On Friday, during a Congressional hearing on the Obama Administration’s proposal for a cap-and-trade system to curb greenhouse gases, Al Gore had to defend his honor. Marsha Blackburn, the Republican Congresswoman from Gore’s home state of Tennessee, questioned his motivations behind supporting the proposal because of his investments in green startups through his role at Kleiner Perkins, where he is a partner. (Watch the video above, courtesy of Talking Points Memo).
Blackburn comes off as clueless and Gore comes off as defensive. She didn’t seem to know too much about Kleiner Perkins other than that it is a “capital firm” and that it has invested “$1 billion in 40 companies that are going to benefit from cap-and-trade legislation,” or at least that is what she gathered from an old New York Times Magazine article. “Are you aware of that company?” she asked him.
Then she asked Gore if he stood to personally benefit financially from these investments, and that set him off:
Congresswoman, if you believe the reason I have been working on this issue for 30 years is because of greed, you don’t know me.
He pointed out that “every penny” he makes from these investments, his book, and movie go to the nonprofit Alliance For Climate Protection. Blackburn responded by saying that she was just trying to get clarity on the issue, but Gore was having none of it:
I understand exactly what you are doing Congresswoman. Everybody here does. . . . I’ve been willing to put my money where my mouth is. Do you think there is something wrong with being active in business in this country? I am proud of it.
Is this video from a parallel universe or did the Republican Party become anti-capitalist all of a sudden?
You gotta love Al Gore.. I think he speaks the truth when he says he really does care about trying to save the planet..
I think the documentary made that pretty clear.
Yeah, he also believes he created the internet, you buy that one?
I’m behind him on a renewable energy source but the mankind-induced climate change issue is still debatable. It’s self promotion on his part and it was sad to hear that he won a Nobel Peace Prize for it. Humans and all animals expel CO2 gas at the mouth during respiration. What the heck’s next; are we going to all be forced to wear re-breathing equipment to filter that too?
Hey Kevin,
Can you find the quote that specifically states he invented the interent? *Clue, I bet you can’t find it. Show us the video of his saying that.
There is audio of it in lots of places…here is an example that took 5 seconds to find…
http://www.yout...h?v=LpxtKcLSFWw
@davidpas: Gotta love quotes taken out of context…as that video does. Why not check out what snopes.com has to say–and their examination of the determined efforts to misinform? Did Gore claim to invent the internet? Their verdict: false.
http://www.snop...es/internet.asp
Yeah, taken out of context but the KEY point is that he said “created”. So yes, he did say it.
If he wasn’t trying to take credit in that way he could have easily used another word. Politicians, especially VPs like Al Gore, know the importance of choosing their words very carefully.
He indeed said “created”.
Snopes is run by a liberal couple, so while it is generally a trustworthy source, you do have to take some political info with a grain of salt, e.g. their weird attempt to correlate Gore’s statement to a hypothetical scenario with Ike.
@davidpas, @Kevin Taken way out of context, why does the video stop right after the words “Created the Internet”? What words follow?
You guys listen to too much right wing radio and their spin meisters.
http://www.clasilistados.org nice!!
Al
Kevin,
This subject is NOT debated and hasn’t been debated by the scientific community for years. Climate change has only been “questioned” by those that would be politically or economically hurt by this quantified reality…oh, and the naive, uneducated, badly read, and those otherwise lacking in critical thinking ability.
The “question” is just how much is do to man and how much is a natural occurrence. Do you know the answer to that? Of course you don’t. Know one does yet, which IS why there is still debate in the scientific community.
Do you not believe that we had an Ice Age? Did the Earth not get warmer after Ice Ages.
James:
Do you really believe everything that is published in a scientific peer-reviewed journal article? I hope not because that is very naive to do so. Science is only as good as the researcher that performs it and how well the reader’s ability is to interpret it.
Science doesn’t “prove” that global warming is caused by man. Besides, for every study that shows you that it does, there’s another that says it doesn’t. That’s why there is such a debate. Science is just a methodological system for examining things/occurrences that’s subjective to human error and personal interpretation. It’s not 100% fool proof and it’s only as trustworthy as the researchers that are conducting the research. Moreover, it’s been suggested that as much as 10% of all research is fabricated or in someway dishonestly presented. So keep that in mind next time you use the word science to “prove” something.
By that way I work in science. What area of work are you in?
Paul:
Great response, couldn’t have said it better myself.
nice one, pwalker. by ‘do’, you meant ‘due’, and ‘know one’ you meant ‘no one’. and, yes, scientists do know, because scientists are able to dig up deep hunks of ice that contain frozen sediments and, more importantly, gases.
want to know how much of an impact a volcanic eruption had on atmospheric co2? easy. check the ice about the time that a volcano erupted. want to know how much of an impact natural cycles had? guess what? it’s all there.
finally, it’s pretty easy to calculate the impact that humans have on co2 levels. we know approximately how many cars there are in the world, approximately how efficient they are, and about how far they’re driven, based on the total gasoline sold. additionally, the impact of industry can be calculated by virtue of how much energy is produced using coal and gas plants, and any other sources.
1. (mi/y)*(gallons/mi)(moles C/gallon) = carbon produced from driving
2. (E/y)*(coal/E)*(moles C/coal) = carbon from industrial sources
if you’d like, i can plug in the numbers for you. they’re REALLY not that difficult to find. even inaccurate estimates give you a picture of the overall magnitude of atmospheric carbon that humans are responsible for.
that carbon doesn’t just “automagically” disappear. there are some natural carbon sinks, but my assumptions are:
a. they are at capacity
b. they can’t absorb carbon that quickly
even so, they’d have a diminishing effect on the total carbon produced, up to a point. and, at the point at which they stop absorbing carbon, the full effects of atmospheric carbon dioxide will be felt.
last time i checked, a super volcano hasn’t erupted in a while. and even when volcanoes have erupted, you can see their impact on atmospheric carbon, by virtue of the CO2 data collected at the top of mauna kea over the past few decades.
sorry, paul. fail.
Ryan Cammer:
You *fail* to realize that science does not equal truth. It is just our best educated guess and susceptible to human error and misinterpretation. There’s just as much scientific evidence to refute global warming as there is to support it and that’s why it’s so feverishly debated.
By the way, when you say “fail” or “pwned” that means you had the superior argument and it makes it truth just because you said it.
Hey Kevin,
I think everybody knows science is just an educated guess, but the point is, if our “best educated guess” points to A, why on earth would you believe in B?
thanks, kevin! i never could’ve articulated that two separate words don’t have the same meaning quite so poignantly as you have in your perspicuous post. science is, after all, a method for ascertaining truth, while truth is conformity with fact or reality. i’m glad you made me realize that it was necessary to make this clarification.
in response to your comment, to the best of anybody’s knowledge, one plus one ALWAYS equals two. without fail. from basic number theory, you can prove the fundamental operations of mathematics. hence, basic calculations are NOT susceptible to misinterpretation or misunderstanding. sorry, buddy. jesus doesn’t trump multiplication.
seriously, try plugging in the numbers. you can’t refute the numbers. once you do this, come back and post. i dare you to. i know it’s difficult to do five minutes of digging on google, and then HAVE to use a calculator or spreadsheet to substantiate your arguments, but you should try it. you might like it
Ryan Cammer:
The problem you fail to realize is that numbers do not appear out of thin air. They come from humans and humans are susceptible to error, misinterpretation, and bias. Data can be manipulated to substantiate an argument and if you don’t understand that you need to take a remedial statistics course. Theories are created, challenged, rigorously tested, and often revised. Global warming is a theory and there’s no concrete evidence to say definitively that it’s completely truthful that can’t be refuted by other evidence. Again, that’s why this is a theory that’s debated and not dogma that’s just blindly accepted. To assume that this theory is 100% correct is quite naive. Once you stop questioning things and testing theories, you’re no longer a real researcher/scientist.
Q dub:
Again, it goes back to questioning, challenging, and rigorously testing theories. If you just accept something as true without testing it, you’re never going to know whether it is or not. By blindly accepting it without challenging such theories you become part of the problem as you are by default promoting dogma.
Kevin:
What makes you think it hasn’t been challenged? Its not like one scientist came up with the idea and before you know it, everybody’s on the boat. Awareness of this problem is many years in the making and it *has* been challenged, many times. But what do you make of the fact that the sources of dissent today rarely comes from scientists, but politicians and media?
Could the science behind global warming prove wrong in the next decade? Yes! Absolutely, but the data points otherwise: “You could be wrong!” is not an argument, its a painfully obvious fact. “You’re wrong and here’s why: ” — now that’s a real rebuttal.
Q dub:
That’s your rebuttal? I didn’t say “you could be wrong”, try reading it again. You missed the whole point of the comment. My point was that theories need to be *continually* challenged that’s how we determine the accuracy of the theory and make new discoveries. When they are not, science becomes dogma. It doesn’t matter how many scientists you have on board that believe the same thing. Every good scientist will tell you that it’s necessary to challenge ideas regardless if everyone else believes otherwise. Think about some of the greatest discoveries in science, many were in stark contrast to current theories held by most of the scientific community at the time. Those kinds of great leaps in scientific advancement would never have happened if those scientists hadn’t challenged those theories/ideas.
@Kevin,
so you’re essentially saying that: a scientific theory *might* be wrong, so it should be continually challenged (which by the way, is pretty much inherent in the scientific method).
In the meantime though, there’s plenty of data and consensus that humans are involved in climate change.
So your half-assed, slightly alarmist position doesn’t make much sense, scientifically.
Dude, nobody here is saying we should stop testing controversial theories. What I did say is: if our best guess is that global warming is man-made, and we’re pretty confident about it, why not act accordingly? And if tomorrow some shrewd scientist manages to conclusively prove this wrong, then great! I’ll flip my opinion and buy a hummer. Sure, we’d have wasted a shit ton of resources fighting carbon emissions, but if you don’t act on your best guess, what would you do? Act on your 2nd best guess?
Fat Tony:
You missed the point; scientists aren’t suppose to blindly follow the consensus. If that was the case we would still all believe that the world is flat. By the way, I work in science, what field do you work in?
Q dub:
I didn’t say that it’s a bad idea to research alternative cleaner energy resources or reduce pollution. I just question the theory of global warming, like all scientists are called to question any theory instead of blindly accepting it.
Perhaps the biggest problem with this is the fact that it’s a politician promoting it. The cause would have fared far better had it been leading scientists in this area giving those presentations instead of Gore. But then again, he might not have gotten his Nobel Peace Prize if they had. Regardless, it would have made more sense and it would have added to the credibility of the theory and not been clouded by his presence. Politicians need to stick to politics and leave the science to us scientists.
Sigh. See my page:
Al Gore “invented the Internet” – resources
http://sethf.com/gore/
It was a hatchet-job by a well-known hatchet-jobber, and made into a Republican attack.
Vint cerf is widely regarded as the father of the internet & is currently ‘chief internet evangelist’ at google. here is what he had to say about this (at the end of article)
http://domainna...ain-roundtable/
Hello everyone,
I just want to state that in Mexico, a woman suspected with SARS (avian flu) got into a hospital in Oaxaca on April the 13th, after routine tests SARS was discarded but the sample of her mucose was sent to health oficials who in turn sent it to USA and CANADA who discovered that it was a new virus and who called MEXICO on April 23th to let it know that a new disease was on his city. Mexico could no longer pretend that the deaths being reported around its cities were a lie, because his neighbors had warned it to take action.
It is important to know that the woman who got to Oaxaca in Mexico, had been ill for several days, had diabetes and was 39 years old. It is suspected that all the people who have died had let the illness evolve for a long period or had compromised immune systems.
This illness attacks vulnerable human beings who let the illness evolve in their bodies until it’s too late and who take medicines themselves, while they do that they pass the illness around and around.
Be sensible and go to the doctor, the symptoms are: swollen throat, red eyes, coughing, sneezing, and when he illness has advanced, diarreah, stomach aches and finally neumonia.
Have a nice day, and take care of yourselves.
Paul.
….yeah, did you hear about those killer bees from mexico too? I heard they will take out at least 50% of the us population by june….
You really need to watch http://video.go...warming+swindle for a balanced view.
It always amazes me that people will so readily believe what a politician and financial oligarch has to say about the environment. They lie about everything… why would this be any different?
For a better video of Gore’s pig squealing, go here…
http://www.yout...h?v=C28avoSrYyQ
Erick, you should just go and say it, you believe in the newest global religion of global warming.
To learn about Mr. Armand Hammer (who had Al Gore’s father deep in his back pocket) and his ties to Lenin and communism, go here
http://www.thef...mmer-a019189457
Read your history…
I love the green crowd. They have such a guilty conscious about their own consumption habits. When Al Gore starts taking the train instead of private chartered jets, I will believe him.
A seemingly straightforward interpretation of Blackburn’s question (notwithstanding the snarkish tone adopted by the author) is whether Gore has a conflict of interest in pushing green technology given his KP’s investments. He can huff and puff about how insulting this is, but a straightforward answer would appear to be either “yes” or “no.”
‘“every penny” he makes from these investments, his book, and movie go to the nonprofit Alliance For Climate Protection. ‘ –> isn’t that a straightfoward answer? And no offense, but no politician ever says “yes” or “no” to anything. Things are not black and white; they are always nuanced.
No offense taken. His “every penny” answer was cogent, and I think he could have left it to that. Or he could have said something like, “Yes, my investments will profit along with all other green technologies, and I think that greentech is simply good business.” But instead he enveloped his answer in high dudgeon, and questioned the motives of the Congresswoman.
The question wasn’t beyond the pale, and we saw shades of this with the California stem cell initiative: some VCs suddenly became very vocal in their support of state funding for stem cell research, and they had a definite stake in the matter.
true, but questions coming from a congresswoman don’t exactly make me think “oh all congress members are so concerned about propriety etc. all of a sudden” lol
they’re all freaking corrupt
@some dummy.
Congress is corrupt and a club of rome, ex-politician is not… ha ha.
But I agree. Congress is corrupt too.
“Every penny goes into my non-profit eco-nazi group that pays me a salary.”
How dare anyone question the eco-messiah!
I SEE IT
If he counts gets his money converted to euros before, then, he doesn’t get anymore penny’s, but EUROCENTS.
/sarcasm
If Allegory says it, it’s the divine word. How dare anyone question the god of the global warming religion!
yeah, people normally become defensive when they have something to hide
Actually, only ignorant people think that defensiveness is a sign of hiding. People who are lying have calculated, straightforward emotionless answers. Criminologists as well as psychologists look for lack of emotion, veering eye movements to the speakers left, and stiffness of body movement as lying or hiding clues. Defensiveness being a sign of hiding something is urban legend. (Think Bill Clinton…his address was very calculated). Your letting your bias cloud your judgement…I do not believe Al Gore is out to get rich of everyone nor do I believe George Bush is/was either.
Ignorant huh? So based on your theory that would mean that every person put on trial in a court of law should display strong defensive emotions to win the jury, right? Unfortunately it doesn’t work that way and it backfires.
You see, by taking an emotional position, people assume that if you can’t control your emotions you are capable of succumbing to your emotions and possibly committing the crime.
@Mark, both Gore and Blackburn come off looking bad IMHO. Gore was way too defensive, but he did answer the question. He doesn’t gain personally from his green investments, all proceeds will go back to the Cause, which is a conflict of another sort. But we all know his bias. The guy made a movie about it. He is not trying to hide anything as Congresswoman Blackburn suggests.
Any good Congresswoman or lawyer should know the answer to a question before she asks it. Looks like Blackburn didn’t do her homework or was simply going for a cheap shot.
Amen.
@Erick Schonfeld
It wasn’t a cheap shot, she’s suppose to ask the tough questions just like every elected politician should. She has to ask him regardless if she knows the answer or not so it can be a matter of public record. Saving face and promoting your career by only asking questions you think you know the answers to is a great way to become a useless, self-serving politician. Moreover, you most likely won’t be very successful at uncovering the truth as you will only see what you are suppose to see as being the truth.
More importantly, If we start making decisions based on blindly trusting what politicians say, instead of questioning them, we’re going to have many more problems on our hands.
I’m no Gore-lover, but jesus, these congressional hearings are always a total joke.
Or did you also feel the MLB stereoids hearings were filled with really important, tough questions that needed to be asked?
Give me a break. These hearings are always political, and nothing more.
Erick,
I’d only object to your characterization of an ex-pol pushing a government-funded agenda (green energy), who has investments in said industry that will be reinvested in his pet project, as “capitalism.”
If anything that’s crony capitalism, with the hand of government altering the equation. Gore may not personally gain, but he’s lobbying for a handout like countless others.
On the other hand, I think all pols are tardfaces, so I’m sure Blackburn is as dumb as she comes across. I just think Gore is even dumber than he appears.
Agreed, Bill.
@erickschonfeld did Gore ever confirm his carry would be donated to his charity? He was initially careful to say that his SALARY would be donated. We all know that salary is nice but the carry is where VCs make the real money.
If he is keeping the carry, then Al Gore most certainly stands to benefit from the green investments.
What a dick!
Who’s a ‘dick’? Cheney’s left the building…
Well, a bold assertion that!
But I would really see him pass a few laws FORCING people to plant trees and study how to make top-soil using only off-the-shelf components like vegetables, (ummm… should I say it or not ….. well…. uninfected dung of all types, etc.), fruits, organic waste. Eco-nazis who plant trees must invade and conquer our planet, and they must be rewarded for making business models out of planting trees of variety. Medicinal plants, horticulture, home-grown food, local (village/town) mini-economies. No trucks moving food hundreds of miles, just you selling to the nearest grocer, without all the packaging. Recyled paper. Those are the kinds of things that need legislative support, becuasse those things will fix the carbon much better – like they have been for millions of years. GM food, like that from Monsanto, always has the corporate legal threat.
)
And if Al Gore wants to make laws that really help people – those should be to outlaw those GM corps suing small farmers.
We can’t continue this suing on one side while talking of saving the planet on the other. Al Gore should also establish “organic farming credits” not carbon credits. People who can contribute at the literally grassroots level aren’t people who understand a great deal of chemistry and biology. They understand things like farms, food, crops, vegetables and fruits. Not carbon, micro-organisms, sedimentation and things like that.
And you need those millions of hands to become self-reliant and contribute to the economy. Talk in their language and give them a chance.
Not corporate chiefs of official execution. (Didn’t you know CEO meant that?
Michelle Obama sure knows how to show the way!
Bad markup! yuck!
To Al Gore’s credit, he has done a good job of getting the message out about green issues.
To Al Gore’s detriment, he is a huge example of ‘Do as I say, not as I do’. Look at the real estate he uses for his own personal use– the amount of raw material used is just plain shameful when put into a global context. A better spokesman would be someone who walks the walk as well as talks the talk– probably someone who lives in an efficiency apartment. What’s Ralph Nader up to these days?
So merely doing a good job of something, correct or not, makes it a good thing? If you wish to educate yourself on why the government is going ‘green’, read the UN Agenda 21.
Does it matter, really, if he is going to benefit from his investments or interested in green technology? He’s in the private sector, right? Did Paul Newman have to declare where all his profits were going from his salad dressing? Seems to me a little capitalism is what we need right now.
It’s called a conflict of interest. The problem with the left is that they don’t question the impact or the ROI on any eco-nazi policy.
We could spend 100% of our GDP on cleaning our beaches and it would be great for the environment.
Of course, we’d be bankrupt as a nation and collapse as a society…
“eco-nazi” didn’t Rush Limbaugh coin that term?
“ad-hominem” didn’t the left coin that debate technique?
Paul, you can’t use an ad-hominem attack (”eco-nazi”) and then decry the tactic in the same thread.
“Seems to me a little capitalism is what we need right now.”
LOL. Capitalism is NOT running to the government for handouts. That’s socialism.
Marsha Blackburn is such a bitch. time to put some smackdown on that ish…
Yeah, you know we should force her to shut up. We should silence all dissent. We should be a one party system where there is no disagreement or debate.
I think you should stop starring in Fast in Furious movies. Maybe all that speed racing has given you tunnel vision so you don’t look in the rearview that much. If you did you might see 8 year of a completely incompetent government run by the GOP.
Look, if the Left was so moronic to spend 100% of the GDP on beaches then they’d lose every election for the next century(kinda of how the GOP will at the rate they are going). Yes, getting off oil will cost more in the short term(and i personally think it’s worth it) and there is legitimate debate on the best way to do that.
But I don’t see the GOP contributing to that conversation at all other than with the moronic tone deaf chant ‘Drill, baby drill’. Does the right have any ideas? Or are you going to refer to any govt attempt at alt. energy as part of the eco-nazi plan? I”m willing to listen.
Paul, you’re obviously not stupid, but you do look a little too young to be SO bitter about “the left”
Maybe he’s just very wise for his age
I’m sure that’s it, not indoctrination by daddy in a white hood or anything….
I am very much down the middle politically; I think both sides are much the same and both corrupt, but the anger on the right is astounding. So angry. So fearful. So bitter. Just work on making the country a better place to live and stop fear mongering everything. Living in fear is a crappy way to live.
@dummy
“I’m sure that’s it, not indoctrination by daddy in a white hood or anything….
I am very much down the middle politically;”
–yeah that sounds like you are right down the middle…
Well, he’s no an expert, so why listen to him? All should bow before experts of this world.
cough *not* cough
Hey Paul-
Isn’t that what happened over the last 8 years? “You’re either with us (republicans and their war mongering agenda), or against us (those who believed that war wasn’t the only way).
Dissent over the last 8 years was seen as god-less liberals who want to get in bed with al-queda.
So yeah it’s time for some dissent but let others have their say.
is it capitalism to go and try to convince the government to use the power of the gun to make you lots of money?
That sounds like a different -ism then my simple understanding of capitalism.
And he’s not defending ‘his right to invest in green’. Nobody wants to take that right away from him, and the headline makes no sense on that front.
What he wants, is for every taxpayer to be FORCED to invest in green, or what a he decides is green, regardless of whether it makes any sense.
Look up Externalities as they relate to public and quasi-public goods. It will help explain some of the reasons that government subsidies or grants might be appropriate from an economic standpoint.
Exactly! Too many of the douchebags commenting on here have zero understanding of economics beyond the elementary supply and demand equation.
We subsidize oil by the way, through our military expenditures. Don’t believe me? Ask yourself if we would have fought two wars against Saddam if the Arab countries were the world’s leading source of turnips. If we can subsidize oil, why can’t we subsidize wind, solar, etc.
I’m not a big fan of the douchey leftists and their stupid conspiracy theories and irrational hatred of GM crops and anything that isn’t made of hemp, but at least they don’t belong to a political organization whose campaign slogan was “drill baby drill.”
What a bunch of drooling morons.
I think going green is the way to go for everyone. In any case, this comment is to test what this new box called Twitter does… hmm…
Oh so, that’s what it does. This is cool. Maybe I should do that on my blog.
Al Gore is a complete ass hole.
A brilliant comment. Such breakthrough insight.
Al Gore is a child and this video is perfect evidence of that. This is very similar to Barney Frank freaking out over the question, “What responsibility, if any, do you take in the housing market collapse?”
Both perfect examples of the leftist refusing to take self-responsibility.
Wouldn’t you be pissed off if you’ve worked hard for a cause for 30 years (thats longer than ive lived!), and then people question what you want to do?
I know I definitely would, and I think many human beings would, I don’t see how that makes him a child.
When your “work” is trying to shape public policy it should always be questioned. Are you so brain-washed by your professors that you are actually arguing that he shouldn’t be questioned.
Al Gore dedicates his “work” to what benefits and glorifies Al Gore. The fact that he tacted onto a religious movement long ago, is not an argument against questioning him or anyone else who insists “The debate is over.”
Paul:
It’s nice to hear others that question things for themselves, use critical thinking, and don’t just blindly take someone’s word for it. Kudos to you!
“Al Gore is a child”
May i dare interrupt and say that even children would take better decisions than our current crop of congress(wo)men…
Seriously, children are innocent or simple or straight or all of those. If Al Gore is a child, you have less to fear from him. Looking at what the GOP, NSA and CIA have done, even a child monarch is a much better alternative
algorism: At least a child WOULD question him. A child wouldn’t have 30 years of history to look back on, so a child would ask such a question.
What are you Frank Burns? (Only if we follow our leaders blindly can we be truly free!)
@Kevin and Paul,
Can you guys get a room for your republican mutual appreciation blow job society meeting?
I guess he wouldn’t be nearly as popular if he was an incomplete ass hole. If your going to be an ass hole you might as well be a “complete ass hole”
The answer should have been “yes”, but theirs absolutely nothing wrong with that. The ‘Green’ economy will never work if people can’t make money off of it. Although it may be true, there’s a conflict of interest, I think he was quite clear that his 30 years of public service fighting for this cause is hardly the basis of his personal finances. You would be stupid not to invest in what you thought was the future.
He should have just answered the question and explained his financial relationship calmly without going on the defensive. It makes it look like he has something to hide by reacting that way.
I think a 2 minute sound bite leaves us without the full context surrounding the question. I think he might have been getting drilled with the same question. In which case he became agitated with the absurdity of the question. Why shouldn’t he gain?
However, I agree if has nothing to hide he should have just offered a full & less agitated disclosure.
He needs to be clear if he is going to gain at the taxpayers expense. Many people will view what he is doing as using the government to shovel huge sums of money into his pocket all while collapsing the economy at the same time, due to over taxation.
Cap and Trade will be a huge tax on everyone, especially the poor.
http://www.poli...om/p-01394.html
For all of you who like to take one word out of context – here is a defense of Al Gore from nonoe other than Vint Cerf and Bob Kahn. Since all you guys seems to know a little of everything and not much of anything – hoping you at least know Bob Kahn & Vint Cerf. If not here it is – http://en.wikip...g/wiki/Bob_Kahn & . http://en.wikip.../wiki/Vint_Cerf
capitalism and rent-seeking are different things.
gore famously challenged ross perot in the NAFTA debate for owning maquilladoras and benefiting economically from the current arrangement, with the unsaid but heavy implication being that he was in it for his wallet rather than for ‘just’ reasons.
so, why is he so defensive and arrogant when asked a question that’s pretty reasonable. it’s called “fair disclosure”. people can make up their own minds of sincerity, but he should disclose whether he has any monetary interests in the policies he’s advocating.
Erick, your obvious liberal/Gore bias is appalling. Of course I shouldn’t expect anything different from this site.
Gore is a fool. He couldn’t even win his home state in a presidential election. His “global warming” claims are false, and he’s doing no good for the world. Please don’t tell me you believe this isn’t about money, power and greed…
I like most of what Techcrunch puts out, but stick to reporting on technology, not editorializing congressional hearings. Please post less.
Says the guy with the anti-Gore bias.
You’re right, I do have an anti-Gore bias. I live in Tennessee and am embarrassed by how he has represented himself and our state. He should have just answered the question…
Going to war for the sake of oil is about money, power and greed. Making strategic investments in the future is just being rational.
I guess you don’t believe in science.
And you don’t know history or arithmetic if you think we don’t need oil.
Go invest in the typewriter and get back to me with your arithmetic in a few years.
Lol, did you just bring your credentials as an investor into the debate? Are you that narcissistic? Another quality you must admire in your messiah.
Drill, Baby Drill. The answer to breaking our dependence on oil is clearly a few year supply of fossil fuel. Brilliant.
Even oil titans agree we have met peak oil. I’m not quite sure what you’re talking about with ‘arithmetic’. More oil is not the answer.
How am I narcissistic? All I’m saying is there’s nothing wrong with investing in what you foresee as a sustainable, forward-looking portfolio.
If it was about oil why don’t we own that oil now then? Moreover, that war didn’t help gas prices either.
So the Republican- (and many ignorant Democrats) sponsored war didn’t accomplish anything. It certainly didn’t make us safer.
I think we’re getting a little off the subject now…
Really, how do you figure it didn’t make us safer? I don’t remember another attack occurring. Have you ever considered that instead of fighting on US soil it might be better to fight elsewhere?
What about the peoples lives we saved there? Was that not worth it either? Hussein gassed and killed thousands but that’s okay huh?
I think you’re missing the point. Under what pretense were we lead to believe Iraq was a worthy threat? It wasn’t based on Hussein’s despicable history as a genocidal dictator. The fact is it had nothing to do with Al Qaeda. Was it about oil and/or greedy contractors? Hard to tell, but it was a serious misjudgment and I think it’s hard to argue that it made us safer.
By the way breaking our dependence on oil (foreign & domestic) will have an enormous positive impact on BOTH national security & climate change issues. Who care’s where you stand politically, let’s fight this together. It’s the REAL “war on terrorism”…
You can fight the science all day or you can find a way to capitalize on it’s disruptive effect. Climate change legislation is a disruptive force. Let’s innovate. innovate. innovate.
B. Ackles:
The intelligence said that Iraq was involved and that’s why we went in. Both democrats and republicans were behind it. You have to depend on the intelligence and act according to what it says. Again, would you rather be fighting here? That’s why it made us safer; we took the fight elsewhere.
I can agree with you on breaking our dependency on foreign oil but not the climate change issue because that is debatable. Regardless, the market determines whether or not renewable energy sources are viable. Businesses aren’t going to invest in them if they aren’t cost effective. For example, solar panels have been around for a long time, but their too expensive in comparison to the commonly used alternative.
Yes, innovation is the goal but it’s only possible if it’s cost effective. Businesses are in the game to make money and that’s all it boils down to. The other alternative is non-profits and government based programs and I’m not going to support either because I’m already being taxed a ton. Besides, what do you think is going to happen to the price of gas when there is a real renewable energy alternative? It’s gong to drop to thwart off the threat of innovation. Eventually, however, the technology will become cheap enough that oil/gas won’t be the most cost effective choice but that’s still a long way down the road I’m afraid.
Everyone who was capable of critical thought could see at the time that the ‘evidence’ that led to the war was manufactured.
Fat Tony:
Yeah, you’re right, it was a conspiracy in which practically all the Republicans and Democrats were in on.
Money, power, greed? Sir, you don’t know Al Gore.
Please expound on how Gore’s inability to win his home state has anything to do with this discussion or specifically, global warming?
You don’t believe in science? And why does saving the planet AND making money need to be mutually exclusive? Although, I’d bet the farm you’re wrong on that being his reasons. Even so, what the hell is wrong with saving the planet AND making some cash in the process. There are worse things in this world – although, I doubt that’s what it’s about. 30 year track record Kevin.
Science doesn’t “prove” that global warming is caused by man. Besides, for every study that shows you that it does, there’s another that says it doesn’t. That’s why there is such a debate. Science is just a methodological system for examining things/occurrences that’s subjective to human error and personal interpretation. It’s not 100% fool proof and it’s only as trustworthy as the researchers that are conducting the research. Moreover, it’s been suggested that as much as 10% of all research is fabricated or in someway dishonestly presented. So keep that in mind next time you use the word science to “prove” something.
Must be watching too much Hannity or O’Reilly. For sure too much Fox
Scott said…
Must be watching too much Hannity or O’Reilly. For sure too much Fox.
Scott, Kevin is correct. The science of man-made-global-warming is not yet firmly established. There is just scientific speculations (a.k.a computer numerical modeling).
By the way, I do watch Hannity and O’Reilly regularly, but that doesn’t change the fact that scientists are still debating the issue of global warming and its causes. Al Gore and the UN IPCC including, Greeny nutters and pro Gaia media have always hyped up the global warming and also tried to shut the debate by declaring that the , debate is over. It ain’t over yet.
Scott:
Nice strategy for trying to deviate away from my comment. Actually my area of work is in science and that’s how I know this. If you’ve ever worked in a science laboratory or published any peer reviewed articles, you would know this too.
“Scott – Must be watching too much Hannity or O’Reilly. For sure too much Fox”
Translation: I can’t think of anything that was said is factually wrong so I’ll shift the argument to something else.
Watching Hannity or O’Reilly doesn’t change your thinking skills unless you are so weak-minded that you’ll believe ANYTHING – and that’s just what the pro-”climate change” crowd wants.
Because it is making money at the expense of the US economy and the American taxpayer, without a guaranteed return.
Ed Begly > Al G.
How did I not see it before. Al Gore is Captain Planet! He just took off the blue suit.
good one!
Trying to get the government to invest in a technology that you may benefit from personally (as a former member of government with government influence) is the exact opposite of capitalism.
capitalism has provided us with the highest standard of living in the history of earth and it is by no means dead–so long as we protect it
highest standard of living in the world? surely you are not talking about the US. It barely makes the top ten list – when it does
The lists you speak of use flawed measures…you probably also believe US News and World Report’s ranking of your college, too—assuming you went
this was a softball question, phrased in a way to make it appear tough (she’s a republican and would lose credibility with her supporters if it was too obvious she intended to ask a softball question). but mr. gore didn’t recognize this, and went into holier-than-thou mode, seemingly genuinely offended. say what you want about mr. gore, there are some basic flaws in his personality.
How dare a Republican question a possible conflict of interest! {sarcasm} Of course it is a legitimate line of questioning.
This quasi religious green movement sickens me. You are ignorant if you think the green movement, including Al Gore, has nothing to do with financial motivation.
Being ethical and anti conflicts of interest is not anti-capitalism. Artificially shaping markets based upon religious eco-nazi government policy is.
@ Paul Walker – Why do you have to comment so many times all over this post if you think your points are so obvious?
I take offense to your claim that the green movement (that I believe in) is somehow quasi-religious, and listening to scientists rather than trolls like you makes the government “eco-nazis”. First, let’s separate Gore from policy. He’s an investor, and testifying in Congress presumably by invitation. It’s just one point of view. Going from there to pass judgment on policy, the viability of “green” and somehow making this a republican vs democrat issue (why should everything have two opposing viewpoints e.g. human survival?) doesn’t exactly make you sound smart. Tell us why you know more than all the scientists out there – might be a good place to start.
If you were to post every time a congressman or woman asked a stupid question you would be pretty busy (I didn’t even watch your video so I am not even commenting on the question above)…I can’t tell you how many times I’ve seen Barbara Boxer or Chuck Schumer, for example, ask moronic questions of those in finance
Asking questions concerning conflict of interest when it comes to implementing policy and spending tax payer money is EXACTLY what they should be doing.
http://www.snop...es/internet.asp
so there. he did not claim to invent the internet literally…
He knows to choose his words wisely; he’s a politician. So yes, he did say he “created” the internet.
you are so annoying
But he did say created the internet (on CNN). I like Al and all, but that was a clear Bush moment.
I think this is a completely legitimate question, and is actually the first time I have heard Al Gore ever being asked it so directly.
It’s really hard to believe that the green movement and all people and businesses involved in it, is somehow a completely altruistic movement that has no other intentions then to make the world a better place.
In fact, I am not sure he actually answered the question. “I have put every penny in the foundation”? Oh really? Where is the proof of that and can be assume the same going forward? Are you telling me Kleiner Perkins is not out after making big bucks on this whole fad?
There’s something fishy here, and I feel we are not given the full truth…
And BTW, I don’t feel sorry for Al Gore for even a minute. He is a former VICE PRESIDENT for God’s sake, who is now involved in a lot of green businesses. Should we suddenly not be allowed to ask questions of one of the most powerful and connected persons on this planet!?
Americans should know when those they trust stand to profit from their “advocacy” initiatives. When the govt. is debating major policy change and someone respected stands up and testifies as an expert, we THE PEOPLE deserve to know when that person has a conflict of interest.
In this case, Gore clearly has a conflict. It doesn’t mean he doesn’t get to have an opinion, nor does it mean his opinion isn’t valid. But we DO have a right to know. And those being questioned do not have a right to be offended when asked, even if the question is politically motivated. This goes for both sides of the aisle.
Erick, would you really have it any other way? Would you let our pols advocate public policy that personally benefits them without being openly questioned?
Isn’t this why Mr. Arrington is divesting many of his investments, so he can cover tech without bias?
I think this article sums up the role Al Gore has had to play in the whole process:
http://www.kusi...r/38574742.html
The only thing wrong with the planet is Al Gore.
When the continents split to form America and south Africa only the weak died.
If that event that had half the world covered in molten lava didn’t destroy the world what makes you think humans can ?
Al Gore is psycho
Algore is an ass of gigantic proportions. Marsha is a class act and a great congresswoman
“Congresswoman, if you believe the reason I have been working on this issue for 30 years is because of greed, you don’t know me.”
… um… someone please tell me what happened with Algore and the tobacco industry?? … you’ll have your answer to this if you dig deep enough. It’s a joke and people are FOOLS to believe this has nothing to do with Algore making more money.
Global warming and ‘climate change’ is a scam of tremendous proportions meant only to soak people of their hard earned money and transfer that money to people like Gore and his cronies.
As for cap and trade, it’s a tax, nothing more, nothing less — no different than the proposal from the music industry to have a monthly payment added on to Internet Providers (passed down to us) to ‘combat’ P2P.
Tax, tax, tax, and tax more – it’s all these people know.
But ironically, thanks to people like Gore, he’s right. Used to be in this country, the money followed the innovation… now, the money has to follow the Gov’t and what they decide. IF there wasn’t all this talk about gov’t doing something about something that doesn’t exist – then there wouldn’t be a huge push in the private sector to profit from it. Even knowing global Warming is a hoax, businesses HAVE to invest in it because the Gov’t is dictating the futures of all of us.
Al Gore’s guilty of propagating the “Hottest Hoax” around. Anthropogenic global warming is a myth. In fact we are now in a cooling down period as activity on the sun subsides. March was the coolest month since 1981 and seeing how we’ve yet to hit 90 in Houston in April I suspect it will be cooler still. Wake up folks. This argument is all about control and wealth redistribution and little about the environment.
Yes, Republicans support capitalism. That’s why they’re fighting the “Cap-n-trade” fiasco before it ruins us all financially.
Yep its a hoax. That’s why the polar ice caps are in significant decline.
Just because you had a cool month, doesn’t mean that is the case everywhere, or that it disproves a trend. It wasn’t the coolest month in my country, the ‘global’ in global warning isn’t US centric.
The weather patterns here have ment we had an extended summer with temperatures well above usual – now this doesn’t prove global warming either. But I tend to think there is less harm in assuming that global warming exits than ignoring the scientific consenus (see NATO report and others) and finding out when its too late they were right.
As for a financial cost, a new ‘green sector’ will be created that will fill the gap of job losses; organisations that are smart will innovate and survive; the cost of green tech like any tech will decline significantly as it becomes more popular in the market.
Recent studies indicate that Antarctic ice has grown overall, not declined. Your statement is misleading when you say that polar ice is declining. It goes through stages of growth and decline. However, Antarctica now has more ice than it did a couple of years ago.
http://www.thea...683-601,00.html
I don’t know about Texas, but was in SF the other day and it was 80something degrees. In San Francisco. It’s never 80+ degrees in SF. They’re facing a water shortage and a long, hot, dry summer (wild fires, water issues, crop failure). Yup, better break out the fur parkas
Oh noes, Al Gore gets incensed at the suggestion that he levels at everyone who disagrees with him on climate change: that they are doing so because it benefits them financially.
Poor wittle baby.
I’m still waiting for the oceans to devour my poor little city of Oslo. A city where the Al Gore fans running the government decided it was a good idea to build a $700M opera house – right on the shore of the bay.
You almost get the sense that all of this is a giant scam being perpetrated to coax people into believing they need to pay CO2 taxes to save the planet.
So why build a $700M opera house that according to Al Gore will drown in not too many years? I guess they’re getting so rich off this scheme of theirs that they don’t even care.
Kevin, you’re a tool. He didn’t try to claim that he invented the Internet. When he used the word “create” he was talking about legislation. Don’t be such a Rushtard, try using your brain cells for critical thought once in a while. Love him or hate him, Gore has done more with his life in the last decade than you will ever do with yours. Now go back to your tea bagging…
Wow, how intelligent of you. That was a very well thought-out argument Mr. Anonymous. Critical thoughts indeed, consider questioning things first instead of becoming a blind follower. By the way, does critical thinking require that you comment anonymously?
Oh you’re soooo intellectual, Kevin, I feel so defeated by your stunning wit. Tell me, what is it that I didn’t question? Tell me, who am I following blindly? Gore didn’t claim to invent the Internet, and that’s a fact that event the most staunch conservatives have admitted to. Yet, here you are pushing this retarded rumor and it’s 2009.
And what’s this crap about me commenting anonymously? Yes, I commented anonymously, is that a problem for you? Do I not meet your personal Internet standards for social debate because I’m choosing not to reveal my true identity? Here’s a hint… I’m nobody special. Stick to the argument instead of crying about my anonymity. Wah.
Once again, a very witty rebuttal. I applaud your great debating skills sir. Well done!
Way to avoid answering my questions and addressing my points, Kevin. Pwned.
Okay, I’ll bite just for fun.
He specifically said “created”. He didn’t say “helped” or “assisted”. You can’t suggest what he *meant* because you are not him. We only have his own words to base that on and that’s the word he used and that’s what he *said*.
By the way, you won because you said Pwned.
Read the snopes article that has been posted here a bunch of times. If you don’t like Al Gore, fine, if you don’t agree with his agenda, fine. Just don’t try to convince people that when he said that he took the initiative in creating the Internet that he by any means meant that he was an architect of the technology. Whether you like it or not, it strains YOUR credibility, not his.
Not trying to convince anyone anything. I’m just stating what he said not speculating about what we *think* he meant.
Jeez this is embarrassing:/
We are AMERICA…WTF…whats going on?
We should be number 1in everything, setting an example but here we are always dropping the ball…
our economy is in a recession…
our auto industry is obviously controlled by the oil companies or completely clueless….
our overall heath (obesity epidemic) and health-care (health insurance anyone?) is pathetic compared to other countries….
we are almost at the bottom in terms of education quality and accessibility compared to other countries….
we created the internet yet we are dropping the ball in overall bandwidth speeds and broadband penetration compared to other countries…..
and here we are addicted to fossil fuels facing down not 1 but 2 potentially devastating problems and we would rather argue and blame something or someone rather then implement a solution
WTF!?!
how can you argue that global warming is or is not man-made?
I’m not even a scientist but I KNOW there is evidence that has proven this phenomenon has happened before, and that high CO2 levels in the atmosphere is what triggered it, and it is fact that burning fossil fuels releases CO2 in the atmosphere, I’m mean come on seriously whats there to argue about, and if that doesn’t convince you then you must not be aware that we are running out of easily accessible sweet crude oil sure we have enough coal to cook the planet and we have enough tar pits but the very foundation of the whole industrial era is running out so obviously it would be in our best interest to find, implement invest and spread awareness in alternatives.
yet here we are arguing over the cap-and-trade bill/plan..whatever most likely to tarnish the credibility or intent of the bill/plan by attacking those who would benefit from it making it look like an greedy business scheme…
Welcome to America
D
“I’m not even a scientist but I KNOW there is evidence that has proven this phenomenon has happened before, and that high CO2 levels in the atmosphere is what triggered it”
And yet it has happened at times when human life on this planet was significantly smaller and there was no industry and there were no automobiles to create CO2. The earth recovered just fine, didn’t it?
Furthermore, some scientific evidence seems to point to the possibility that CO2 is not a cause of warming but a byproduct of it, and that the cause and effect relationship is reversed from what is commonly reported. Additionally, the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere are not substantially greater as a percentage of the overall atmosphere. Even looking at data for the last 1000 years is not necessarily a good indicator as that is such a microscopic period of time in the course of the earth’s existence. It’s way too easy to make judgments on data that is incomplete. Numbers can be made to say whatever you want them to if they are framed properly.
As far as Gore is concerned, he has had several portions of his “documentary” debunked as misleading due to faulty data. The hockey stick graph that is trotted out by the AGW crowd has been called into question as there has been extensive extrapolation of data to create the spike shown on it. Gore’s research should all be called into question if a part of it is erroneous, as otherwise it is not sound scientific practice.
Great post Erick, as always. I like the knowingness you bring to political coverage.
Congresswoman Blackburn is attractive but definitely not the sharpest knife – - -. If you’re going to go after a bully, yes I said bully. Think back if you’re old enough to the debate between Gore and Ross Perot on the Larry King show. Gore interrupted, talked over him and physically intimidated with his large, somewhat plump physique, anytime Perot tried to talk. The congresswoman was not ready for prime time, although her basic concerns were very legitimate.
People who are truly passionate about a cause not only talk the talk, they walk the walk. That’s where Gore falls short. He is a wonderful talker (politician). You know in your heart that if he was a true believer, he would debate and defeat the growing group of scientists who oppose his beliefs, instead of refusing to discuss the issues. He would have left his large footprint mansion in Tenessee years ago and would not fly around on jets, giving the lame excuse that he’s planting enough trees to offset the CO2 that he’s causing to be emitted. Finally, listen carefully to the charlatan’s words: “every dollar I have made”. Even if that is true, it says nothing of the millions that will be made by his new investments if the travesty of “Cap and Trade” is pushed through.
Get real, this is an arrogant, good ol boy, who’s pretty sure he’s found a way to make dummies feel good about spending more of their money!
Does it still count as 30 years of fighting for the environment when 30 years ago he was fighting against the pending ice age? I was once told a lifetime of wrong choices doesn’t make one wise.
And Gore’s visible umbrage at his motive being questioned brought to mind Hamlet, “The lady doth protest too much, methinks.”
Poor Al Gore doesn’t have any friends… he’s so committed to promoting ManBearPig awareness…
http://www.sout...om/clips/103669
1975 News Week article on the coming Ice Age: http://tr.im/jM7D
Just the fact that the phrase “Climate Change” is being used in lieu of “Global Warming” should give the most ardent Mother Earth zealot pause. Instead the average pop-culture leftist doesn’t even blink an eye.
ha, that’s awesome
“Mother Earth zealot”
“pop-culture leftist”
“eco-nazi”
Shouldn’t you have thrown a Ditto in there as well.
You parrot talking points very well, sir, but you really need to back those up with some SUBSTANCE to be truly effective.
You don’t have to be a farmer to smell BS. However if you are a farmer you will already know the climate change chant is BS. I discovered last year when we had the coldest spring since 1918. I locked myself in my office a Gore believer and two weeks later came our furious about his lies. So right up front, the billion dollar investment he heads up is due for about a trillion dollar return. If you think people play in that kind of money without having a hand out you really haven’t grown up and got your own money.
Gore is about the only one who will make money with cap and trade as it will cost us trillions. Sadly the only scientists who advocate global warming are those collecting huge donations, but I doubt they believe it. After all if there was a greenhouse effect we could measure a heat anomaly in the atmosphere but anyone who has flown knows it’s colder, not warmer, at 30K feet.
If Al Gore gave every penny he has learned how to live smart. That means the tax free foundation must own his private jet and he didn’t have to pay taxes on it. That would be $15M in taxes in Obama dollars. Wake up and read the electric bill for the $600 a month swimming pool heating bill. You don’t have a private jet, limo and luxury estate without having a little greed. If Al Gore made something that made people’s lives better I’d salute him, but what he’s doing is getting ready to make it so anyone who is not rich doesn’t get to live in comfort and spends more on everything. Gore and his buddies will still have the jet and the limo. Gore would do us all a favor if he shut up but you can bet his partners would not let him survive that. You don’t play games with trillions of dollars… unless you really are a crazed and deluded idealist.
The issue isn’t that the GOP is suddenly becoming anti-capitalist, it is that Al Gore is using his influence as a former VP and Dem big wig to work to get the Cap and Trade tax passed. He’s effectively turned into a lobbyist, and normally lobbyists aren’t called upon to testify to a committee that will be trying to pass legislation that will directly benefit that lobbyist.
If the cap and trade tax is passed then Al Gore’s KP investments will benefit directly, bottom line.
So tell me, what is the difference in this and the crying that the Dems did claiming that Cheney was somehow benefiting when Haliburton getting work in Iraq? Nothing. Except that Gore will ‘actually’ financially benefit from this legislation.
Gore is a joke, his global warming “my way or the highway” charade makes him look like a conspiracy theorist.
nah a mother earth zealot would have mentioned the giant island of plastic about the size of Texas floating around in the pacific ocean
I just believe that an economy must be based on the caring capacity of the planet a “resource” based economy in order to be sustainable.
If you want to chase money all your life go ahead be my quest but if you want to change the world and make it a better place I would suggest you go to the source “the monetary system” if it fails everything will change.
Unfortunately, the only thing that can save the planet is money my friend because without it there is no research to lead the technological/scientific innovation that makes it happen. Moreover without money to fund clean streets, water, and conservation the planet’s condition would be worse. Sure everyone can do their part but not everyone does and that’s why we need money to fund such earth friendly programs.
why are you so insistent in saying that “climate change” and “global warming” is BS?
when it is a fact that we are running out of easily accessible “sweet crude” oil, surely you realize that an alternative would be cheaper, more efficient and more convenient for the people, would create new markets, save the auto industry and create new jobs in America.
How can you argue with that logic?
ahhh well I guess it IS less profitable..perhaps
@Derik
You “logic” is fundamentally flawed. The term “climate change” and “global warming” is to do with extreme weather conditions and its impact on the planet with respect to rising water levels, melting polar ice and general instability and natural disasters. This is said to be amplified by our use of products which expel C02 emissions and create a thickened coat of pollution in out atmosphere which trap sun rays and cause the general warming of the earth.
I have a few problems with this:
1. If C02 emissions do indeed create this “blanket” in our atmosphere which keeps the sun’s rays in our atmosphere longer causing it to be warmer, then should it have the opposite effect on sun rays which haven’t hit earth yet? So it keeps new rays out, and existing rays in and a balance is maintained.
2. If global warming is most evident at the ice caps due to the ice (white) absorbing the most light, then as they melt, they should be attracting less and less light/heat. Which should give us a peak followed by a slow evening off in rising temperature at the ice caps, the more they melt. But we dont see this. In fact ice caps are getting warmer by a couple of degrees each year, but the melting is exponential in terms of mass. Someone explain to me how -1/+1 change can cause a melting of 20% of the ice cap mass?
Back to your point, resource shortage has nothing to do with GW or CH. If anything “Activists” love the idea of less oil and less C02 emissions. Green industries is a massive scam because it only looks at what we can do to limit the damage in the future. It has nothing to do with fixing the problem as it stands now (assuming there is a problem). I love the work sustainable, because it shows what a scam this is: if earth gets warmer by 2degrees each year, then in 50years we would all be burned and dead, even if we dont make “the blanket” any thicker. So where is the sustainability in that Mr. Gore?
hahaha there you are
“money is the root of all evil” I’m sure you have heard that quote before
people don’t “need” money as an incentive to contribute to society, all the people really “need” is freedom and I promise you they will be more then happen to contribute to society not because they “need” to get paid, but because they “want” to help out for the right reasons.
why is it so hard to imagine a world were everything is free?
D
I agree that it would be great but unfortunately everyone else is concerned about paying their own bills first
Actually it’s the love of money that is the root of all evil.
http://preview....yurl.com/chbys6
http://www.poli...om/p-01394.html
A defense of Al Gore by Bob Kahn & Vint Cerf –
For all of you who ramble like fools … a bit reading up might help -
LOL. You fool.
The thing that bothers me is when he says he puts the money into a “non-profit”. Great…except that he does not say that he is the chairman of the board for that specific non-profit that he is funneling all of this money to. He should say that clearly for full disclosure. And, that non-profit organization does not put a copy of their annual report on their website for me to look and see how much they are paying their board members. Don’t people realize that non-profits actually pay board members and employees? It’s not all volunteer work (and I’m okay with the for 501c orgs paying people in general…people need to make money, but he should disclose it if he wants to be above reproach). Reminds me very much of Michael Crighton’s State of Fear. I loved that book! It opened my eyes to the fact that some of these non-profits are a money-making business for the board members and if they want to keep making money, they have to keep their organizations in the spot light. Just something to think about…
Al Gore is a hack, he is trying to create another FAKE economy like the (CDOs in mortgage industry) that creates fake money on trading carbon. Carbon is every where on the planet. What’s this new trading of carbon. And who are these people to decide that they have the authority to trade carbon.
To the two geniuses Kevin and Paul, one simple question: Are you two geniuses questioning Al Gore’s awesone impact on making Americans aware of the effect of Global warming?
No, I agree that he’s put together an incredible marketing campaign about global warming and promoted it very well. I just question the truth and science behind it, that’s all.
Solution: (so obvious)
-ev cars/trucks + infrastructure (parking lot plug ins, battery swaps and wireless power transmission down the road) turns out cars are parked typically more then they are driven….
-frictionless tube mag-lev technology (down the road) could be just as fast if not faster then airplanes, yet cheaper and safer….. would handle shipping and inter-continental transportation
-bio diesel/ethanol used specifically for heavy machinery and construction/farming equipment that requires high energy density in remote locations
smart homes — intelligent energy distribution systems, HESS ( high energy storage systems) intelligent utility management systems basically it automatically remembers to turns the lights off for you and just basic more efficient design/implementation of technology, and usage of better materials no more cheap carbon copy gated communities… ridiculous.
business/city/town development: led street lights for starters, intelligent utility management systems and improved security systems I mean seriously if I was a businessman or city council/congressman cutting costs on the power bills across markets would be a very keen interest of mine
more efficient – modular server farms again if I was in the IT department cutting cost on the power bill would be a very keen interest of mine
and as far as energy sources you have wave/tidal/hydro electric, solar/wind and geothermal could easily create more overall energy output then all of the fossil fuels and nuclear combined…. done, done and done — no need for coal/clean coal or nuclear and you would have cheap hyper abundant renewable energy
smart open grid this will allow smart homes/smart business to cut themselves off from the grid if they don’t need it and like wise if in some situations (even if they are far and few between) the home/business is generating more energy then it is using it needs to be able to distribute that energy to the grid automatically and thus compensate the home/business owner and provide incentive for implementing consumer grade alternate energy sources.
i really don’t understand why this is so complicated…….
It would create millions of jobs a huge boom in the train/auto industry, home improvement/development industries, and consumer grade alternate energy sources industry.
seems like a win-win for everyone except those who benefit from the profit structure of fossil fuels……
Please Mr Gore – the facts- do you or do you not benefit financially (as well as in notoriety) from the “global warming” now called “climate change” agenda or not. Answer the question as any oil executive would have to.
The answer is in 100’s of millions (http://tinyurl.com/2cbdah)
Green agenda is now the new BIG lobby group.
Please America and the world wake up from this hysteria.
He answered the question. Did you see the video?
What hysteria are you talking about? Climate change?
Why don’t you wake up from denial?
It’s kind of insane hearing a lot of the commentary against Gore here when all he’s trying to do is bring awareness to the problem HUMANS face because of climate change. People are worried that he’s going to personally benefit…
Why aren’t people worried about how oil companies personally benefitted by creating this mess? http://www.huff...e_n_190552.html Oil tycoons got rich while making a Texas sized mound of plastic toxicity in the Pacific Ocean. Remember… you do need oil to make plastic bags and one use water bottles. So next time you go out to the store and they ask you… paper or plastic?… think hard about your answer, and bring your own bags. http://www.ecobags.com
oil producers make about 8.5 percent on oil
the government makes about 18 percent on oil
I would not want to be in the oil business, but the government jobs looks great…..
The global warming scare is just that a scare tactic. When I was a kid it was global cooling that was the end of the world, then it was the ozone was falling apart and we all going to fry. The earth’s lower atmosphere is still 79% nitrogen 20% oxygen and 1% particulate matter. If you want to off set your so called carbon foot print, plant a tree ! All this crap is just another way for the government to stick their hand in your pocket. Carbon tax, breathing tax, driving tax and no to mention the tax you already pay at the pump more than 80% is taxes collected by state and federal gov. Al Gore is just a Chicken Little to me. You know the story of Chicken Little ?
You just made me laugh with the breathing tax!
Man-made global warming is a HOAX.
And retards like you are the problem
Speaking of conflicts of interest… how about a member of the house energy and commerce committee receiving almost $58,000 from the oil and gas industry. Nobody in congress has any right to call out anybody else about conflicts of interest, because they’re all guilty of it.
http://www.open...p?cid=N00003105
Anyone on here who still thinks global warming is an on-going debate needs to do some of their own reading. Some of you are right that you can’t trust all Science journals. The reason the debate still exists is because oil company lobbyists have paid scientists to create doubt. Scientists are being bought out in the same way the journals that do the publishing are. Everyone is for sale, and when your corporation is making $40 billion per year there is plenty of money to go around to create an argument that doesn’t exist. You’re really doing a disservice to this country and to the world by thinking you’re being a contrarian when you’re actually being a mouthpiece for the oiligarchy.
Suggested Reading:
http://www.harp..._Oil/index.aspx
Phil said…
The reason the debate still exists is because oil company lobbyists have paid scientists to create doubt. Scientists are being bought out in the same way the journals that do the publishing are.
No, that’s an unsubstantiated & a lame claim. The debate is taking place in the scientific peer review journals not via the media nor blogs, even some scientists from NASA have pointed this out, ie they have published scientific papers pointing out the inefficiencies of current climate numerical modeling being used.
Anyway, I can cite you some peer review papers that throw doubts about AGW if you’re interested.
The data on oil company contributions to professional “doubt-creators” is available to whomever wants to look at it. The same PR outfits who discovered years ago that they didn’t need to specifically “disprove” the link between smoking and cancer were the biggest recipients of the money. Their technique (then and now) was to claim “the data isn’t clear” and “the debate is on-going”, making the general public think that there was some question about the results of the research. The scientists (even those working in the tobacco industry) didn’t really disagree, but that didn’t matter – the elected representatives responded to the mass electorate and delayed legislation controlling tobacco for a very long time. The same thing has happened with climate science and the industry attempt to confuse the public about the results. Oil, gas and coal Industry-hired scientists found the data supporting climate change (years ago) “could not be refuted”, so the people putting the document together left out the damning comments before publishing it to their members.
http://en.wikip...imate_Coalition
In any case, “throwing doubts” on any theory (such as AGW) is not the same as coming up with a defensible alternative theory. All theory has “outlier” data which may (for some reason) not conform to the prediction. As my HS physics teacher told us, the value of any theory is it’s ability to predict. The “human generated greenhouse gas correlates with higher global average temperature” theory (as described by James Hansen in 1988) is predicting the reality better than any of the alternative theories. For more specifics:
http://pubs.gis...sen_etal_1.html
Asking of a theory that it be “100% proven” is a straw man argument – it only has to predict better than the alternatives.
Also – for any of you who would like to step out of the political, ad-hominem, insult ridden realm and learn about the real, scientific discussions on the details of climate, I recommend realclimate.org.
Democrats rescind offer to skeptic’s rebuttal of Gore. Why would they do that?
http://gatewayp...e-to-allow.html
Yeah, that doesn’t look too good on behalf of Gore and the Dems. They should have let him speak.
I’m sick of this bickering. Why can’t we just have a debate, present the evidence, and discuss both sides to find real answers? Instead both sides just try to block/bully each other, wasting time, and spending the taxpayers money in the process.
Kevin,
How many times would you say we should debate this thing? I really don’t see what issue you’d like to debate.
You doubt the human connection with climate change? How can you?
We know CO2 levels have gone up. No one disputes that.
We know CO2 and other gases in increased quantities warm the earth. No one disputes that.
We know that human activities are burning tons and tons of CO2 releasing materials – coal, petroleum, natural gas…. No one disputes that.
Sorry what part do you want to debate exactly?
What do you suppose is happening to the CO2 release when we burn coal and oil if not going into the atmosphere?
roz:
My point was that theories should be allowed to be challenged that’s the only way you can verify their accuracy and improve upon them. That’s what scientists are called to do instead of blindly accepting them without question thereby promoting dogma. The suppression of speech and arguments that are counter to a popular theory only contributes to further spreading that dogma. Again, global warming is a theory and like all theories it doesn’t hold true 100% of the time. However, by challenging it we can advance our understanding/technology but by not challenging it we don’t. It’s just that simple.
I hope green companies are profitable and attract a lot of investors and consumers. I wish Al Gore would have come right out and disclosed all his investments. I honestly don’t care if he profits or not. I just would like the transparency. He could then have answered “As I stated previously and made available..bla bla bla”.
The whole cap and trade system and carbon credits comes off a little on fair. To me carbon emissions are just like light bulbs. I pick the system that is most cost effective and works for the task at hand, and is not illegal. A few years ago I tried compact florescent light bulbs. They were slow to turn on, slow to brighten up, when lit very harsh, and expensive. But now the price is more reasonable, there are instant on varieties, and different form factors, in some cases I can up the lumens while staying under the wattage for the socket.
What I am saying is I chose the greener solution because it was better. I would have been very angry if a few years ago if I had to buy light bulb credits from my neighbor so that I could continue to use standard incandescent light bulbs.