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 TEAMSWITCHER on 6/23/2011 8:33:36 AM , Rating: -1
I must have missed that headline. The evidence of global warming has never been refuted by any credible science publication or body. In fact, the evidence for global warming is rock solid - 100%. I don't know where you are getting your information but you are severely misinformed.

Your reaction though is perfectly understandable. There are five stages of death, and the first is denial. Followed by anger, bargaining, depression, and finally acceptance. I'm sure our species will exhibit all of these as we move into the uncertain future.

The one thing that bothers me most, is that right now there may be a window of opportunity to avoid our fate, but a-holes just like you are unwilling or lack the foresight to even try.

RE: who cares
By Reclaimer77 on 6/23/2011 8:42:10 AM , Rating: 2
The evidence of global warming has never been refuted by any credible science publication or body.

It's called a "thermometer". You can't have "global warming" at the same time as a near record cooling trend.

In fact, the evidence for global warming is rock solid - 100%.

Umm bullshit. You got a link for that? 100% is a pretty strong claim. Why do I get the impression you're just talking out of your ass?

is that right now there may be a window of opportunity to avoid our fate

Yeah..nvm. You're ass-talking 100%.

RE: who cares
By BSMonitor on 6/23/11, Rating: 0
RE: who cares
By Reclaimer77 on 6/23/2011 10:44:39 AM , Rating: 2
We ARE talking about "man made global warming". I'm fully aware the cycle has been happening for tens of thousands of years, and even though that isn't the argument, it only further bolsters my position.

But Reclaimer has proven time and time again that he is incredibly narrow minded. Would not expect him to grasp something as great global climate patterns.

Nice attack on me, when in fact, you bring NOTHING tangible to the discussion except speculation, misinterpretation, and theory. And I like how you speak about me as if EVERYONE is an expert on "great global climate patterns", when obviously most people who make that their living can't even fully grasp it.

The question everyone is asking, are greenhouse gases, produced by heavy industry, automobiles, etc, speeding up the process??

They aren't. There, I just answered your question. I can say that because there isn't a single shred of unbiased evidence that it is.

The debate for this IS important.

I agree. Problem is, most of the time, it's not debated. It's treated as a far gone conclusion by people who's goal is to mandate social and political changes by whipping up fear and scare tactics. If you don't concede this has happened, you're far more narrow minded than you accuse me of.

Seriously?? Global Warming does not equate to every thermometer in every region of every land mass going up.

Now you're just being insulting. I didn't mean that and you goddamn well know I didn't. Fact is we have NOT seen average global temperatures rise anywhere CLOSE to any pro-global warming computer model or study. Remember the "hockey stick"!? It has NOT happened.

Who can know.

Brilliant.... I rest my case.

RE: who cares
By tayb on 6/23/2011 8:52:03 AM , Rating: 5
I guess you must have lived under a rock last year during the so-called "Climate Gate."

Quotes from the scientists involved.

"I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline."

"The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate."

“This was the danger of always criticising the skeptics for not publishing in the “peer-reviewed literature”. Obviously, they found a solution to that–take over a journal! So what do we do about this? I think we have to stop considering “Climate Research” as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. "

And I could go on. T
If you don't want your scientific research to be peer reviewed then it isn't worthy of being called scientific research. If you are manipulating data to come to a pre-defined conclusion that isn't scientific research it's propaganda. If you are colluding to seek out and REMOVE scientists with dissenting opinions that isn't scientific research.

I'm sorry but if you reach a conclusion before you start researching and pick and choose data to fill that conclusion you aren't following the scientific process. No wonder they declined peer review. And people like you expect me to just blindly believe this garbage simply because it came from a "scientist." alright then.

RE: who cares
By Arsynic on 6/23/2011 9:27:42 AM , Rating: 2
Scientific "consensus" does not make up for actual scientific proof. There is none. The CRU data that everyone of them references is severely suspect. The consensus consists of a cabal sucking on the teet of the political grant money gravy train. These scientists benefit financially from this so-called consensus made up mostly of scientists who aren't climatologists.

And what about the thousands of scientists who oppose this cabal? Why should they be ignored?

RE: who cares
By JediJeb on 6/23/2011 6:28:43 PM , Rating: 2
To add, there was an article here just last year about a prominent physicist who did not believe "Global Climate Change" and left the biggest international organization for physicists because they refused to allow the members who opposed Global Climate Change to publish any of their data in the official journal. They also would not even allow them to form any working group in which to discuss any anti global climate change ideas.

There was also a report put out by a pair of researchers last year that global climate change was in the process of killing off certain species of birds in the desert southwest of the US. But after looking into their report it was discovered they had already made the report, but were in the process of beginning to actually study the birds. That is not good scientific research to have your conclusion already published before your research even begins. When I was working on my Chemistry degree back twenty years ago, doing something like that would have gotten me dismissed from the university and most likely I would never have been able to get into another school or work in the field, seems today as long as you can publish something that goes with the flow you are more welcome than someone who actually does good science.

"If you look at the last five years, if you look at what major innovations have occurred in computing technology, every single one of them came from AMD. Not a single innovation came from Intel." -- AMD CEO Hector Ruiz in 2007

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