Published on May 4th, 2014 | by Zachary Shahan


Al Gore’s Tremendous Presentation At Abu Dhabi Ascent (Exclusive Videos)

May 4th, 2014 by  

Al Gore’s presentation today at the opening ceremony of Abu Dhabi Ascent* was absolutely superb. But what else do you expect from a guy who runs a nonprofit focused on presenting global warming catastrophe and key global warming solutions to the general public? What else do you expect from a guy who won a Nobel Prize for a movie?

Much of the presentation was extremely similar to what Gore told POLITICO in a recent interview and what he said at a recent presentation in Hawaii, but there were some other important components added into this one… and I got almost all of it on video.

I could write up a summary of the presentation, but that wouldn’t do it justice at all, so I’m going to force you to watch it if you want more info. Here’s the presentation spread across three videos (since YouTube won’t let me publish a video more than 10 minutes in length):

Later on in the Abu Dhabi Ascent opening ceremony, Sir Trevor McDonald had the chance to ask Gore a few more questions. Here’s that more impromptu back and forth:

I spoke very briefly with Gore later in the day, but he told me that he was not doing press interviews. (Standard for Gore these days.)

Despite shrugging me aside, I still think Gore is one of the best if not the best communicator on the topic of climate change. His presentation today absolutely nailed it. Be sure to share with your friends and family!

Stay tuned for more coverage from Abu Dhabi Ascent in the coming days. I’ve got a very interesting one-on-one exclusive video coming as well as some videos of several other climate and cleantech leaders.

*My trip to Abu Dhabi Ascent is being covered by Masdar.

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

is tryin' to help society help itself (and other species) with the power of the typed word. He spends most of his time here on CleanTechnica as its director and chief editor, but he's also the president of Important Media and the director/founder of EV Obsession, Solar Love, and Bikocity. Zach is recognized globally as a solar energy, electric car, and energy storage expert. Zach has long-term investments in TSLA, FSLR, SPWR, SEDG, & ABB — after years of covering solar and EVs, he simply has a lot of faith in these particular companies and feels like they are good cleantech companies to invest in.

  • Mike Winfrey

    I don’t know the answer to this so I ask, What has Al Gore done to reduce his personal carbon footprint? I remember his criticism of George Bush’s environmental policies while Mr Gore personally had a much larger carbon footprint that George Bush. Seems to me that when advocating a position the person advocating should lead by personal example.

    • Bob_Wallace

      He did a major efficiency refit of the ‘mansion’ in which he lives. It’s an old building and was very inefficient. He didn’t build an inefficient house. He bought one and improved it. Including solar panels to provide much of the electricity used. He installed geothermal heating and rainwater collection systems.
      He uses carbon offset purchases for what carbon he does produce.

      • Bob_Wallace

        I took a look at Wiki. Al has received a lot of criticism for how much electricity his house uses. What is not pointed out is that by moving to geothermal heating he has cut NG use by 90%.

        And that he produces 100% as much electricity as he uses from solar.

  • Wayne Williamson

    thanks for posting these videos, very much enjoyed…..

  • Lenny Laskowski

    It was nice seeing a good presentation I could show as an example during my presentations skills, Train-The-Trainer class being held here in Abu Dhabi at the same time. Good job and great message.

  • Banned by Bob

    Doesn’t do press interviews.

    Doesn’t debate the opposition.

    But he did have time for the oil producers who made him a multimillionaire.

    That tells me what I need to know about Mr. Gore.

    • Bob_Wallace
      • Banned by Bob

        Idiots and liars? Does the “No name calling” policy not apply to you, Bob?

        • Bob_Wallace

          Did I call you an idiot or liar?

          Or have you put yourself in that bag?

          • Banned by Bob

            I guess you forget quickly your censorship of a previous poster for calling the opposition “morons”.

          • Bob_Wallace

            I’ll admit to not having the best memory in the world.

            And I’m sticking with my claim that the vast majority of climate change deniers are idiots and liars. (Are those the words I used?)

            There are a few “mislead”.

    • JamesWimberley

      Debating the opposition would give them credibility. The overt denialism of the Congressional GOP is very rare in world politics. Almost all countries are run by people who accept climate science but wonder if they can personally survive the radical policy shifts needed to deal with the crisis. Gore is speaking to powerful shilly-shalliers, not noisy cranks.

      • Banned by Bob

        If he has such a powerful argument, then it should be a piece of cake and he could put an end to any credibility of the “Deniers”.

        • Rick Kargaard

          Between the “deniers” and Al Gore there just might be a bit of common sense middle ground.

          • Bob_Wallace

            To accept that one would first have to show that Gore is talking about nonsensical stuff.

            Al is reporting what climate scientists are telling us.

            1) The planet is warming.
            2) Humans are causing the warming.
            3) If we don’t get the problem under control quickly we will make life on Earth difficult for humans and most other organisms. Very difficult.

            Now where is the middle ground between what climate scientists are telling us and the “You’re lying!!” position of climate change deniers?
            Is your middle ground to way a few decades to see if climate scientists were right?

          • Rick Kargaard

            I don’t see any credible climate scientists predicting the end of the world.

          • Bob_Wallace

            Neither do I.

            But that is not what I wrote.

          • Banned by Bob

            Great quote by Einstein. “If I were wrong! one would be enough.”

            Here’s a good piece on the state of play here.


          • Bob_Wallace

            Here’s some background on Murry Salby.
            And here’s some background on the other person, Robert Carter.

            “… JCU had decided not to extend the unpaid adjunct professorial status of Dr Robert Carter , who Smith had ready on the line for an interview. Dr Carter is a globe-trotting geologist who advises at least ten climate sceptic organisations and “think tanks” from the UKand Germany to the US and Australia.

            Dr Carter’s “official status” with JCU – where he had held an unpaid adjunct position since 2002 after retiring – had ended on 1 January 2013, the university told me. Before his retirement, he had worked as a Professor at the University from 1989.

            This belated news of Dr Carter’s “non status” had also infuriated climate sceptic blogger JoNova. Both
            JoNova and Smith claimed that Dr Carter had been booted out because of his fringe-dwelling views on climate change. The Townsville Bulletin declared
            Dr Carter had been “dumped” because of his “outspoken views”.

            Dr Carter dismisses the role of burning fossil fuels in changing the climate, a position at odds with about 97 per cent of peer-reviewed climate change research and every major science academy in the world. Some of the world’s highest profile groups spreading unfounded doubt about the risks and causes of climate change, not to mention a number of high-profile media outlets, turn to Dr Carter for comment, advice and sometimes paid consultancy and provide a forum for his views.

            … Dr Carter rarely subjects his thoughts to scientific peer review. On two occasions when he has, the work has been roundly criticised.

            One paper was described by Bob Ward, of the Grantham Research Institute at the London School of Economics, as “probably the worst paper ever published on climate change”. In another, Dr Carter co-authored a paper which claimed natural variation was to blame for recent global warming – a conclusion which a group of leading climate scientists concluded was
            “not supported by their analysis or any physical theory presented in their paper”.
            In other words two people who couldn’t do acceptable science got the boot.

          • A Real Libertarian

            Bob, links.

          • Bob_Wallace

            That’s a real mess, isn’t it?


            There are only two links that matter, the Skeptical Science and the Desmogblog ones. If anyone wishes to read without all the other distracting stuff, just go there. I’m too tired tonight to do it over.

          • Banned by Bob

            Here’s a middle ground.

            The Earth is a very complex collection of systems. Humans may be causing some part of the warming. However, it is very difficult yet to sort out the effects of the competing variables.

            But the good news is that Renewables are becoming more and more affordable.

            Now that wasn’t so hard.

          • Bob_Wallace

            “The Earth is a very complex collection of systems. Humans may be causing some part of the warming. However, it is very difficult yet to sort out the effects of the competing variables.”

            No, that is not the middle ground.

            That is simply false.

            The role of greenhouse gases is well understood. The observed warming is not due to changes in Earth orbit, to changes in solar output, to increased volcanic activity, or any other physical force.

          • Banned by Bob

            So I’m supposed to believe that there is something like Bob Wallace’s First Law of Climate Truth, and you can’t remember censoring someone else’s comment just yesterday.
            I’m convinced.

          • Bob_Wallace

            No, you’re suppose to understand that CO2’s ability to transmit visible wavelengths but block/absorb longer wavelengths was proven over 100 years ago.

            And you suppose to understand that increases in CO2 levels in the atmosphere have been measured over and over and over.

            And you are suppose to understand that it has been proven that the extra CO2 came from fossil fuel burning.

            And you are suppose to understand that there are no other physical factors which could explain the increases in global temperature.

            If you can’t understand those basic facts or dismiss them because you want to then you are a denier.

            It’s rather simple.

            The fact that you drag crap in from denier sites pretty much certifies what you are.

          • Rick Kargaard

            Apparently there is no such thing as middle ground. You can run from this fight, but you will be chased to exhaustion

          • A Real Libertarian

            No, there is no middle ground.

            There is objectively true, and objectively false.

            And no matter how much you whine “that’s a very black and white view of the world”, you won’t make it flat.

            Grow up already.

          • Banned by Bob

            When you realize that it is akin to religion for some folks, it all makes sense.

          • A Real Libertarian

            In science any compromise between a false statement and a true statement is a false statement:


          • Rick Kargaard

            Of course it is , but how do you know what is true when what is presented as fact is based on assumptions. It is not science if there is not dissenting opinions. Just because it has consensus does not make it fact. it is not the truth simply because it is difficult to disprove. The big bang theory has general consensus among scientist but is far from being proven and alternate theories are still being proposed and seriously debated.
            I believe global climate change is happening and is partly caused by man. With 7 billion people on this planet, it is impossible to believe that we do not have an effect
            On the other hand, the climate will change without us and it is folly to believe that we can implement policies that will have a significant effect over any period longer than a few decades
            The climate has been warming for several thousand years and may continue to do so.
            At some point, however, it will begin to cool as we exit this interglacial period. This will happen with, or without us.
            If you are looking for a doomsday scenario, Imagine New York with a mile of ice on top of it.

          • A Real Libertarian

            The big bang theory has general consensus among scientist but is far from being proven and alternate theories are still being proposed and seriously debated.

            By who?

            Phlogiston Theory, Luminiferous Æther and Spontaneous Generation would still be taken seriously if we used your standards of science.

            And how much progress would we have made then?

          • A Real Libertarian
        • Bob_Wallace

          That’s silly. We see, right here on this site, deniers who when confronted with information about climate change simply wave it away and keep talking foolishness.

        • There are 10’s of thousands credible arguments to be found in the scientific literature. The response of opposition is only ad hominem, soundbites, debunked talking points and conspiracy theories. What good can ever come from that is apparent from any Internet forum centered around climate: none.

          The ‘debate’ you’re talking about is non-existent. It a food fight, thanks to the dogmatic rejection of science by one of the two parties involved.

          “Never wrestle a pig, you both get dirty but the pig enjoys it”

        • Where is the benefit? Where is the benefit in giving a bigger mic to people who won’t respect basic science? Seriously, how would this benefit the planet, the US, or Gore himself?

          These people don’t need debate mics. They need to be ignored. We don’t pay attention to people who say we didn’t land on the moon. Why pay attention to people who deny scientific proof?

          • Banned by Bob

            Zach, I’m pretty sure there is a long list of highly credentialed scientists who would be happy to debate Mr. Gore. The point would be to have a good debate that we could all benefit from.

          • Bob_Wallace

            There are some fringe people with science degrees.

            There are no established climate scientists who deny climate change science. Look at the examples you brought to the discussion a few days ago. Borderline incompetents. Or Roy Spencer, someone who supports creation theory. (And even Roy is not an actual denier.)

            Zach is right. It’s time to ignore these folks. They have no data, just distortions.

    • He was there for a UN event focused on practical solutions to climate change. He definitely wasn’t there to suck up to oil producers.

  • Al Gore is a true American Patriot…his passion continues to be strong,
    and the looming catastrophe of Climate Change is more dangerous than

    • LookingForward

      Why is an American who achives something big allways an “American Patriot” even if it has nothing to do with patriotism? Like in this case: Al Gore is a human being trying to make the world a better place, not an American trying to make America a better place.

      • A Real Libertarian

        You can’t save the world without saving America.

        • LookingForward

          Why not? If we blow up America, the rest of us won’t have to worry about the 2C climate change limit, considering how much CO2 equivelant America produces per capita. 😛
          But serieusly, America isn’t the center of the world, saving America isn’t automaticaly saving the world. Yes, you can’t save the world without saving America. But Americans need to look more at the bigger picture, which, I think, is what Al Gore is doing.

      • Yes, that is partly true, but also don’t forget that the USA is still a leader, they set trends that others follow. In that respect, they carry a lot of weight.

        You can also turn around your argument: why couldn’t someone who is helping the world to move forward not be a patriot?

        • LookingForward

          I’m not saying he can’t be a patriot.
          I’m only saying that it doesn’t make sense, saying that someone who is trying to do something big (like fighting climate change) is an American Patriot, if he just did it to help America and Americans (and screw the rest) then he would be a patriot. But he is not saying or doing that, otherwise he wouldn’t be Abu Dhabi, but in Washington, promoting renewables only.

          • liberty

            I’m sure he is enriching himself with some petro dollars. That doesn’t make him a bad person, but a savvy capitalist. I don’t know why gore would be considered an american patriot.

          • Bob_Wallace

            I’m sure you don’t.

          • liberty

            Bob, normally that would be filled in with how you think he is a patriot. I just assume you have nothing.

          • Bob_Wallace

            It doesn’t matter what facts one has when dealing with a right winger who puts political allegiances ahead of reality.

            Casting pearls before swine…

  • bussdriver78

    I thought youtube lifted the 10 min limit long ago. my org never had the limit and still doesn’t. you probably can apply for an org and get around it like i did when they instituted the 10 min limit.

  • WilliamPJung

    Despite shrugging me aside, I still think Gore is one of the best if not the best communicator on the topic of climate change. His presentation today absolutely nailed it. Be sure to share with your friends and family!

Back to Top ↑