Gore to Followers: "Disobey!"

Thu, 2008-09-25 08:43Ross Gelbspan
Ross Gelbspan's picture

Gore to Followers: "Disobey!"

Nobel Peace Prize winner and environmental crusader Al Gore urged young people to engage in civil disobedience to stop the construction of coal plants without the ability to store carbon.

Previous Comments

I admire the hell out of Al Gore since he has sounded the warning on anthropogenic global warming. I believe it would be more effective, however, if he were volunteering himself to do it too. That’s what Gandhi and Martin Luther King did. I know many would follow his example.

Gore went on the bandwaggon to make money, period. He owns sveral companies that profit from the “environmental” scare. He makes $250,000 for every speach he gives around the country.

Gore is behaving like a schoolyard drug dealer.
Get the youth to do the crime for him. They will get off easy because they are brainwashed and naive.

What a degenerate.

Exxon and Peabody coal are the drug dealers, feedinng dependence, aided and abetted by Bush the metaphorical pusher, aided and abetted by Sen. Inhofe and other liars.

Dependance? No RELIANCE. You like this standard of living? Then you have no choice but to accept that we require oil. If you do not like that, then maybe you should consider living in a country like Somolia.

Could this be the magic bullet to finally get the Scam Artist into court?

Incitement to commit a crime?

Any one out there with legal expertise care to offer an opinion?

Given the recent Kingsnorth case in the British Courts maybe “Incitement to commit a crime” is more appropriately applied to deniers like you.

there are lots of choice demonstration sites. 28 coal powerplants are being built in the US right now.

c’mon you slackers - get out there and stop that power plant.

thats the trouble with slackers though - they’re not gonna do much.

that figure?

Several coal plants in the US are on hold pending law suits and legal challenges, several have been ditched after funding has been pulled, and several have had to change their designs and promise to design for CCS… And even after that, they are building too many.

not sure where I read it but it was today and the figures were 28 plants approved and being built and 20 more on the drawing board.

I don’t have any reason to think it was wrong - but who knows. In any case energy demand is going up and coal is the cheapest, easiest, most tempting solution.

after a quick search I got this:

17 being built and 66 being considered

seems more authoritative http://uk.reuters.com/article/governmentFilingsNews/idUKN0126788320080701

Sierraclub has an extensive list: http://www.sierraclub.org/environmentallaw/coal/plantlist.asp

Rick, nobody expects Americans to pay attention to AGW.

That’s a bit rich. A mulit-millionaire and former VP who was beholden to respect and honor the law is now advocating illegal activities by others.

AGW alarmists like Gore are zealots. Unable to democratically enact their agenda, lawlessness becomes their mantra.

Yeah, Gore wants young people to go to jail while he relaxes on his 100 foot houseboat. Nice.

Harboring a fugitive slave prior to 1863 was an act of civil disobedience and a crime in the U.S. Eugene Debs read the text of the U.S. Constitution and was jailed for that. Certainly you don’t mean all civil disobedience is wrong because it can be prosecuted in court.

On the other hand interning Americans of Japanese decent was legal as was child labor but no one would argue today that these were right because they were legal.

Hmmmm. Typical Liberal thinking.
Equating human rights activists with common Vandals.

I suppose that you would also consider Mother Teresa and Xaviera Hollander roughly equivalent as well.

Your attempts at ad-homineim character assassination aside, civil disobedience is as American as apple pie. It’s important to note that there were this small group of vandals who dumped tea into Boston harbor on December 16, 1776. By your definition they’re not patriots they’re just vandals.

But don’t take my word for it. Here’s the first paragraph entry in Wikipedia:

“The Boston Tea Party was an act of direct action protest by the American colonists against the British Government in which they destroyed many crates of tea belonging to the British East India Company on ships in Boston Harbor. The incident, which took place on Thursday, December 16, 1773, has been seen as helping to spark the American Revolution and remains to this day one of the most iconic events of the era.”

…group of vandals who dumped tea into Boston harbor on December 16, 1776. By your definition they’re not patriots they’re just vandals….

Sorry thats December 16, 1773. Its late and I need to get some sleep.

I’m Rick C and I approved the two previous messages.

maybe they should have just enjoyed a nice cup of tea instead of dumping it and getting all revolutionary. What could be better than a nice hot beverage in the winter. those crazy yanks.

What arrogance to even think AGW agitators are in the same class as anti-slavery advocates or the Boston Tea Party.

Please don’t attempt to classify your petty vandalism as somehow noble. Such dishonesty and disrespect for our democratic institutions is astounding.

It is deniers like you who shamelessly parade their nonsense in the light of 180 years of science on AGW. The history of green house gas science from Joseph Fourier in the 1820’s who discovered that gasses in the atmosphere trap heat, John Tyndall in 1859 who observed that CO2 was a principle green house gas, Svante Arrhenius in 1896 who calculated that halving the CO2 level would reduce the average temperature level in Europe by 4ºC to 5ºC, to an ice age level, Arvid Högbom who compiled evidence at that same time that human contributions to CO2 were equally as influential to climate as natural sources to James Hansen today who has concluded that the earth would have to return to a CO2 level of 350 ppm to maintain a climate fit for human habitation demonstrates that it is those who are for their own economic benefit changing, or vandalizing in your words, the climate to where it is inhospitable to human survival.

How do you explain that during the past 400 million years of earth history CO2 levels were SEVERAL TIMES higher than today and the planet was actually more hospitable to life?

How do you explain the years 1945-1975 cooling in spite of a four fold increase in our CO2 emissions?

How do you explain the current cooling trend since 1998?

Fact is, solar scientists have been getting surprises about the sun’s output. And since one of the major forcings of our temp is from the sun, there is NO WAY that these super computer models can predict what the future will be.

You’re right it’s not simple so why are you trivializing it?

First what’s relevant is what the average temperatures was doing human existence on earth. More importantly it is important what climate was like during the development of human civilization. During the period from 10,000 years ago until now average global temperature has remained at about 15ºC plus or minus 0.5ºC. This created stable shorelines from which commerce trade and civilization flourished. If you raise temperatures to about 2ºC then the land based ice is going to melt at faster rate and we could see sea level rise at about 2 meters (6 feet) by the end of the century. Now there’s a corresponding 100 ft of shoreline lost for every foot of sea lever rise. This would change the shoreline and put many people at sea level at risk.

There was a slight cooling from 1945 to 1975 caused by sulfates and other particulates in the atmosphere. However increased CO2 rise caused by human activity overtook this slight cooling trend and we are on track to exceed 1ºC additional temperature rise.

A Newsweek article from April 1975 is often cited as documenting the “proof” of global cooling but what is not reported at all was a Newsweek retraction from 2006 that repudiated that original article.

As for the cooling trend since 1998 there was a one year anomaly that fell below the average warming trend but the curve continues to rise to this day.

The solar output has been steady since 1978 when the first solar observer satellites were launched. The sun’s radiation does not account for the warming either because the troposphere has been cooling. Solar forcings would have caused the troposphere to heat up too.

The mathematical models also turn out to be remarkably accurate as well. This was demonstrated when James Hansen entered the numbers from the emissions of gasses from the Mt. Pinatubo eruption and the resulting climate predictions in the years hence turned out to be spot on.

“During the period from 10,000 years ago until now average global temperature has remained at about 15ºC plus or minus 0.5ºC. ”

False. There have been major ups and downs during the last 2000 years, including a warm period during the Roman era, the Medeval Warm Period (warmer than today) and the Little Ice Age.

“If you raise temperatures to about 2ºC then the land based ice is going to melt at faster rate and we could see sea level rise at about 2 meters (6 feet) by the end of the century.”

Do you understand what that means? Current rate of rise is 1.74mm.yr, has been since in situ measurements started 110 years ago. By 2100 that is a rise of 174mm. You are claiming there will be a rise of 2,000 by 2100. That means the RATE of rise would have to accelerate to get there. If it were a straight line acceleration that would require a rate today of 20mm/yr. Which is not happening. Since there is NO ACCELERATION in the rate of sea level rise there is NO EVIDENCE to support your claim of 2 meters in 100 years. (BTW sea level has been rising through all of human history. At the time of the Romans is was about a foot lower than today.

“There was a slight cooling from 1945 to 1975 caused by sulfates and other particulates in the atmosphere. However increased CO2 rise caused by human activity overtook this slight cooling trend and we are on track to exceed 1ºC additional temperature rise.”

Prove it. I’m already having this discussion with Steve L. There is no evidence in the forcing data to support that claim. Give peer reviewed papers supporting your claim. Otherwise it is completely false and a faith based ascertion.

“A Newsweek article from April 1975 is often cited as documenting the “proof” of global cooling but what is not reported at all was a Newsweek retraction from 2006 that repudiated that original article.”

Your buddy Hansen in the 1960s was raising the alarm of a new ice age coming.

“The solar output has been steady since 1978 when the first solar observer satellites were launched. The sun’s radiation does not account for the warming either because the troposphere has been cooling. Solar forcings would have caused the troposphere to heat up too.”

This is also false. Did you not read about the latest NASA findings about the sun? The suns solar wind output has dropped significantly since, guess what date? 1997!! Right when the last warm trend ended. We have been on a cooling trend since 1998.

“The mathematical models also turn out to be remarkably accurate as well. This was demonstrated when James Hansen entered the numbers from the emissions of gasses from the Mt. Pinatubo eruption and the resulting climate predictions in the years hence turned out to be spot on.”

Nonsence. The models are BACK CASTED to match the historical records. They predict NOTHING that actually pans out. http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2008/08/backcasting-wit.html

BTW, Hansen manipulates the data to get what he wants www.climateaudit.org, http://www.hawaiireporter.com/story.aspx?bcb0b0a8-86dc-4f0d-acce-dec9605c9b7a

Also, http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24315169-7583,00.html

Gotcha. If you break the law it’s “good”. If others break the law it’s “bad”. Great logic.

But sooooo Friggin delicious I had to share!!!

U.S. Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-Littleton) introduced legislation today that would effectively move the United Nations headquarters out of the United States. The legislation is being introduced amid incessant anti-American and anti-Jewish political grandstanding from the podium of the General Assembly.

“The U.N. has coddled brutal dictators, anti-Semites, state sponsors of terrorism, and nuclear proliferators – while excluding democratic countries from membership and turning a blind eye to humanitarian tragedies and gross violations of human rights around the globe,” Tancredo said. “The U.N.’s continued presence in the United States is an embarrassment to our nation, and the time has come for this ineffective organization to pack its bags and hit the road.”

Tancredo’s bill, dubbed the U.N. Eviction Act, would direct Attorney General Michael Mukasey to initiate condemnation proceedings against all United Nations properties within the United States, and sell the property to the highest bidder on the open market. The proceeds will be given to the Treasury Department to pay down the national debt. The bill would also bar the future purchase of property in the United States or U.S. territories by the U.N. or any of its agencies, and revokes the diplomatic privileges and immunities that U.N. officials and representatives currently enjoy.

“I refuse to sit idly by while Americans are forced to host Islamofascist dictators, like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, so they can spew anti-American rhetoric just blocks from Ground Zero,” Tancredo continued.

won’t happen though.

although the UN has been frustrating, the US won’t walk away from the international talk shop. the world is getting smaller and the US wants to control international dialogue.

Having the UN in New York makes a difference. New York is the capital of the world and when leaders meet there they can feel it.

Also when you get guys like Chavez and Ahmadinejad flying safely into the US and being politely delivered to the podium to sound off about the US being the Great Satan, it rings pretty hollow. It’s also great theater and what better place for that than New York? I think they hurt themselves more than anything.

It won’t look so righteous when people die because of blackouts that could have been avoided if coal plants were built. Willing to have that blood on your hands?

blackouts are a serious worry, so the coal plants are going to go ahead.

Long term base load power can come from Ocean wave action and solar. Wave power is unlimited and in a lot of places it never stops - just have to tap into it. It can replace coal eventually.

Just stand on an Oregon beach and look out. Nothing but pure energy out there that never stops.

Acts of desperation. Won’t keep this civilization going. Might help some of those who make it into the Post Carbon Era though.

I agree with Rick :-)

Have you not been watching the news lately? Many have died already from stronger tornadoes, hurricanes and heat waves. When you observe the strength of hurricanes, the number of tornados in the mid-west, the sweltering heat waves in the west and south-east and the promise of more of the same exponentially as the decades roll by on a business as usual course you have to wonder on who’s hands will the blood stain?

Then there’s this report from the U.N. that tackling climate change will increase and not reduce jobs. It will also provide us with abundant clean power for generations to come. Also lives will be saved by not having to deal with the particulates, the sulfates, carbon monoxide and other toxins that already are harmful to the public and which kill people today.

In light of that, the premise of your argument is pretty hollow.

“Have you not been watching the news lately? Many have died already from stronger tornadoes, hurricanes and heat waves. ”

This is false. FEWER people die today due to heat waves than even in the 1960’s before A/C was wide spread. Weather related deaths have been dropping for decades because of better weather forecasting and the advent of the TV bringing that info to the world.

Second, your assumption about these increasing is blatantly false. The IPCC clearly states that there is NO GLOBAL WARMING SIGNAL IN TH HURRICAN RECORD. And the number of hurricanes and their intensity has been dropping.

If global warming were to be true, there would be FEWER tornados. They are caused by cold dry air masses from the arctic colliding with moist warm air masses from the Gulf of Mexico. If the artic warms there will be fewer cold fronts, hence FEWER tornadoes.

“Then there’s this report from the U.N. that tackling climate change will increase and not reduce jobs. It will also provide us with abundant clean power for generations to come. Also lives will be saved by not having to deal with the particulates, the sulfates, carbon monoxide and other toxins that already are harmful to the public and which kill people today.

Two different things. CO2 is NOT A POLLUTANT it is plant food. Elevated CO2 in the geological past has meant more plant growth and more moderated temperatures.

Also, check out Germany and the rest of the EU countries. Corportations are leaving in droves, unemployment is through the roof, they are on the verge of recession, and those so called “green jobs” are all subsidized by the governments. Those countries are crying to try and get out of this mess caused by CO2 reduction targest. It’s killing their economies.

Do you just repeat the opposite of what is reported? I guess there would be fewer deaths if you base it on the artificial climate managed standards of the U.S. Close to 15,000 people in France died directly due to the heat wave that occurred in 2003. This was reported in the USA Today of September 25th, 2003. So yeah A/C works in the U.S. and those of you who don’t have it tough luck chumps.

Actually CO2 is a pollutant as determined by a recent Supreme Court decision back in 2007 which rebuked the Bush Administration for not regulating CO2 emissions. In fact this is what Justice Stevens wrote for the majority, “EPA has offered no reasoned explanation for its refusal to decide whether greenhouse gases cause or contribute to climate change,”

Europeans are moving their manufacturing off-shore? Oh, haven’t been paying close attention to the off shoring and outsourcing of jobs here have we? Ever heard of a Maquiladora? Do you remember that giant sucking sound that Ross Perot talked about in the 1992 election? Well it’s already happened. Europe still has a substantial manufacturing base. Where’s ours? China? Mexico? El Salvador? Go to any retail store and try to find something made in the USA that’s not motor oil or other lubricants. Your Chevy was probably built in a Mexican auto factory. We’ve even exported part of our food production. Did I wake up in the People’s Republic of the U.S.? Please tell me where those auto, steel and textiles went.

With regard to subsidizing industry that’s all the U.S. has ever done and is currently doing. Ever heard of the Internet? It’s what you’re using right now. It was proposed by the Rand Corporation in 1963 to put World War III on automatic in case 80% of the conventional telephone circuits were destroyed and built by the DOD’s Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency DARPA in 1969. It was built and maintained publicly for over 26 years before it was privatized by that great socialist Bill Clinton. Then there’s passenger jet aircraft that would not have been built were it not for the early research into high altitude bombers by the Air Force in the 1940’s. Cars would not have been possible without a substantial public investment in roads. After World War II we put road building on steroids when we built the Interstate Highway system which made suburbia possible. The Interstate Highway system was proposed by Eisenhower in 1956 after heavy lobbying by GM and the AAA. It was originally coined The National Defense Highway System. http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/facility/ndhs.htm

The laser and the transistor and the first portable computer operating system, UNIX, would not have been possible without a government sanctioned monopoly called Bell Telephone which had a research wing, Bell Labs that made these breakthroughs possible. The miniaturization of the transistor into the integrated circuit was spearheaded by the space program.

Every government subsidizes the key industries of its economy. The only difference is that here in the U.S. we deceive ourselves into thinking that it’s “Free Enterprise”

Now turn on the TV and tell me if we are in a free market system with respect to, oh say Wall Street financiers.

All of a sudden investments in renewable energy technologies look like a bargain. There also good for America, Canada and the rest of the world.

[x]

For more than a year, oil giant BP has waged a massive public relations battle to convince Americans that the company has been bamboozled by the oil spill claims process relating to the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil rig blowout.

This BP PR campaign has involved full-page newspaper ads paid for...

read more