's lifestyles (...added sarcastically).


...btw, NATIONAL CENTER FOR POLICY ANALYSIS:
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=55
ExxonSecrets Factsheet: National Center for Policy Analysis: Founded in 1983, NCPA acts as an organizer for other conservative groups as well as conducting its own free-market oriented public policy analysis on issues such as health care, social security, fiscal policy, and the environment.
NCPA has an "E-Team" that analyzes environmental policy. The global warming "experts" on the team are climate skeptics who opposed the Kyoto Protocol and continue to oppose any regulation of greenhouse gasses. Global warming "experts" include Marlo Lewis and Christopher Horner of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, Kenneth Green from the Fraser Institute, Thomas Gale Moore from the Hoover Institution, and S. Fred Singer of the Science and Environmental Policy Project.

Gee, where have I seen that last name before?
===

I do wish Al Gore would focus more on soaking up (sequestering) CO2 through enhancing our agricultural and forestry practices, rather than just the 'radically cutting emissions' part, much as James Hansen recommended:

http://www.scienceagogo.com/forum/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=27120#Post27120
"...and adopting agricultural and forestry practices that sequester carbon." -Hansen

...and on top of that...!

Algae can produce up to 8000 gallons of biodiesel/acre. That's got to be better than a hydroxide-based scrubber, for soaking up CO2; don't you think?

http://denver.bizjournals.com/denver/stories/2008/01/28/story4.html?b=1201496400%5E1581925


p.s. I've seen numbers more like 100-400 gallons for corn, and up to 2000 gallons for coppiced poplar or willow; but still that's no 8,000 to 10,000 gallons/acre!

Isn't using fossil fuels the best way to produce lots and lots of CO2? Doesn't CO2 produce the sort of air pollution that is bad for our health, and is the type of thing that China, with the Olympics drawing close is trying to stop for a couple of weeks by reducing traffic and closing factories in Beijing? And are there not many many powerful people with a huge vested interest in the status quo regarding CO2 fuels? And is not "Clean Coal" merely an idea and not a solution? And believe me I have even more questions to ask! Here's one. Who are these people who cannot see that even WITHOUT Climate Change we have needed to do this type of reduction for many years as part of improving our quality of life?

I hope Al Gore goes on rattling lots more cages until we all come to our senses and learn to live in a way that does not threaten our planet, and, who knows, even our existence.

The primary reason of Al Gore propaganda is to keep the oil prices low. The main concern connected with fossil fuels burning isn't the global warming, but the economical and geopolitical instability, connected with risky and expensive wars for nonrecoverable fuel sources (compare my remark here). This is the true motivation of Nobel Piece Prise of that guy.

Al Gore propaganda is saving whole world from nuclear global war and it helps to keep the oil prices low. Well, in addition it can help us to slow down the global warming, but the risk of global nuclear war is much more relevant problem here. Of course, we can say: "stop the oil consumption because of low sources" - but such approach will not keep the oil prices low - on the contrary. We have to find another reason for keeping oil consumption down - and this is exactly, what the Al Gore is doing by now.

sounds like a plan to me.

I believe Al Gore is doing a great service to the peoples of this planet.

Some say he is misleading the public by exaggerating...
I say he has held back some of the terrors we will be facing...

.

Everybody, who is fighting against Al Gore is in fact helping the totalitarian regimes of Russia, East Asia and Latin America in survival and restoration of Cold War confrontation. Not saying about global warming and unrecoverable damage of life environment.