Al Gore invokes spirit of Churchill in battle against climate change

[OrangeEmpire]

Video: Al Gore likens fight against climate change to battle with Nazis - Times Online

Be sure to watch the video of him actually speaking...

Lord help us all!

Al Gore invoked the spirit of Winston Churchill today by encouraging political leaders to follow the example of Britain’s wartime leader and unite their nations to fight climate change.
The former US vice-president accused politicians around the world of exploiting ignorance about the dangers of global warming. He said lack of awareness among voters allowed governments to avoid taking difficult decisions.
Speaking in Oxford at the Smith School World Forum on Enterprise and the Environment , sponsored by The Times, Mr Gore said: “Winston Churchill aroused this nation in heroic fashion to save civilisation in World War II.” He added: “We have everything we need except political will but political will is a renewable resource.” Mr Gore admitted that it was difficult to persuade the public that the threat from climate change was as urgent as the threat during World War 2.
“The level of awareness and concern among populations has not crossed the threshhold where political leaders feel that they must change.

Thoughts other than insanity and all Gore wants to do is make $$$?

 

[Voodoomonkey]

Make money money, make money money monay!!!

 

[hohenfelsvol]

Al Gores need money. Filling up that private jet and the light bill ain't cheap on that mansion. Peace out.

 

[IPorange]

He's a douche.

 

[volinbham]

Said it before, I'll say it again. Al Gore will be the first GW billionaire. Book it.

 

[rjd970]

Admittedly, I don't know much about the GW debate but it seems as though it is littered with ignorance from both sides. Gore included.

 

[IPorange]

Ya, that is pretty much it. Al Gore is a large source of the ignorance on the non-skeptic side. I really wish he would go away.

 

[MG1968]

Gore isn't qualified to carry Winston Churchill's jock strap, let alone compare his irrational religious crusade to the defeat of National Socialism.

 

[TennTradition]

So, if all this money is going to be made on GW, are we stupid for not making investments there? Is there an ethical way to make an investment, such as in energy efficiency technology, even if you don't have any climate change concerns?

 

[MG1968]

there's nothing wrong with seeking energy efficiency, but I'd stay far away from any investment or venture that involved Gore.

 

[TennTradition]

there's nothing wrong with seeking energy efficiency, but I'd stay far away from any investment or venture that involved Gore.

I haven't ever really though about investing in any of his activities or the companies he invests in. But, I know that the idea of corporate badguys is often brought up around here...and the argument is sometimes made that instead of complaining about how much money Exxon is making, we should just invest in them and then share in some of their success. I am just interested in whether the same would apply here - or is it over an ethical line that you (not you specifically, but someone in general) won't cross ... particularly if they see moving in the direction of CO2 regulation as being an unnecessary drain on our economy.

I think that we are going to see huge gains in energy efficiency made over the next 10 years or so...and it would seem to me that certain companies will stand to profit from that. I think that this will happen with or without climate legislation, particularly as the economy recovers and energy prices begin to climb again to what will likely be record highs.

 

[IPorange]

Agreed, TT. My problem with Gore is when he starts going into his doomsday climate change scenarios, that are too shaky to be presented as inevitable events over the next 100 years. That doesn't mean climate change isn't a problem, but it isn't going to throw Manhattan and Florida under 20 feet of water any time soon.

 

[TennTradition]

Agreed, TT. My problem with Gore is when he starts going into his doomsday climate change scenarios, that are too shaky to be presented as inevitable events over the next 100 years. That doesn't mean climate change isn't a problem, but it isn't going to throw Manhattan and Florida under 20 feet of water any time soon.

It's like the BBC specials I've seen with 10 meter walls of water rushing through London. Do folks like Gore think that the only way change is going to happen is to scare the hell out of people, or do they actually believe the doomsday scenarios?

The annoying part is that a lot of folks who think AGW is crap see any admission that some scenarios are overblown as some indication that nothing needs to be done. The answer for me lies somewhere in between, and that is why I am still undecided on what the proper action should be, with regard to policy measures.

 

[IPorange]

I am right with you. I even go so far as to worry about even if we could sequester carbon, are we then actively artificially stabilizing climate? Is that a good thing?

 

[TennTradition]

I am right with you. I even go so far as to worry about even if we could sequester carbon, are we then actively artificially stabilizing climate? Is that a good thing?

When you say sequester carbon, do you mean from the air, rather than from stacks? Is your concern that we would remove 'natural' CO2 in addition to the CO2 man is releasing after digging it up in the form of fossil fuels? Otherwise, I wouldn't think that it would be an artificial stabilization, just a reduction of footprint....

 

[joevol320]

So, if all this money is going to be made on GW, are we stupid for not making investments there? Is there an ethical way to make an investment, such as in energy efficiency technology, even if you don't have any climate change concerns?

it think the problem is that the "alternative energy" can't be sustained on its own unlike oil and nuke power that can. these alternative sources will alway need government money to keep them afloat. the cost is not worth return.

 

[TennTradition]

it think the problem is that the "alternative energy" can't be sustained on its own unlike oil and nuke power that can. these alternative sources will alway need government money to keep them afloat. the cost is not worth return.

But how are Gore, et al. making money that others can't tap into through investments?

As for alternative energy, that is why I see energy efficiency investments as a fertile area, they apply to any energy infrastructure...whether it be to make alternative energy more feasible (by decreasing demand) or conventional energy cheaper (by decreasing consumption).

 

[IPorange]

When you say sequester carbon, do you mean from the air, rather than from stacks? Is your concern that we would remove 'natural' CO2 in addition to the CO2 man is releasing after digging it up in the form of fossil fuels? Otherwise, I wouldn't think that it would be an artificial stabilization, just a reduction of footprint....

Yes, I am talking about actually removing the "excess" carbon we have released, and actually regulating the amount floating around. Reducing the footprint doesn't make nervous at all. In fact, far from it.

 

[TennTradition]

Yes, I am talking about actually removing the "excess" carbon we have released, and actually regulating the amount floating around. Reducing the footprint doesn't make nervous at all. In fact, far from it.

Gotcha....I see where you're concern is coming from.

 

[volinbham]

From a purely business standpoint, Al Gore is simply lobbying for laws/regs that will benefit him financially. From an ethical standpoint, he's using his influence and fear to cause change that he can profit from whether or not those changes are ultimately "good" for society as a whole.

If he were a Wall Street big wig; he'd be shamed for this. Instead he won a Nobel Prize and is treated like a hero.

 

[IPorange]

Exactly why I used my 5,000th post to call him a douche. Not to mention he is a hypocrite.

 

[droski]

From a purely business standpoint, Al Gore is simply lobbying for laws/regs that will benefit him financially. From an ethical standpoint, he's using his influence and fear to cause change that he can profit from whether or not those changes are ultimately "good" for society as a whole.

If he were a Wall Street big wig; he'd be shamed for this. Instead he won a Nobel Prize and is treated like a hero.

how does al personally make money off of this? consulting?

 

[volinbham]

how does al personally make money off of this? consulting?

He's already been running a business that sells carbon credits. I believe he has a venture capital fund that is investing companies that will benefit from carbon reduction regulations. He does consulting and speaking engagements as well. I'm guessing there are other parts of his AGW machine.

 

[KB5252]

He's already been running a business that sells carbon credits. I believe he has a venture capital fund that is investing companies that will benefit from carbon reduction regulations. He does consulting and speaking engagements as well. I'm guessing there are other parts of his AGW machine.

Wherever there is money to be made regarding cap and trade, global warming, carbon credits, he is heavily invested and lobbying government like there is no tomorrow. He would stand to make or lose millions upon millions of dollars, cap and trade/carbon credits are his invention and this has been an effort in the works for almost a decade now.