Gore kick starts sweeping program to slash U.S. carbon emissions

Tue, 2008-04-01 08:57Bill Miller
Bill Miller's picture

Gore kick starts sweeping program to slash U.S. carbon emissions

Former Vice President Al Gore has launched a three-year, $300 million campaign calling for the U.S. to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, linking the effort with other historic endeavors like stopping fascism in Europe, overcoming segregation and putting the first man on the moon.

The bi-partisan bid features advertisements showing such political opponents as Rev. Al Sharpton and Pat Robertson, and Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and former Republican Speaker Newt Gingrich, burying the hatchet to combat climate catastrophe.

Some of the money for the campaign comes from Gore himself, including his personal profits from the book and movie ''An Inconvenient Truth,'' a $750,000 award from his share of the Nobel Peace Prize and a personal matching gift.

''When politicians hear the American people calling loud and clear for change, they'll listen,'' Gore said in a statement. The former Tennessee senator and 2000 presidential candidate will be holding a climate-change training session April 4-6 in Montreal; several DeSmogBlog writers will be in attendance.



Gore tells us that the people are clamouring for action on global warming. The science is settled, he says, the debate is over.

So why is Gore spending $300 mil on TV ads to persuade us there is a problem using renowned climatologists like Al Sharpton and Pat Robertson? Is the Goreacle worried that maybe the science isn't so settled and people are taking notice of the ton of "denieralist" science flooding out these days? Is that a whiff of panic wafting from the warmist camp?

It is going to take more than Desmogger pilgrimmages to the Presence hisself to keep this scam from unravelling. Be sure to buy some carbon credits from the Goreacle.

BTW, people looking for balance and fairness on this issue instead of Desmog-type propaganda should visit the Climate Debate Daily website. It presents material from both sides of the debate and lists lots of web sites and blogs that present both sides. Desmog is listed as a pro-IPCC blog. That's an understatement but they don't have a character assasination category.

Havent you been posting for about 2 years now that the "scam is unravelling"....course smoking doesnt cause cancer either and that scam is also unravelling to isnt it?

Gore's campaign is a call to action, not just a reconfirmation of the science.

And Peabody had to set up astroturf groups to sell its so-called "clean coal". Does Gore have to hide behind thickets of astroturf?

(Yeah, that's a sure sign of panic for the Warmist Camp, right.)

Frank Bi, http://tinyurl.com/yrpnmd
"Al `Fat Al' Gore [is fat]" -- Harold Pierce

Frank Bi, you don't half talk alot of BS. "Gore's campaign is a call to action, not just a reconfirmation of the science". Yeah Right! I'll bet like his 'Inconvenient Truth' film there's less real science in it than a hamburger commercial!

You haven't got any real science - it's too damn cold around here to say CO2, at its highest level in centuries, drives temperature. Bunch of Fakes.

JohnnyB, are you using your astroturf as a winter jacket?

Frank Bi, http://tinyurl.com/yrpnmd
"Al `Fat Al' Gore [is fat]" -- Harold Pierce

JohnnyB, I see your post here and I think, Oh gawd, here we go again. You keep dragging up the old "arguments" as though they are new, and citing crap "data" as though no one had already discredited it, and generally throw around a pile of garbage that was disposed of long ago. GO AWAY. You are old news, and if you haven't the sense to realize that, you don't belong here talking to people who are up-to-date on the SCIENCE. Ever here of that, JohnnyB? SCIENCE. Study up. you might actually learn something.

Good grief. Who digs you guys up, anyway?

To the rest of the DeSmog group, I apologize. I've just been through a soul destroying week, and I am just FED UP TO THE TEETH with these ars##oles.

All the best to the folks on the green train.

Fern Mackenzie

I share your annoyance with these dreary bores whose one ambition is to show the world what ignorant jerks they are.

VJ, when it comes to vacuous posts you're the Team leader round here. Your brittle vacuous little character breaks down at the first sign of serious debate into childish invective which you can never back up. You haven't a climatic fact that holds any water and your opinion displays all the evidence of the weak vacuous propoganda that forms it. Bit of a loser aren't you?


Cool down, the Earth sure has over the past 12 months being the fastest temperature change in centuries either up or down. Of course you climate warmers would jump to the prediction it's UP because CO2 levels are at their highest levels in 1,000's of years. but no, it's DOWN.

So has CO2 gone on holiday to enjoy the record snows in America (highest in 50yrs), snow in Iraq (first seen in its recorded history) and Europe (1 month earlier) or the record colds in Mexico, Chile, Argentina, China etc etc.

How's CO2 'gone mssing' Fern?

Just one of many climatic questions I've asked you Fern that you duck, dodge and never answer, !!

I've asked you to choose a climate fact or issue but you evade. I may be an 'old record' but that's because Earths climate record is an old record that has never had CO2 as Earths temperature driver in 400,000 years. It always lags warming events.. always 'on holiday' when things get warm around here. Where is CO2 proven as a temp' driver Miss Dodgy?

Go away, troll.

Demosblog founder Mr Hoggan is on the David Suzuki Foundation. Suzuki claimed in a recent interview "2,500 scientists signed the IPCC Report on February 2!".

Actually only 51 individuals signed the IPCC Report released on February 2.

No wonder this website ran a smeer campaign to discredit the Fraser Institutes independant review of the IPCC's 4th Assesment Report!

You are so far behind the science it isn't worth bothering.

Fern Mackenzie


Answer my questions.. where's CO2 (at its highest in centuries) during this coldest temperature change in recorded history?

Has it gone walkies or on holiday like you do every time I ask you a climate question?

If I'm 'so far behind on the science' why don't you teach me with your greater knowledge Little Miss Walkabouts?

Last April 7 we had sun and 100's on Brighton Beach - and that's all CO2. This year we have 3 in Eskimo gear on Brighton Beach which happens to be covered in snow! So where's the CO2 gone Fern?

I'm not a science teacher, which is why I keep referring you to scientific sources where you might LEARN SOMETHING. Instead, you blow them off and accuse me of avoiding your idiotic claims. Why on earth would you believe anything I say when you won't believe climate scientists? I'm not getting suckered into arguing nonsense with you. "So where's the CO2 gone???" What kind of question is that?

Fern Mackenzie


Just point me toward CO2 being Earths temperature driver would you.. simple request?

CO2 is currently at its highest level for 1,000's of years yet we've just had the coldest 12 months in decades wiping out nearly a century of (natural) warming - the fastest temp change in recorded history.

That ties in with the suns cycle (Mars has also dropped temperature) not the CO2 levels.. doesn't it Miss Messabout?

Since you seem unable to do the simplest of searches, try looking at the IPCC report, and then check out Climate.org (http://climate.org/topics/climate-change/index.html). As for "where's the CO2 gone?", have a look at this: http://climate.org/topics/climate-change/co2jump.html.

Hint: check the references and bibliographies of articles and papers in respectable journals, and follow up by going to the sources for more detailed information about the most current research.

Fern Mackenzie

And check out La Nina:


And check out La Nina:



Climate.org - Is that it? A bunch of lame generalised sentances about CO2! It fails to mention CO2 is assessed at contributing 5% to the greenhouse effect and water vapour 95%. Why don't we tax water vapour?

I have looked at the IPCC Reports. There's zilch about CO2 driving temperature, just 3 computer model estimates by Hansen et al whose climate modelling has been resoundly criticised by objective scientists that know what they're taking about.

Neither the IPCC nor any eco-gullible troll has anything against CO2 and further curbing its emissions WILL NOT WORK in changing climate. Scientific Fact.

Of course that's not "it". But I haven't the time to lead you by the hand through all of the proper scientific sites and the heaps of data that have resulted from more than a century of studying the effects of CO2 in the atmosphere -- ie, it's physical & chemical properties. That's basic chemistry and physics, and I was studying the Table of the Elements in grade 10 chemistry. I'll make one final attempt: here is a link to a very good post at RealClimate: http://tinyurl.com/5e3x73

TRY to read it through and pay attention. Then take what you learn and do some more research. FOLLOW THE SCIENCE.

Fern Mackenzie

Fern, I'd try to 'follow the science' but there isn't any! It's a critique of an Allègre and Courtillot study, on Earths magnetic field!!

The little there is about CO2 as a warmer, is err 'very little'. The critic, Ray Pierre, says CO2s been "predicted long before it was detectable in the atmosphere... it was first predicted by Arrhenius in 1896 using extremely simple radiation ideas, and was reproduced using modern radiation physics by Manabe and co-workers in the 1960s".

The Arrhenius study (in 1896) had discovered and measured the Greenhouse Effect to be 6 degrees Celsius for a doubling of CO2. But Dutch geophysicist Hans Erren has gone back to the original papers of Arrhenius & Langley and discovered that the radiation spectrum used by them was incomplete and applying modern measurements to their observations the rise would actually only be 0.22 degrees Celsius.

Mr Pierre then says "Still, the basic prediction of warming is founded on very fundamental physical principles relating to infrared absorption by greenhouse gases, theory of blackbody radiation, and atmospheric moist thermodynamics. All these individual elements have been verified to high accuracy in laboratory experiments and field observations."

What Mr Pierre firstly dodges is that water vapour is estimated to add 95% of the greenhouse gas warming and CO2 a paltry and insignificant 5%.

Pierre also omits to say that there is no proven link of CO2 and temperature and that CO2 may do things in a Lab but in the big wide world of Earths atmosphere CO2 always lags temperature warming by 400 to 1,400 years and has NEVER driven Earths temperature in 600 Million years despite levels being 18x times higher (and current CO2 levels being considerably lower than the norm).

So for the 4th time of asking Fern, please refer me to some of the "real science" you keep yapping about on CO2 driving temperature rather than your usual diversion techniques?

As long as you continue to cling to that sorry refrain about 19,000 "scientists" whose collective wisdom trumps the work of the IPCC, and the endorsement of every legitimate scientific body worldwide, I could show you a bona fide smoking gun and you wouldn't know it from a water pistol. The lists of these people and organizations have been posted here over and over, and you choose to sweep them aside and claim they are all wrong. I am not going to waste my time posting it again, or providing you with links to their sites (though I have them all bookmarked for easy reference, because I DO check them for new work often). You are determined not to take them seriously.

If you continue to claim that you cannot find anything that nails CO2 as a driver, then you haven't got even the most basic search skills. Just now I googled "CO2" + "climate driver" and the first hit was this excellent article at Real Climate by Rasmus E. Benestad from 19 May 2005: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=153. It is well worth reading, a critique of Veizer’s Celestial Climate Driver, a paper claiming solar variability as the main driver, and Benestad weighs it against CO2, covering a fair chunk of the science along the way.

Just a final nod, to you, Johnny B., because I don't think anything I post here makes any difference to you. I have better things to do than engage in pointless bickering.

Fern Mackenzie

Fern, your 2nd link to the jump in CO2 levels is again lame and lamentable. The US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) figures about the jump are meaningless because as they state the rise is not man-made but natural. There's also 'missing CO2' in the tracing of who exactly is responsible for the rise in CO2 levels over the last 50 years (50% has been 'attributed' to man - 50% nobody knows!).

Earth and its plants an species have lived through CO2 levels 20 times higher than current levels. I have no concerns about the 50% rise due by 2050 and nor do 19,000 scientists because it doesn't run temperature - it's insignificant on global weather patterns.

Please provide a link to something more substantial about CO2?

First it was warming, now it's cooling...which is it?
Oh and a reminder: January 1909

johnnyb said: "we've just had the coldest 12 months in decades wiping out nearly a century of (natural) warming."

Just where did you come up with that information? It is completely false.

Here are the monthly temperature anomalies for the past 12 months taken from the GISS site:

Mar (2008) 0.67
Feb 0.26
Jan 0.12
Dec (2007) 0.40
Nov 0.49
Oct 0.55
Sep 0.50
Aug 0.56
Jul 0.51
Jun 0.52
May 0.55
Apr 0.64

Here are the data from a century ago:
Mar (1908) -0.48
Feb -0.23
Jan -0.41
Dec (1907) -0.44
Nov -0.43
Oct -0.26
Sep -0.29
Aug -0.37
Jul -0.37
Jun -0.41
May -0.49
Apr -0.42

Temperature anomalies are in degrees C from the 1951-1980 average. Thus there is no way that we have "wiped out nearly a century of (natural) warming."

Ian Forrester

Ian Forrester, taking temperature anomalies from 1951-1980 average how do you measure 1908 with it?

The fact is the past 12 months avergae global temperature has dropped by over half a degree. This wipes out nearly a century of global warming (that's been naturally occuring since our ascent from the last mini-ice age) of three quarters of a degree.

Whilst CO2 levels have been at their highest for centuries.

Keep checking your temperature charts and come back with your answer about why high CO2 levels have not continued to drive temperature!!!

Are all the government carbon taxes working on changing the climate, the tides and reducing wind speed already maybe?

John, you routinely trot out crap that Fred Singer, Ross McKitrick, Steve McIntyre, and Michael Crichton (none of whom are climatologists) have said. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black!

Stephen Berg, my hogwash is backed by 19,000 scientists and credable science. Your hogwash isn't even backed by the 2,500 IPCC scientists but lost of eco-extremists and bent politicians (and washed up ones like Al Gore) trying to grab more money from our pockets to desperatly balance their bankrupt books.

Another story I've found - Several distinguished scientists who have worked on 3 of the IPCC Assessment Reports have spoken out against the 'bias' and 'alarmism' of the IPCC Summaries.

IPCC approved Summaries of the Third Assessment Report (TAR). Their “big news” was that the upper limit for warming in the 21st century had been jacked up by almost 50 per cent since last year’s draft - to an alarming 5.8 degrees C.

The co-author of the relevant Report chapter, Martin Manning, said “Many of us in the Working Group I (WG1) community think the A1FI [fossil-fuel intensive] emissions are unrealistically high”.

So how did they get there? To quote Manning again: “the fossil intensive scenario was not introduced by climate modellers or indeed anyone directly associated with the WGI report.” Instead it “was a response to final government review comments” on earlier, less drastic scenarios.

In other words, it was the result of political interference.

Your 'side' looks short on ammo' and really bloody desperate (both scientifically and politically) from my side.

Believe what you wish. Nothing can change your ignorance of this issue. You're so ideologically blindfolded that you refuse to listen or comprehend the serious nature of climate change.

I will no longer respond to your irrational comments, as it is a waste of my time.

Are you trying to be sarcastic?
I suggest you covert 5.8 degrees C into Fahrenheit and see what you get...

That's convert, not covert...
There's enough covert around here as it is...

Here is a comment I posted over at Gavin's Gararge on March 4.

RE: Age of Fossil Fuels Will Last Forever!

I have said this many times here and elsewhere, I will say this once again here, and I will say this at RC for the very last time. We will always use increasing amounts of fossils fuels because there are no subsitutes with the requisite chemical and physical properties, and there never ever will be any reduction in the emission of carbon dioxide.

For example, boats, planes, freight trains and trucks, construction, mining and agricultural machines, most cars and light trucks, motorcycles, snowmobiles, ATV’s, all military vehicles, go-carts, golf course and sports field grass mowers, etc will require and use liquid fossils fuels becasue these fuels have high energy density and are easily prepared from crude oil by fractional distillation and blending, low energy processes that do not require the breaking of chemical bonds. Even catalytic cracking of heavier distillate fractions is a low energy process.

The “Fuels of Freedom” are chemically inert (except to reaction with oxygen. halogens and several highly reactive chemicals such as singlet oxygen) noncorrosive, highly portable, and can be stored indefinitely in sealed containers (e.g., steel drums) and under an inert atmosphere (e.g., nitrogen) in large tanks.

Fossils fuels will always be required for lime and cement kilns, metal smelters, steel mills, foundries and metal casting plants, metal cutting and braising torches, all factories that make ceramics (e.g., bricks, tiles, china, glass, etc), all food production, processing and distribution, space and water heating, cooking and baking, BBQ’s, manufacture of porcelain-coated metals, harvesting of wood and lumber manufacture, isolation of essential oils by steam distillation for prepartion of fragrances and flavors, etc.

The reasons we use thermal plants for generating electricity is that these plants have a small footprint, can be located close to consumers, and produce electricity reliably and at very high energy-densities.

Fossils are feedstock for the petrochemical industries (sometimes called the chemical process industries), which manufacture everything from A to Z, such as synthetic fibers. There is not enough suitable land for growing cotton, flax and sheep to meet world demand.

If you guys have any schemes that will replace fossil fuels for the above applications and uses, I’m quite sure the engineers will glady welcome your suggestions.

We will always have lots of fossil liquid fuels because we can always use coal for manufacture of synthetic hydrocarbons. Germany did this on amassive scale during WW II and South Africa use this process, and it supplies about 40% of its liquid hydrocarbons which can be manufactured into a wide range of useful materials.
Google “SASOL” for more info.

Apparently Harold thinks nonrenewable resources have an infinite supply. OK, there!

Hello Stephen!

What is forever? Your lifetime.


A study published by Geophysical Research Letters sheds new light on the connection between California's epic drought and human-induced climate change.

The study carries the decidedly wonky title, “Probable causes of the abnormal ridge accompanying the 2013-14 California drought: ENSO precursor and anthropogenic warming footprint.”

A subscription is...

read more