Print 100 comment(s) - last by The Raven.. on Jun 27 at 11:49 AM

Al Gore, who made hundreds of millions of dollars off promoting his thoughts on "global warming", accused President Obama of having "failed" to act to stop warming.  (Source: Jewel Samad/AFP/Getty images)

Mr. Gore, who recently bought his fourth luxury mansion, uses carbon like there's no tomorrow. But he says he's actually "carbon neutral" thanks to carbon credits he buys from his own company.  (Source: coldwell banker previews via real estalker)

White House officials insist Mr. Gore's accusations are untrue and that the President hasn't "failed" to address climate change.  (Source: AP Photo)
Wealthy investor-cum-advocate continues to be one of the global warming movement's noisiest voices

United States President Barack Obama must be feeling a bit like his predecessor, George W. Bush, when it comes to the topic of climate change.  President Bush was criticized by Democrats as being too weak on climate change.  At the same time, more extreme elements of his party criticized his efforts like CAFE revisions for supposedly being too heavy-handed.  Likewise, President Obama has been criticized by Republicans for being to heavy-handed on climate change, but has been criticized by extreme members of his own party for being too weak.

Taking to the pulpit in a rambling 8-page online editorial in the magazine Rolling Stone, former Vice President and Nobel Prize winner Al Gore delivered perhaps the most stinging criticism yet against President Obama.  Entitled "Climate of Denial", Gore speaks on behalf of the latter contingent -- extreme elements of the Democratic party -- in lashing out at the President saying he has "failed" to do his part to advert the climate crisis.

I. A Question of Credibility

It's a widely known fact that Al Gore makes over $100,000 for speaking appearances.  In 2007 Fast Company estimated a speaking date with Mr. Gore would cost you a cool $175,000 USD.

In his global warming "documentary" An Inconvenient Truth, Mr. Gore claims to have given at least 1,000 speeches, meaning that he's likely earned in excess of $100M USD.  And there's the profits from that documentary as well -- Mr. Gore likely earned a tidy cut of the film's almost $50M USD box office gross [source] and $31M USD in DVD sales [source].

That's not too shabby for a man who was once written off as too boring to become president.

And then there's Mr. Gore's alternative energy climate firms such as Kleiner Perkins and Generation Investment Management LLP.  According to reports, Mr. Gore is poised to become the "world's first carbon billionaire", thanks to these investments.

Mr. Gore defends these holdings, stating, "Do you think there is something wrong with being active in business in this country? I am proud of it. I am proud of it."

He's also been forced to defend his palatial living quarters, which are far from carbon-neutral [source].  In 2007 his 20 room, 8 bathroom mansion used as much electricity in a month as the average American household did in a year. The Gore manor also devoured a very sizable amount of natural gas a year.  In 2010 he bought a fourth mansion -- an even more extravagant abode [source].

And that's not to mention the companies private jets that he's used over the years to promote his "anti-warming" efforts [source]. (Mr. Gore contends that he's never owned a jet personally so this doesn't count.)

Faced with ever present criticism over his apparent green hypocrisy, Mr. Gore says he lives "carbon neutral" by purchasing a wealth of carbon credits to offset his lavish lifestyle.  But reports indicate Mr. Gore is really just paying himself -- his credits allegedly come from Generation Investment Management, a London-based company with offices in Washington, D.C., for which he serves as chairman. [source]

In legal cases justices are supposed to recuse themselves from matters where they have a vested interest.  But Al Gore is no judge and he doesn't seem ready to recuse himself of this debate in which he has a massive vested interest in anytime soon.

Mr. Gore does have the honor of a Nobel Peace Prize, along with United Nations International Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC) embattled chairman Rajendra K. Pachauri, for what it's worth, though.

II. Obama -- "Weak" on Climate?

Al Gore attacks Obama in a piece he writes for Rolling Stone he comments:

President Obama has thus far failed to use the bully pulpit to make the case for bold action on climate change. After successfully passing his green stimulus package, he did nothing to defend it when Congress decimated its funding.
Without presidential leadership that focuses intensely on making the public aware of the reality we face, nothing will change.

Mr. Gore contends it wouldn't damage the President politically to get "tougher" on climate, writing:

Many political advisers assume that a president has to deal with the world of politics as he finds it, and that it is unwise to risk political capital on an effort to actually lead the country toward a new understanding of the real threats and real opportunities we face. Concentrate on the politics of re-election, they say. Don't take chances.

All that might be completely understandable and make perfect sense in a world where the climate crisis wasn't "real." Those of us who support and admire President Obama understand how difficult the politics of this issue are in the context of the massive opposition to doing anything at all — or even to recognizing that there is a crisis. And assuming that the Republicans come to their senses and avoid nominating a clown, his re-election is likely to involve a hard-fought battle with high stakes for the country.
But in this case, the President has reality on his side. The scientific consensus is far stronger today than at any time in the past. Here is the truth: The Earth is round; Saddam Hussein did not attack us on 9/11; Elvis is dead; Obama was born in the United States; and the climate crisis is real. It is time to act.

The attack sent the White House press department into a panic.  They rushed to point out the 960 metric tons yearly saved by the President's Recovery Act that set "aggressive new joint fuel economy and emissions standards for cars and trucks."

States White House official Clark Stevens in a written response, "The President has been clear since day one that climate change poses a threat domestically and globally, and under his leadership we have taken the most aggressive steps in our country’s history to tackle this challenge."

Mr. Gore dismisses anyone who questions that global warming is real, man-made, and "destroying the climate balance that is essential to the survival of our civilization" as a "polluter" or "idealogue".  It's a strategy that promises huge profits for Mr. Gore -- and one that he claims to firmly believe in from an altruistic perspective as well.

One thing's for sure -- this won't be the last time Mr. Gore will be spotted beating the drum of the global warming movement and noisily opening his mouth as a self-proclaimed expert on climate change.

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: who cares
By Reclaimer77 on 6/23/2011 8:27:05 AM , Rating: 3
but you do know that human activity is causing very real changes in the climate of the planet, right?

No, actually we don't know that. And if it is, we don't know to what extent. We need scientific proof before we start claiming there's a "crisis", and right now we just don't have it.

The research

Gore's "Hockey Stick" was proven false, it deliberately massaged data to arrive at the conclusion. Last year we had Climategate, in where it was proved that every major study was tainted, because almost all Climate Change studies used their data. So in actuality, there is very little if any research that proves "Climate Change" even exists, much less is caused purely by man.

well as other forms of pollution have no impact at all.

Obviously every living thing on Earth causes SOME impact. That's not the debate here. Of course man, as the worlds most populated and dominant life form, causes ecological impacts. There's no way to change that. But the planet is not fragile, and we have been getting "greener" since the 1960's. Environmentalists want it to happen overnight, that's just not rational.

The issue is whether or not man is causing irreparable and life-threatening damage to the climate and Earth. Despite scare tactic after scare tactic, the science just does not support this claim. Global warming was a hoax, in fact, the Earth got cooler!

RE: who cares
By Iaiken on 6/23/2011 10:02:34 AM , Rating: 2
in fact, the Earth got cooler!

Actually, you can't say for sure either way as the solid empirical data only goes back to the 1800's.

So within recent history (relevant to us alive today), the temperature has risen from the median by around 0.5 degrees.

Unfortunately, the changes are so small that relying on inaccurate historical records and estimates based on soil samples (which can be off +/- on either the temperature and time scales) are virtually useless when working with such small degrees of gradual change.

It's always been my position that we can't factually say either way beyond what solid data we have, and that the solid data we have is not a large enough body from which an accurate conclusion can be drawn.

RE: who cares
By JediJeb on 6/23/2011 1:15:10 PM , Rating: 4
This is exactly what the climate change preachers do not want to admit.

Also if you look at what they were saying back in the 90's then we should already be seeing huge changes in ocean levels on the scale of having much of New York flooded, but it hasn't happened. We should also have already seen much of our farm lands turned into deserts, which hasn't happened yet either. Their exponential rise in temperature that they have predicted has turned into a barely noticeable change in the last 10 years with a slight cooling taking place at some periods.

The Earth has been warmer in the past and I believe it will be warmer in the future than it is now. That has never led to the destruction of everything, and in fact at some of those time it has led to vast improvements to life on Earth. What we should be doing now is not wasting money trying to stop the inevitable, but studying how to adapt to whatever change will come. If we gamble that it is man caused and it is then we win, if we gamble it is man caused and it turns out to be a natural phenomena then we lose because we will not be ready to adapt.

"Google fired a shot heard 'round the world, and now a second American company has answered the call to defend the rights of the Chinese people." -- Rep. Christopher H. Smith (R-N.J.)

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki