Carbon Pricing

Published on April 19th, 2014 | by Scott Cooney


Al Gore On Climate Change Crisis

April 19th, 2014 by  

Originally published on Green Living Ideas.

Al Gore at the University of Hawaii

Former Vice President Al Gore delivered a powerful address to a packed house at the Stan Sheriff Center at the University of Hawaii at Manoa this week. Environmentally, Gore is most famous, perhaps, for his 2006 speaking tour and subsequent documentary called An Inconvenient Truth, but as opening speaker Senator Brian Schatz pointed out, Mr. Gore has been a climate change and environmental champion throughout his long career. Schatz, the current U.S. Senator from Hawaii, said he was inspired by Earth in the Balance, Gore’s breakthrough work of nonfiction that set Gore’s path to a run for the White House in motion. Gore, in turn, after coming on stage, said that he was inspired more by Schatz, a freshman senator who managed to organize an all night session on the Senate floor with some 30 senators to discuss climate change and urge action from their colleagues. “Do you have any idea how hard it is to get that many Senators to do ANYTHING? Let alone spend a whole night at work?” Gore quipped.

Gore started by framing the argument on climate change with the history of measurement of greenhouse gases. Roughly about the same time the first oil well was tapped 150 or so years ago, scientists were already saying that carbon dioxide can trap heat in a greenhouse kind of way. Gore got to the heart of the matter quickly:

Our way of life is at stake. Our grandchildren are at stake. People say not to tell people about this, but we’ve got to talk about it. We’ve got to rally on this! There is hope, and not only is there hope, but we are going to win this!

Gore said there have been two game changers in the last few years that have turned the tide in the war we’re waging against climate change. The first, he said, is the frequency of historic climatic events and the obvious effects of climate change. Right before Hurricane Sandy, according to data Gore showed from NOAA, the temperature of ocean water was recorded at 9 degrees Fahrenheit above normal. Super Typhoon Haiyan hit the Philippines after being bolstered by ocean temperatures 5 degrees Fahrenheit above normal and to this day, 4 million environmental refugees are still homeless as a result. Worldwide, data are becoming incontrovertible. “Extremely hot days” are now 100x more prevalent than they were just a century ago. People are getting it, Gore said. Even the climate deniers are starting to become fewer and fewer and less and less vocal.

The other game-changing occurrence in recent years is clean technology. There are 79 countries where the cost of solar panels have dropped so much so that these countries have achieved grid parity with solar power. Gore compares the current climate denier industry to the tobacco industry 30 years ago. Back then, he said, when science had proven that smoking was bad for you, the tobacco industry paid actors to dress up as doctors, gave them a script, and they went on TV and told the world that there was absolutely nothing wrong with smoking. Gore said that climate deniers who pollute and make money from it are doing the same thing now. ”It’s immoral, unethical, and despicable, and we need to call them to account for it!” he implored the audience.

Beyond the political side, comparing solar to cell phone technology, Gore showed that AT&T did a study in 1990 which concluded that they should be able to sell 100,000 cell phones by 2000. The actual figure was over 100 million. Like cell phones, solar has an unstoppable quality to it.

Just like cell phone technology:

  1. Solar costs have dropped,
  2. solar quality has improved,
  3. people have the capacity to make the decision (rather than the utility),
  4. and the developing world is using solar as a leapfrog technology–rather than putting in power lines and centralized power, solar comes cheaper and faster

He concluded: “This is unstoppable!”

But solar and other clean technologies are not without their enemies. The Koch Brothers (whom this author thinks may be the worst people in the world) have introduced legislation in 34 states, through their lobbying power, to tax anyone who uses solar on their homes! They have not been able to move the legislation very far, however, and resistance has come from all sides of the political spectrum. In Georgia, Gore said, some elements of the Tea Party even came out of the woodwork to oppose this government intervention, and formed a strange bedfellows partnership with the Sierra Club… they called it the “Green Tea Party,” Gore said. :)

And it’s happening around the world. The Vatican, Gore said, is set to become the first carbon-neutral nation. “I’m a Southern Baptist, but I could convert to Catholicism!,” he said.

As for the science, the consensus continues to grow. Gore said that last year, over 9100 scientists around the world published climate science papers in peer-reviewed journals, and literally, only one of them opposes the majority view that climate change is happening and that we’re causing it. “Climate change is indisputable,” according to a Joint Statement issued by climate change scientists globally, shown in the slide show Gore was giving.

Gore advised, globally, two major changes that are needed to speed our victory over climate change.

  1. Put a price on carbon in markets
  2. Put a price on denial in politics

After comparing solar technology to cell phone technology, Gore argued that we’re on the right side of history in political terms, too. Comparing the way climate deniers and right wing talking heads are trying to reframe the argument or make it taboo to the same historical pattern seen in gay rights, civil rights, and many other issues in which we were told not to talk about it, not to acknowledge it, and not to legitimize it.

Gore finished with a powerful and emotional finale: “The only thing we need is political will, and political will is a renewable resource!”

Check out our new 93-page EV report, based on over 2,000 surveys collected from EV drivers in 49 of 50 US states, 26 European countries, and 9 Canadian provinces.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

About the Author

Scott Cooney (twitter: scottcooney) is an adjunct professor of Sustainability in the MBA program at the University of Hawai'i, green business startup coach, author of Build a Green Small Business: Profitable Ways to Become an Ecopreneur (McGraw-Hill), and developer of the sustainability board game GBO Hawai'i. Scott has started, grown and sold two mission-driven businesses, failed miserably at a third, and is currently in his fourth. Scott's current company has three divisions: a sustainability blog network that includes the world's biggest clean energy website and reached over 5 million readers in December 2013 alone; Pono Home, a turnkey and franchiseable green home consulting service that won entrance into the clean tech incubator known as Energy Excelerator; and Cost of Solar, a solar lead generation service to connect interested homeowners and solar contractors. In his spare time, Scott surfs, plays ultimate frisbee and enjoys a good, long bike ride. Find Scott on

  • andi

    About the only thing I disagree with Al Gore on is Russell Wallace referred to Global Warming and the affects of Deforestation way back in the 1890’s. So we have already missed 4 generations to get our act together. I am afraid that another generation of denials maybe the last straw.

  • Al Gore is true champion of environment throughout the world.

  • Ross

    Here’s my number 3.

    3. Conservative Americans start proposing conservative solutions to the problems caused by Global Warming.

    • Peter Gray

      For that to be more than naive happy talk, we might need to start by defining “conservative.” If it’s close to the current operational, practical definition: “politicians heavily funded by the coal, oil, and finance industries,” no, there’s not a chance of any solutions like what you seem to imagine.

      That said, we still have a small and dwindling number of U.S. self-described conservatives who have not yet been hounded from office by the Tea Party, and who might be willing to work on real solutions. But they’re a fringe now, and not likely to have much effect even if they’re bold (or politically suicidal) enough to speak up.

      Minor point, but let’s start by doing what we can to avoid the problems rather than trying to solve them later. Prevention is reliably much cheaper than cleanup or cure.

      • Ross

        It would be best to not attempt to define the term as they’re unlikely to like being pigeon holed.

        • Peter Gray

          I couldn’t care less whether they like being pigeonholed. I meant the discussion here, where you brought up “conservative,” and I wanted to know what you meant by it.

          Prevention has been proposed and discussed for at least the past 30 years, nothing new about that. Need we remind you about who has deliberately piled on the ideological baggage? Yeah, it would be nice not to have it, but we are where we are.

          No disrespect, but are you completely new to this issue? If so, that’s okay – better late than never, for sure.

          • Ross

            If we assume that conservatives can’t even be persuaded then we’re being too cynical. Politicians that are currently within the grip of fossil fuel interests may not remain in office or continue to tow the line of the interests that helped put them there.

          • Peter Gray

            You’re right. The possibility of reasoned, evidenced persuasion is the main reason I spend way more time on this site than makes much rational sense.

            There’s a wide range of a ability and willingness to engage in constructive debate, and be open to changing preconceptions – across the political spectrum. At either end, we can find people so deep in an ideological rut that it looks unlikely they’ll ever get out.

            I think it’s objectively true that this problem is more serious toward the Right, where we find high concertrations of fundamentalists, the Fox News syndrome, and folks who are adamantly clueless about how and why Science or logical reasoning function.

            Casual Case Study: I remember being shocked, back in 2006, maybe, at poll results showing something like 40% of Democrats believing to some extent, the 911-Truth fraud. But that was temporary, and I haven’t heard mention of it in years. People followed up on it, or heard from friends who did, and figured out that it didn’t add up. It’s off the radar now, other than for a handful of tinfoil-hatters.

            Compare that to the success of climate denialism on the Right. Of course, the huge funding behind it makes a difference, but other nutty stuff persists, too. Creationism. An assortment Alex Jones-type conspiracy plots. Mostly popular on the Right.

            I’ve gone on way too long here. I agree that one short-medium-term focus should be to properly incentivize those politicians in the grip of fossil fuels.
            To get specific, a very important race for sending that message and several others is McConnell vs. Grimes in KY. It’s also quite entertaining to check out Mitch’s own FB pages, where he runs his own beauty contest and presents his top policy priorities list that could have been copied straight from The Onion. Join the fun now, before he wises up and pulls the pages down.

    • bussdriver78

      Most politicians are lawyers so it makes total sense! They will easily switch sides to whomever pays them… they are so trained they don’t care about truth or morality, they represent the client – except that ideal is ONLY relevant in the legal system; it has no place within the political realm (other than to represent their voters but that is just 1 school of political thought.)

      Conservatives at one time were agreeing on Global Warming and working on cap-and-trade market based solutions and then almost suddenly they forgot it all and opposed it and adopted crazy global conspiracies of scientists working to push some communist agenda against big oil and coal…

  • GeraldWilhite

    The French revolutionary and philosopher Voltaire, an inspiration to the founders of the United States, strikes at the heart of Al Gore’s proposed suppression in three 17th century sentences:

    1. “I do not agree with what you have to say, but I’ll defend to the death your right to say it.”

    2. “It is dangerous to be right in matters on which the established authorities are wrong.”

    3. “Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.”

    • Bob_Wallace

      Well, isn’t that special.

      We’re not going to let this site be taken off topic with climate denial junk nor discussions about free speech issues.

      We have people who are attempting to block our fight to contain climate change. I will not defend to the death their “right” to risk the future of all humans on the planet in order to increase their personal wealth.

      We’ve got a significant problem with the fossil fuel industry. We must push back.

      If you’d like to discuss renewable energy and efficiency solutions you are welcome to stick around.

      If you want to defend the fossil fuel industry then go away.

      • GeraldWilhite

        Mr. Wallace, it is very disappointing and to be candid, disgusting that you have so little respect for the 1st Amendment of our Constitution. You appear to be an example illustration of the problem on both sides of this issue.

        You may be interested in knowing that “Big Oil” is the one of the top supporters of carbon tax schemes, the IPCC, and the AGW hypothesis.

      • Peter Gray

        Don’t waste your time, Bob. This guy is a dyed-in-the-wool troll who gets all his evidence from WUWT and Heartland Institute. Not a chance he’ll learn or contribute an iota here.

  • Banned by Bob

    Put a price on “Denial in Politics”. What does that mean? Wearing a Gold Star in public? Reeducation camps?

    From the guy who took $200MM in oil $.

    How about we discuss things we can agree on like the promising developments in renewables rather than practicing the politics of divisiveness? That’s not in his DNA.

    • Bob_Wallace

      That means working to defeat those politicians who are supporting the fossil fuel industry by denying climate change.

      How about we accept facts? The climate is warming and we humans are the cause. And if we don’t get our GHG emissions under control relatively soon we are going to bring down an immense disaster on us all and those who follow us.

    • Peter Gray

      Banned, you’ve lurked around here enough that you ought to be more informed than to lead with such stupid comments. You really couldn’t figure out what it means to put a political price on denialism? Try reading the words before leaping to some fevered wingnut nightmare fantasy. Since you refused to do it yourself, Bob neatly answered your question.
      Al Gore has been unrelentingly demonized by the Koch brothers (to put faces on the fossil industries) precisely because he’s right about climate, and he’s been effective in educating millions about it – not because he’s wrong, except possibly on a few trivial details.
      For you to join in that demonization is shameful, not to mention divisive. What have you contributed that comes remotely close? In my view, Gore has earned his wealth 1,000x more than any of our rapacious rightwing billionaires – even if some of his income is from oil, even if he flies around the world in airplanes, even if he lives in a mansion.
      To suggest restricting the discussion to “things we can agree on” is breathtakingly naive. What planet are you from that you would even consider such a notion?
      Wake up. This is not a cute little game where we can all come together and share and find common ground. It’s an all-out _fight_ between a few extremely wealthy who have no objective other than to become even richer, against the rest of us, including future generations who have no say in our choices now. The plutucrats are investing their profits where the returns are highest: by purchasing politicians and public opinion. If that’s “divisive,” get used to it. Wishful thinking will not change it.
      BTW, blaming the other side for divisiveness is one short step from the very last refuge of those who have lost the debate on substance. Next up: waving the American flag and bleating about “freedom.”
      If you still don’t grasp what’s happening, please educate yourself. Read Merchants of Doubt. Learn about the closely analogous history of leaded fuel, and its devastating effects. Same kind of story with tobacco. Then connect the dots to carbon and climate. It’s not complicated, nor does it require bizarre conspiracy theories.
      Then come back here, and maybe you’ll have something constructive to add.
      Sorry if all this sounds harsh, but we’ve been around and around on this, and you’re still trotting out the same old bullshit. Reeducation camps. Unbelievable.

      • Banned by Bob

        So I thought that I was a commenter. What makes me a “Lurker”? Is it that my arguments are contrary to your way of thinking?

        You two have both fallen into the divisiveness trap as well.

        The science isn’t “settled”. Newton’s laws are settled science. Al Gore’s allegations are still being debated. The fact that the IPCC models continue to fail should give a hint of that. There are plenty of qualified scientists on both sides of this debate.

        Before you fall too far in love, remember that Al Jazeera is the network that broadcast the beheading of Daniel Pearl, the WSJ journalist. No one here would give them the avenue to broadcast in the US, until slippery Al did so.

        This is the same slippery Al who brought the Democratic convention to tears with his family man stories, and then dumped them after his term in office ended. Quite a hero you have there.

        • Bob_Wallace

          “The science isn’t “settled”. Newton’s laws are settled science. Al Gore’s allegations are still being debated. The fact that the IPCC models continue to fail should give a hint of that. There are plenty of qualified scientists on both sides of this debate”

          This is a pile. There is no disagreement in the climate science community that the planet is warming and that humans are the cause. There are no “plenty of” qualified scientists on both sides.

          • Banned by Bob

            Oh, I think there is. And yes there are.


            The fact of the matter is that this is irrelevant. We can rehash the same stupid arguments that politicos like Al want to divide us with. Or we can agree that there is an exciting new economic race that will reconfigure our energy platforms and reduce our reliance on resource imports from people who aren’t our friends. And that’s just for starters. If we can do more with less, that is great news in every sense.

            Or we can argue about something that can’t be proven. I know what I would rather talk about.

          • Bob_Wallace

            Are your standards that low?

            Look, I’m going to give you one warning.

            If you want to continue to discuss renewable energy here then leave all your denial crap out of your comments. If you don’t you will be banned again and not allowed to sneak back in.

          • Banned by Bob

            Happy Easter, Bob

        • Peter Gray

          Implying you’re a lurker may have been over the line – sorry. It’s not that I don’t like your arguments, because you haven’t really made any. Just handwaving, personal attacks, and the same old tired Fox/Koch talking points.

          In light of your latest lapse back into denialism, your “let’s agree on promising developments in renewables” thing looks like a transparent troll ploy. I’m embarrassed to have fallen for it even halfway. If you buy the denier claims, why would you care about renewables? At least be honest.

          “Divisiveness trap?” No idea what that is, but if it’s your way of saying we shouldn’t be so rude as to call out the coal and oil industries for what they’re objectively, provably doing to promote confusion and false controversy, I make no apology. If theirs is the side you want to take, that’s your business. Explain it to your kids, not to us.

          I can only assume that you continue to have zero interest in following up on any of the history or sources or papers I’ve suggested repeatedly. If you pursued some of that and disagree with it, and make some clear arguments, I’d happily debate you. If not, I have just about as little patience left with this kind of obtuseness as Bob does.

          You still don’t seem to get it about how science works. There’s no sharp line between “settled” and otherwise. The basics of how GHGs affect temperature and climate were established well over a century ago, and have not been refuted since. So it’s safe to call that settled, if it’s the term you want to use. There’s no legitimate disagreement over _whether_ human doubling of CO2 will raise temps and cause all sorts of other nasty effects, only over how much and how fast it will happen.

          Science is not a popularity contest, but it does operate by consensus backed by evidence. It’s complete BS to say “plenty of qualified scientists on both sides.” The 97% agreement figure is a generous underestimate. Here’s a handy visual for you:

          Let’s apply your standards to the “debate” or “controversy” over evolution vs. biblical creationism. Are you with Ken Ham and his Answers in Genesis? Do you accept his descriptions of dinosaurs living with humans? More to the point, what about his claims to have all sorts of science and qualified scientists on his side? Go to his website – very impressive simulations of serious academic cites and such – aside from the dinos cavorting with mammals at the top of every page.

          If you don’t buy all that, why not? Ham’s claims are absolutely ludicrous to anyone with more than a rudimentary understanding of geology, biology, or paleontology, but they’re at least as well documented as anything put out by the denialists or their font of wisdom Heartland Institute.

          If you DO go along with “creation science,” I’d like to know, because then I’d see that it’s a total waste of time trying to discuss anything else with you.

          You still haven’t replied about the wacky reeducation camp stuff, so I guess silence implies consent on that, but probably not any rethinking.

          Instead, you bring up irrelevant crap about Al Gore’s character. Al Jazeera and Pearl’s beheading? I must say, that’s grasping at straws. I know little and care less about Gore’s personal life, but if in fact he “dumped his family,” I wouldn’t applaud that. How are you so privy to his marriage as to be sure Tipper had nothing to do with it? But none of that has a thing to do with the validity of any science Gore has interpreted or presented.

          Anyone with an ounce of sense realizes that the “IPCC models” are a worldwide work-in-progress. Of course it’s possible to find cases where predictions have “failed,” but in both directions, if you care to pay the slightest attention. Naturally, whenever someone’s model underestimates an AGW effect, your friends manage to overlook it. It doesn’t appear on Fox, just like record-high temps in Australia never compete with U.S. snowstorms, for airtime or Heartland Institute space.

          • Banned by Bob

            If you had followed me, and I wouldn’t expect anyone to! I am a strong supporter of Renewables as they have become economically competitive. I am a conservative in the true meaning of the word in that I want to conserve our precious resources for future generations. Using technology in place of resources to generate some of our energy is a fantastic step.

            Wind and solar are competitive in many higher cost energy areas of the world, and are starting to be competitive without subsidies in the US. This is very exciting news.

            I don’t have to believe, and haven’t been convinced on the merits of AGW, in spite of the belittling that I get here. That only mattered when the Gores et al were “trying to save the world”. The fact of the matter is that argument is becoming increasingly irrelevant to the practical matter of the economics on the ground. Yet Gore can’t resist going back to the old playbook to stir things up even when the evidence doesn’t support his earlier accusations.

            This site, IMHO, needs someone how can correct the fallacies posted by people who don’t really understand fossil fuels. I can’t count on how many times I have corrected errors of the authors or posters in that realm. If you want to drive me off because of that, then enjoy living in an echo chamber.

          • Bob_Wallace

            No one is seeking to drive you off.

            You are simply being told that there is no space for denier posts here. If you choose to be a denier then keep that to yourself.

          • Peter Gray

            “I am a strong supporter of Renewables as they have become economically competitive.”

            That translates directly to “Do nothing. Let markets take care of it.” That aligns perfectly with believing that there’s no real problem and nothing needs to be done. So at least here you’re consistent.

            But wait! Now you trip all over yourself:

            “I am a conservative in the true meaning of the word in that I want to conserve our precious resources for future generations.”

            How? Why? If resources are so precious, that’s a situation where we can count on markets and rational players in them to conserve resources perfectly – assuming, I’d say safely, that you believe this is how the world works (to a great extent, I do as well).

            Is there a problem here, or not? If there is, what do you propose to do about it? By “do,” I mean do as a society to solve a social problem, i.e., through policy.

            I can’t think of anything from you that would lead me to ban you from the site if I had that power, since I still think you’re basically civil and well-meaning. I don’t doubt that you have added some value by pointing out errors on this site. I’ve done a lot of that myself, including debunking various nonsense about flying cars, pedal generators, etc.. Then again, I haven’t gone around in as many pointless circles with you as Bob has.

            I _am_ becoming frustrated, and losing patience, with your refusal to read any sources I suggest, or to answer the direct questions I ask. Instead, you dodge, weave, and deflect to irrelevant topics. For one example, apparently you didn’t see fit to look at, or dispute, the data I linked showing that 99.83% of peer-reviewed climate papers in the past two decades do not reject AGW. Then you still claim that the whole argument is irrelevant, discredited, lacking evidence, and “irrelevant to the practical matter of the economics on the ground,” whatever that might mean.

            I’ll try a small set of questions, _one_ more time before I give up and put you on “ignore.”

            Question 1: Go to Pick any page that looks interesting, but let’s say this one, since it has an impressive list of “qualified scientists” and other emminent figures who are said to support creationism:

            Now, do you believe everything claimed on that site? Including that the Flood story is literally true, and dinosaurs rode on the Ark? That Earth is 6k years old?

            If so, we have nothing further to discuss. Go your happy way. You can stop reading here.

            If “no” to Q #1, WHY not? Give some details. Show some evidence, standards, and rationale for why anyone should reject anything or everything on Ken Ham’s beautifully designed, thoroughly documented, impressively sciency-looking website. If sheer volume counts, he’s got it! If you don’t buy it, convince me of why I shouldn’t. Feel free to cite critics of Ham, if you can show that they’re more credible.

            Question 2: Go Heartland Institute, or Jim Inhofe’s list of scientists opposing AGW, or Inhofe’s Greatest Hoax book. Or sinking deeper, the WUWT site. Demonstrate to us, with good evidence, why any of this is more credible or better evidenced than what you saw on AiG. If you looked up scientists who shot down Ham’s arguments, don’t forget to do that here as well. It’s easy; there are plenty to choose from in both cases.
            If you refuse to go through this exercise, I feel fully justified in writing you off as just another Flat Earther, denialist crank. And I don’t care if you’re right about some picky fossil fuel details. Why should I trust you on anything?

          • Banned by Bob

            Those are some interesting statements you make.

            With regards to Renewables, I plan to let the markets sort this out. As Asian and European countries have much higher energy costs than we do here, I’m happy to let them invest in all of the technologies and assets that will soon be obsolete as technological progress moves on. How happy do you think that Spaniards are that they own a bunch of solar panels that are 20% as effective as what one can buy today?

            The biggest economic and environmental payoff for Renewables is in places like China and India. As costs come down, they will compete quite effectively even in North America.

            I’m not going to play 20 questions with you. I suspect that my technical background is stronger than yours given my 30 years of engineering experience. What I can tell you is that predicting the behavior of the Global Climate is as complex a mathematical problem is there is. There is no one variable that dominates, and indeed changing one variable often has impacts on other variables. So if you want to believe that atmospheric Carbon levels will alone determine the behavior of our Climate in the future, be my guest.

          • Peter Gray

            Once again: deflecting the topic, appealing to (your own tangentially relevant) authority, missing the point, mis-stating and exaggerating my position by replacing it with a strawman, and refusing to answer even 1 out of 3, not 20, questions.

            On top of all that, you insult my intelligence by presenting as breaking news the stunning concepts that you imagine nobody else here has thought of: the climate is complicated, and some variables are interdependent.

            Fortunately, despite your vast climate expertise, it’s unlikely anyone will put you in charge of “planning to let markets sort out renewables.”

          • A Real Libertarian

            “given my 30 years of engineering experience.”

            Oh, you’re definitely a creationist:

          • Banned by Bob

            Wow, you’re good. Guess how many fingers I’m holding up now.

          • Peter Gray

            LOL! I hadn’t seen that one, and I’d be reluctant to make the connection, but since Banned refused to answer whether he buys the AiG line, we can only assume he does.

            No doubt he’ll enjoy the company of Gerald, who cites Breitbart, WUWT, and Heartland “Institute” as authorities – without the slightest clue why the reality-based community laughs at all of them. Pathetic.

            Why not cite Glenn Beck, Limbaugh, Alex Jones? Cite the Bible as a climate authority, like their buddy Inhofe does. They’re all on the same side, all in the same small boat. Chemtrails! HAARP!! Benghazi! 911-Truth!! (the last one is LWNJ instead of RWNJ, so these guys might detect how ludicrous it is, but they’re all on the same credibility level).

            Not worth wasting time trying to “debate.”

          • Peter Gray

            Now this _really_ explains a lot. Crank magnetism, exactly the right term for it:

          • Bob_Wallace

            ” So if you want to believe that atmospheric Carbon levels will alone determine the behavior of our Climate in the future, be my guest. ”

            Are you that ignorant about climate change science that you think anyone is attributing 100% of the warming to carbon?

          • Banned by Bob

            Bob, what’s it going to be? You threaten to run me off because you don’t care for my views on this issue. But then you want to bait me into another argument on the very same issue.

          • Raymond DeBrane

            I am miserably tired of belief in evolution as related to belief in climate change. I don’t believe in creation, but I do believe in evolution, but not the way its taught. i don’t believe that evolution occured by blind chance and natural selection alone. I’ve studied electronics and computers and it takes a lot of different scientific disciplines, a lot of very educated engineers, to make all that electronic and computer magic to happen. Biological systems are far more complex. As Prof Guy McPherson pointed out, the odds of DNA forming and resulting in you is less than the chance of plucking a single atom out of the universe with your hand. Evolution seems a paradox, but one scientist, Seth Lloyd may have discovered part of the answer. He states that the universe is a quantum level computer and is the driver behind evolution. That conclusion seems to be the missing piece of the puzzle.
            So in conclusion, I will say that I’m sick and tired of the belief in climate change and the belief in evolution equated with each other. Climate change is settled science. Evolution is not, because until you can explain how the impossible odds that evolution occurred by blind chance and natural selection as the atheistic evolutionary scientist assert it has, you just can’t equate belief in evolution with belief in climate change. The two subjects are as dissimilar as it is to compare chalk and cheese. I believe Seth Lloyd has come up with the next new understanding of how evolution occurred. But I’m sure his conclusions will stick in the craw of established evolutionary scientists who aren’t about to throw away all their ill conceived notions that there can’t be any intelligence behind evolution. After all, Seth Lloyd’s conclusions border on the supernatural, Can’t have that interfere with atheistic evolutionary scientists notion of evolution happening with no intelligence behind it.

          • Bob_Wallace

            “until you can explain how the impossible odds that evolution occurred by blind chance and natural selection as the atheistic evolutionary scientist assert it has, you just can’t equate belief in evolution with belief in climate change”

            Just look at the members of your own family. See how children from the same parents are different? Same inputs, different outputs.

            If one of those outputs gives that individual a better chance of reproducing then that particular characteristic has better chance of being passed on.

            All those electric engineers? They’re engaging in evolution. They try various solutions and the ones that work “live”, the ones that don’t “die”. The next generation of electronics is built off the first generation of stuff that worked.

          • Raymond DeBrane

            You are correct! But notice how the evolution in science from say, the telegraph to modern communications was driven by the intelligent mind of man. So if Seth Lloyd is correct that the universe is a vastly superior intelligence to that of mankind, and that intelligence has worked out the steps that evolution has gone through to produce us and everything we see around us.
            Ask yourself this question, how did the first male and female animals and humans appear and reproduce? Evolutionists can’t explain it. They white wash anything they can’t explain. Another question to ask yourself, is how plants that require pollination by bees appear if they can’t grow without bees pollinating them? These and other things unaccounted for by the theory of evolution haven’t been explained, and until they are, evolution is not settled science, even though I believe that evolution happened.

          • Bob_Wallace

            In the case of electronics people are making the live/die decision. In species evolution the decision is made by ability to access food or avoid predators/disease.

            You appear to be someone who doesn’t want to accept evolution as the best explanation for how species change. You seem to be looking for anything that lets you remain a skeptic rather than acknowledge the immense amount of information that backs the theory. That makes you no different than climate change deniers who search for any point that they can use as an excuse to toss out mountains of data.

          • Raymond DeBrane

            Show me the mountains of data that go into detail about how evolution created hearing and vision, or other complex biological functions. Hearing and vision are very complex systems (I’ve heard some scientist on the radio say that when you walk, your brain performs calculus) that, as I’ve said before, convert analog signals into neural code. Those codes are vastly more complex than any analog to digital or digital to analog processors that the well educated engineering geeks have invented.

            As far as I know, no textbook on evolution ever gets specific about how complex biological functions could have evolved by blind chance and natural selection, and I don’t think that there is even one evolutionary scientist who has a degree in electronics or computer science who can then understand how complex man made technology is and in comparison, how vastly more complex the technology of nature is.

            One scientist I saw on PBS years ago said that DNA is a code, and a code requires a code maker. I agree with him. But I don’t believe it was the God of the Bible that wrote the code. As I said, I side with scientist Seth Lloyd who as I pointed out, asserts that the universe is itself, a quantum level computer and the driver behind evolution.

            What really bugs me is that the creationists come at the subject of evolution with a religious bias and the evolutionary scientists come at it with an atheistic bias. One example of atheistic bias was in an article on evolution I read years ago on the net. The author had several subheadings in the article. One of them was ‘The Supernatural’. Under that subheading, the author said that there is no such thing as the supernatural. Therefore it will not be discussed in this paper. So with no research to back up his assertion that the supernatural can’t possibly exist, he just declares it so, and we are supposed to bow down at the alter of blind chance natural selection evolution. There’s a mountain of evidence of unexplainable events that have happened in the past that seem to indicate the supernatural or the paranormal at work. So where does this learned idiot get off blindly asserting that there is no supernatural?

          • Bob_Wallace

            You are demonstrating enormous ignorance in your questions about evolution. It is made very clear by “As far as I know”. That’s the problem, you are ignorant when it comes to evolution.

            Get a basic (science based) book on evolution and do some reading. If you are able to read without your religious goggles.

            This is a clean energy site. We’re not here to provide remedial education in biology nor to argue theology. Please take your questions elsewhere.

      • GeraldWilhite

        Peter, I’ll stand beside ‘Banned by Bob’

        I also respectfully suggest some quick research on the ugly censorship movement being promoted by AGW catastrophists. Here are a few sad links to get you started: .





    • bussdriver78

      True he has a history and had to make compromises and it wouldn’t matter what he did in the past – today and for years he has been doing the good fight.

      There are no things we can agree on when the opposition is corrupt and will be divisive because that is their real JOB $$$. Their true believers you might make progress with but it is not likely; one only needs a majority of the power.

      As far as your Nazi or Communist references, that is a false analogy because you jump way too far and must create a logical chain linking such a leap of persecution of all kinds being equal. We didn’t make racists wear gold stars and I suppose the racists thought we had re-education camps but those were just public schools (they went to private ones instead.) Shaming is a powerful and perhaps arguably an unethical tactic but it’s not close to the worst authoritarian acts in modern times.

      • Banned by Bob

        I would rather that someone made a more convincing argument to me rather than to shout me down.

        • Peter Gray

          Yet when convincing arguments _are_ offered, you refuse to read or address them. Repeatedly.

          In this instance, the first round of “shouting down” came from you, with irrelevant personal attacks on the messenger (Gore), and a wacky reference to reeducation camps, that you have yet to explain, defend, or apologize for.

          Apparently you’re too close to the situation to notice how many times you’ve shot yourself in the foot.

          • Banned by Bob


            Mr Gore’s father was a career politician, as is Mr. Gore. He is now a multimillionaire because of his political activities. His wealth comes from selling his media network to a group that earned its money in oil and gas and has no problem televising the beheading of a US journalist. In my book, that makes him 1) corrupt 2) hypocritical 3) and unloyal.

            He is no scientist, which he admits when pressed. And he won’t debate anyone with an opposing view, choosing instead to isolate and name call. That also makes him a coward.

            If this is who you want leading your cause, then good luck to you because he’ll sell you out in a second too.

  • TomHarrisICSC

    I am afraid Mr. Gore is mistaken – take a look at:

    • Bob_Wallace

      Take your denier-crap and crawl back under your rock.

  • Will E

    Why not talk more about the profits that are made with Solar Power and Wind Power.
    Mister All Gore, please talk about the billions of dollars made with clean Power.
    USA taxpayers understand dollar talk.

    Tell the people how much money they can make with Solar Power.
    see the statistics of Solar, how many dollars made by Solar Panels.
    State by State, State of Hawaii 60000 dollar in 20 year Solar profit.
    show the people how much Wind Turbines deliver in dollars year after year,
    endless supply.
    climate change disasters are always somewhere far away.
    The Yankee Dollar is close and that is what USA taxpayers want, Yankee Dollar,
    Solar Dollar.

    • Peter Gray

      I agree to an extent, but “telling the people” is not really the point. Making policy to at least partly compensate for the free ride enjoyed by coal and oil is the way to make sure wind and solar actually are profitable and stay that way until they can take over on their own.
      Along the way, don’t expect coal and oil to go down without a fight. Recent German experience illustrates that.
      It is promising to see that in parts of the U.S., wind has gained a big enough political constituency to resist some attempts at the state level to block its progress. Solar seems to still be quite vulnerable – see recent “tax rooftop PV” legislation in AZ and OK, sponsored by the utilities.

      • Bob_Wallace

        Germany and Australia.

        Things are really bad in Australia. They seem to have found the lost Koch brother and made him Prime Minister.

        • Peter Gray

          Yes!! Sorry about the omission, and thanks for the correction. I’ve loosely followed Aussie events, partly through Ronald Brakels’s brilliant writings. Some of the stuff there is absolutely nuts, like the wind turbine/health and even smart grid health effects campaigns. Those folks make Orly Taitz and her ilk look positively sane.

          The only bright side, though weak compensation, is knowing that the tinfoil hat brigade is not entirely a U.S. phenomenon. No, wait… I guess that’s not good news.

  • LookingForward

    This might have a little of both, but I have a number 3 that will have a major impact on stopping the climate change:
    3: Stop subsidising or financing fosil fuels in any way including pollution capture, let them clean up there own mess and force them to do it.

Back to Top ↑