Gore Nails Problem; Posits Solution

Thu, 2008-07-17 17:45Richard Littlemore
Richard Littlemore's picture

Gore Nails Problem; Posits Solution

We’re borrowing money from China to buy oil from the Persian Gulf to burn it in ways that destroy the planet. Every bit of that’s got to change.

Al Gore

The indefatigable Al has thrown out a bold challenge to America, to source 100 per cent of its electrical power from renewable (non-carbon) sources within 10 years.

This will embolden - and challenge - those who still believe that the U.S. is an admirable world leader.

Tags: 

Comments

on such a sumers day….

Seriously, does anybody pay attention to this moron any more?
I guarantee Gore has financial interests is several of those sources.

Ad hominem.

Ad hominem.

Ad hominem.

(…by the way, for those who don’t know, ad hominem means attacking the person, and not the idea)

By attacking the person and not the argument, you have truly and completely refuted Gore’s assertion that America should not be borrowing from China, to buy oil from Saudi Arabia in ways that are destroying the capacity of the Earth to support civilisation. Congratulations. I bow before your awe inspiring logic. In fact, you’ve completely changed my thinking on China and Saudi Arabia. Before, I thought that they were nasty places, where they suppress their citizens and execute people for petty crimes. But now I see the error of my ways. I will now send half of my income to support these bastions of civilisation. Oh wait. I already do.

Irrelevant but cute

Honestly, the most irrelevent thing here is your first posting, attacking Gore’s credibility. You obviously have NO IDEA what ad hominem means. Gore’s credibility is irrelevent to the correctness of his assertions. It is a mark of weakness when a person attacks the credibility of his opponent instead of addressing the facts and logic of his argument. Please explain to me why you disagree with the assertion that we should not be borrowing from China to buy oil from Saudi Arabia. Please give a rational argument. OR STFU.

Do you have any idea what blog this is??????

the main purpose of this blog is to attack the credibility of honest scientists in an attempt to smear their reputations and divert readers from the truth.

If I can’t ridicule Gore on this site, the site needs to shut down completely.

Get real…. Wake up… smell the coffee.

And have a little fun, geez

“Ad hominem.

Ad hominem.

Ad hominem.

(…by the way, for those who don’t know, ad hominem means attacking the person, and not the idea)”

Why does the names of Tim Ball, Fred Singer, Benny Peiser,Richard S. Lindzen etc.. comes to mind when I read this?

I don’t know Wilbert. Do those guys use ad hominem attacks as well?

Here is a link to the video. Brilliant speech. I doubt the deniers even watched it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dt9wZloG97U&NR=1

Anyone else see the hypocrisy in Gary’s comment?

All the deniers think that it is great for EXXON et al. to make money ruining our planet, but somehow it is wrong for someone to make money by trying to save it from disaster.

Gary, your posts become stupider and stupider everyday.

Ian Forrester

Read what I said.

No mention of Exxon or any other oil company.
No mention of local green energy being bad (cause its not)

Just an observation about a famous scam artist makeing completely unrealistic fanciful statements designed to do nothing but fill his pockets and empty those of his countrymen.

I am all for clean power.
But it aint going to happen in ten years not matter what.

Also, I think it is likely that Gore is begining to see the slow death of AGW and is shifting his fear strategy to energy independance to keep the money coming in.

Ad hominem.

I have no more Hominems to add.
Fresh out.

Gore says Climate Tax is as important as Moon landing?

Gore’s Alliance for Climate Protection estimates that “the cost of transforming the nation to so-called clean electricity sources at $1.5 trillion to $3 trillion over 30 years in public and private money.” http://www.americansforprosperity.org/index.php?id=6064

Wow, your first comment that doesn’t have an ad hominem attack. Oh, scratch that, I just noticed the subject line.

But since you’ve actually asserted an actual fact, I’ll address it. Perhaps this is what it will cost. Let’s assume it is. I would then ask you what we already spend on oil? What about natural gas? In thirty years, it would be many trillions of dollars. Not to mention the fact that the oil is running out, and that the price will certainly surge in the long run.

And what about the harm caused by burning that oil? What about the crop failures caused by an unstable climate? What if agricultural yields drop worldwide by 20% or more because of droughts or rising temperatures? What will that cost? Imagine food shortages on a grand scale. Imagine how expensive food would become.

But the cost is above and beyond business as usual.
If it was a matter just changing from one cost to another the number would be zero.

I really should not have to point out the increadably obvious. The merely obvious should be sufficient.

Are you just a one sided hypocrite as well or are you annoyed with Ian’s ad hominem attacks as well?

I am not as it simply shows everyone the level of cult fervor present here.
Quite useful actually.

Well, let’s see. Ian has one post in which he says your comments are stupid. That is not really ad hominem. It would be an ad hominem attack if he called YOU stupid. But he said “your posts are getting stupider and stupider”. He did say in the subject line that “You are a hypocrite”, which I suppose is ad hominem. But then he goes on to specify that your POSTS are hypocritical, which is NOT ad hominem.

So, for the record, the following is NOT ad hominem. Gary, your POSTS are poorly thought out and show a significant disregard for the truth. Your POSTS use insult and insinuation, rather than logical argument and fact. Your POSTS act to bait people, and to stir up anger and emotion. They seldom contribute anything of substance to a discussion. The attitude shown in many of your posts implies that you the writer have strong arguments. But your POSTS seldom if ever reveal your arguments.

Oh, and by the way your “cult fervor” comment IS also an ad hominem attack, as is your assertion that I am a one sided hypocrite. Seems like almost everything you write is an ad hominem attack.

Can we just ban people like Gary now? They’ve nothing substantial to add to the discussion, and use their “free speech” to sling all the usual Galileo-like ad hominems the umpteenth time. They contribute nothing but noise, and I wonder if they’re also scaring away the more reasonable commenters.

Even if nobody bans them, they’ll still complain about being persecuted. So we may as well “persecute” them like they secretly wish. They can always make their noise elsewhere anyway.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
http://frankbi.wordpress.com/ International Journal of Inactivism
“Al `Fat Al’ Gore [is fat]” – Harold Pierce

“The American Physical Society, an organization representing nearly 50,000 physicists, has reversed its stance on climate change and is now proclaiming that many of its members disbelieve in human-induced global warming. The APS is also sponsoring public debate on the validity of global warming science. The leadership of the society had previously called the evidence for global warming “incontrovertible.”

AL Gore and David S. will certainly jump on this occasion and prove the ” Deniers” wrong once and for all.
How about Desmogblog? will they send a rep at this debate?

“In a posting to the APS forum, editor Jeffrey Marque explains,”There is a considerable presence within the scientific community of people who do not agree with the IPCC conclusion that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are very probably likely to be primarily responsible for global warming that has occurred since the Industrial Revolution.”

Directly from the APS page dated 07/18/2008

APS Climate Change Statement
APS Position Remains Unchanged
The American Physical Society reaffirms the following position on climate change, adopted by its governing body, the APS Council, on November 18, 2007:
“Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth’s climate.”

In point of fact your reference was from a single author in a forum post. Specifically the forum header says ” “Opinions expressed are those of the authors alone and do not necessarily reflect the views of the APS or of the Forum.”

So all you have done is take a single comment out of context and lied about the society as a whole

What this does show is that there is active debate within APS, as there is within most academic and/or professional societies, including my own, APEGGA (within which 65% of polled members indicated that they are skeptics) and AIME. It’s unfortunate that most scientists and engineers don’t bother to get involved with the politics of their societies. This may change thanks to the AGW controversy and the anger bubbling up among the rank and file at being included, without consultation, among the believers.

Here is a copy of what I posted in another thread about the dishonesty spread by the AGW deniers.

There are a number of errors in what you have posted.

The paper is in the Newsletter of a forum of APS, not the APS itself. The Forum is called The Forum on Physics and Society.

Secondly, the “paper” by Monckton has not been endorsed by 50,000 physicists, rather it was an invited paper to start a debate on AGW. The editor of the forum invited a paper from the contra-camp (Monckton) and one from the pro-camp (Hafemeister and Schwartz). He then asked for “reasoned rebuttals from the authors as well as further contributions from the physics community”.

Hafemeister and Schwartz concluded their invited paper with the following: “(The) Earth is getting warmer. Basic atmospheric models clearly predict that additional greenhouse gasses will raise the temperature of Earth. To argue otherwise, one must prove a physical mechanism that gives a reasonable alternative cause of warming. This has not been done. Sunspot and temperature correlations do not prove causality”.

So it is wrong to say that “50,000 physicists support the “paper” submitted by Monckton. In fact, there are many negative critiques of this “paper” in many science fora on the internet and elsewhere.

It is completely dishonest for anyone to suggest that Monckton’s “paper” is the view of the APS.

Monckton’s “paper” contains many errors both in physics and climate science.

I look forward to the many responses from members of the APS to this “debate”.

For further information see:

http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200807/hafemeister.cfm

http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200807/editor.cfm

Robichaud, why not do a bit of research before passing on lies and disinformation? That would at least make you a “skeptic” and not a “denier”.

Ian Forrester

George Bush had to say he backed the G8 climate statement. The Pope is visiting Australia with global warming on his mind, he says. Gore has been droning on for years now, suddenly, the news types prop him up front and center. Why?

The upper left corner of the graphic posted with this story says it all. Its the news from the poles. People who have never taken this issue seriously before are waking up. They can sense that the rock solid people even Bush can’t get NASA to stop are stunned, that they are now saying the stability of the planetary system is gone.

The last time I felt a change like this was when the discovery of the Antarctic Ozone Hole shattered the CFC industry claim there was nothing to worry about. Teeth suddenly appeared in the international agreeement and the target was changed so that the goal was the elimination of production, worldwide. The Bozos spouting their gibberish about junk ozone science gradually faded away.

So, things are looking up. But, obviously, this issue is going to be harder to solve. You could gather all the worldwide producers of CFCs into one room. But have faith. Maybe we’ll live to see civilization, in extremis, find a way no one can see now.

I’m really enjoying your posts, keep them up!

Particularly helpful is your clear statement that we are living in a world we have made unstable. Given that fact, the range of nightmares we could see includes some that are past unconscionable. I wonder if we should spend more of our time pointing out that some pretty scary sh*t is now out of the realm of scifi and into the realm of “measurable likelihood”. I do this sometimes in teaching but always try to offer a positive alternative vision if we do something effective.

If you read the entirety of Gore’s speech, there are some useful pointers in there. Obviously, as a kind of mascot for global change, Gore is not going to build strategies himself, but he writes and speaks very sensibly about directions and solutions. He’s great for stuff like that and his political background makes him a pretty effective speaker from my POV. Another advantage for him is that he hears from many disciplines and sees the big picture very effectively, whether one chooses to believe him personally or not.

JTK

Thank you. When I wrote that thing the stability of the planet is gone it was very upsetting. I didn’t do much else the rest of the day. It was really hard to write those words then read them back, I ask myself is that what I really see, then I left them there.

I had actually never seen “Inconvenient Truth” until a few days ago. Somehow I had been cynical about what it might be. I had my own little slide show twenty years ago. I was a voice of doom. These days I’d have even more doom but I can laugh now. I guess there’s something about this issue that gets people thinking of going on tour with a set of slides.

I was completely wrong about Inconvenient Truth. This guy is great. He didn’t have to do this. I cringed sometimes when he was going over some points, but I really liked most of what he had done. I loved his analogy with growing tobacco. That’s a hard thing to do to look people in the eye and say you were wrong. And we have to understand people who were wrong who can’t do that. I loved what he did. I’m so glad he did the whole thing. I didn’t know Gore was a student of David Keeling’s.

All I did as I saw him in the news was consider what did this mean that he was suddenly front and center? I’ll read his speech. Thanks for suggesting it. He is a master.

Another good post.

Like you, I did not see An Inconvenient Truth until about a month ago. I was also a little cynical about it, although not really about Gore, who I have long admired. More that I don’t like groupthink or bandwagons. Anyway, it’s not really a movie for scientists and folks who are already knowledgeable about climate change won’t learn much from him. It’s a wonderful film for a host of other reasons.

Also like you, I really admire the guy for what he is doing here. I have also long been impressed with Gore’s interest in digging into the science to get the details right. He almost always does and frequently updates his talk when he makes a mistake (which happens) or something new changes a perspective. You’re right, he’s just terrific. And that’s why he gets a rock star welcome wherever he goes. Ironically, he is also going to be remembered as the positive alter ego of Bush, who has earned his position as the personification of what is wrong with the west.

I find Gore inspirational. His passion and obvious desire to get the solutions rolling in are infectious.

Not really because of Gore, but our family has just switched to Bullfrog power and we’re going to do a bunch of other things as opportunities arise also. Better to be part of the solution. About a third of Ontario’s power comes from coal.

JTK

We’re borrowing money from China to buy oil from the Persian Gulf to burn it in ways
that destroy the planet. Every bit of that’s got to change.

Al Gore

 Richard,

All good points from Al except that most of our imported oil comes from your country Canada, courtesy of the Alberta tar sands project at Fort McMurry (sp?). I for one would like to see that project ended by a switch to carbon free transportation.

I have heard that Canada is the single largest supplier of oil to the US but this does NOT mean that the majority of US oil comes from Canada. That would be a very different kettle of fish.

Anyone have a quick link to reveal the sources and sizes of oil origins to the US market?

JTK

JTK,

My bad. I think what I meant to say was that Canada is the largest supplier of imported oil to the US and not that they are the source of most of our imported oil.

Canada - 1,840,000
Middle East - 2,425,000
Total for top 15 countries - 9,199,000

All in barrels of crude oil per day

http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/company_level_imports/current/import.html

Ian Forrester

Ian,

I used your link and here are the top 5 by number of barrels per day imported to the US.

Crude Oil Imports (Top 15 Countries)
(Thousand Barrels per Day)
Country May-08 Apr-08 YTD 2008 May-07 YTD 2007

——————————————————————————–

CANADA 1,840 1,952 1,889 1,821 1,841
SAUDI ARABIA 1,579 1,453 1,531 1,574 1,402
MEXICO 1,116 1,259 1,207 1,461 1,469
VENEZUELA 1,030 1,019 998 1,232 1,103
NIGERIA 851 1,115 1,053 882 1,047
IRAQ 583 679 670 341 458

Gentlemen, thanks for the info. It’s interesting to see the disparity between perception and reality. I think people generally think most of the US oil supply originates in the middle east, but it is largley from the Americas (if these figures are in the right ballpark).

APEGGA, mentioned earlier by Gary, has said that greenhouse gas emissions must be reduced immediately. APEGGA’s leader acknowledges that climate change is an urgent priority and must be addressed. The full quote from the site: “Debating the cause has merit within the membership, Mr. McLeod said, although “the potential consequences of doing nothing are too great to ignore.””
http://www.apegga.org/Environment/

Climatescience.org consists in large measure of peer-reviewed papers that are then editorialized into a story about how scientists don’t believe in climate change. Ho hum. But at least a good number of the papers on the site don’t argue in the slightest against the existence or importance of climate change. I guess Gary is still primary sourcing his stuff from blogs. Sigh.

The American Physical Society issued a clarifying statement after their rather odd one of a day or two ago making it clear that climate change science is incontrovertible, that humans are principally to blame and that it must be addressed. So, APS is in the same league as the major science academies, surprise surprise. They are at pains to point out on their site that the Physics and Society Forum, where the fluff originated, is one of but 39 units in the APS. They seem to have gotten an earful from their membership (my inference).
http://www.aps.org/

Why does denialism seem so much like opportunism? Because whenever anyone on a blog issues a statement, the deniers jump on it like the second coming and claim that the rest of us are fantasists. Not very charming. Not very complicated. Not very real. Best to ignore them. Bye bye Gary. Zog, it’s been fun. Rob, Wilbert… never mind, you’ll just write something vitriolic… again…

JTK

Whenever anything is posted mentioning Gore, you can be sure to get a Pavlov response from Goregoyles like Gary and Zog. Better to just ignore them; they don’t say anything worthwhile anyway; same old, same old.

Interesting perspective on this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ESxvY1tQHTo

[x]

There are enough articles on the “myth of peak oil” floating around the Internet to fill a book; and there are enough books on the subject to fill a small library.  One of the common threads throughout these publications is their lack of credible sources, because not only is peak oil real, but we’re rapidly approaching that threshold. 

An example that is smacking the United...

read more