For many months, NewsBusters has been reporting the financial interest Nobel Laureate Al Gore has in advancing global warming hysteria, and has continually wondered when media will raise this issue to the American people.
On Sunday's "Meet the Press," Gore gave host Tom Brokaw the perfect setup to ask him about his investments in renewable fuel technology when the former Vice President mentioned how much money T. Boone Pickens has put into windmill farms.
Predictably, Brokaw missed this opportunity to be the first major, mainstream media member to ask the Global Warmingist-in-Chief about his own investments, and just how much he stands to make if America does indeed shift all of its electricity production to renewable sources of energy.
Here's the exchange in question (video embedded below the fold):
TOM BROKAW, HOST: I don't have to tell you that there are a good many political fights going on right now, to say nothing of what's going to happen in the future, and also you have some competition. Anyone who's been watching this broadcast or television recently has seen a familiar American figure and what he has in mind. Let's listen to some of that.
(Videotape)
MR. T. BOONE PICKENS: (From political advertisement) I'm T. Boone Pickens. I've been an oil man my whole life, but this is one emergency we can't drill our way out of. And I have a plan. In the coming weeks, I'm going to share the details of that plan to use American technology and alternative energy to slash our dependency and break foreign oil's stranglehold on us.
(End videotape)
MR. BROKAW: If you go to his Web site, he'll tell you that he wants to shift to wind to produce electricity and then shift natural gas to public transportation. And when he took a look at your plan, this is what he had to say. "Former Vice President Al Gore's put forward a framework of a plan that is focused on global warming and climate issues. My plan is aimed squarely at breaking the stranglehold that foreign oil has on our country and the $700 billion annual impact it has on our economy. We import 70 percent of our oil and that number is growing larger every year." As you know. "Vice President Gore's plan does not address this enormous problem. It is clear that he and I have two different objectives, and our plans should be viewed with that in mind." Don't you like the idea that T. Boone Pickens is out there on the playing field now and has what appears to be an innovative idea?
VICE PRES. GORE: I do. And, and I think it's really significant that one of the most successful oil industry figures is now investing a billion dollars of his own money in windmills. He's looked at the figures that I was sharing with you a moment ago. Wind is competitive. Just this past week, we, we saw Texas approve massive new transmission lines to use wind power for--as a substitute for the old ways of producing electricity. Now, the--I don't see him as a competitor on this. There are really a lot of common features in, in what he's saying. Now, the, the idea of using natural gas for, for cars, natural gas, I think, is an important transition fuel. It has fewer CO2 emissions than either coal or oil, especially coal. I think that it makes more sense to put the bulk of our effort to transform the car and truck fleet towards electricity because electricity can be produced from renewable sources indefinitely. It's inexhaustible. There's enough solar energy that hits this--the surface of the planet in 40 minutes to provide a full year's worth of energy for the entire world. We just have to listen to what the engineers and scientists are telling us about the advances in the efficiency and the reductions in cost of how we can use solar and wind and also geothermal.
Now, with Gore having mentioned Pickens' investments in windmills, wouldn't this have been the perfect time for Brokaw to ask him about his own financial stake in such things?
After all, as NewsBusters reported on April 11, Gore admitted to this back in March:
There are a lot of great investments you can make. If you are investing in tar sands, or shale oil, then you have a portfolio that is crammed with sub-prime carbon assets. And it is based on an old model. Junkies find veins in their toes when the ones in their arms and their legs collapse. Developing tar sands and coal shale is the equivalent. Here are just a few of the investments I personally think make sense. I have a stake in these so I’ll have a disclaimer there. But geo-thermal concentrating solar, advanced photovoltaics, efficiency, and conservation.
As Gore spoke these words, pictures of electric cars, windmills and solar panels appeared in multiple slides on the screen with company names at the bottom such as Amyris (biofuels), Altra (biofuels), Bloom Energy (solid oxide fuel cells), Mascoma (cellulosic biofuels), GreatPoint Energy (catalytic gasification), Miasole (solar cells), Ausra (utility scale solar panels), GEM (battery operated cars), Smart (electric cars), and AltaRock Energy (geothermal power).
Since Gore brought up Pickens' investments, why didn't Brokaw ask Gore about his own? Instead, Brokaw continued:
MR. BROKAW: But when it comes to T. Boone Pickens, shouldn't it be "all hands on deck"?
VICE PRES. GORE: Yep.
MR. BROKAW: And don't you approve of the idea that he should go forward with this?
VICE PRES. GORE: He, he, he wants to, to move...
MR. BROKAW: Natural gas.
VICE PRES. GORE: ...natural gas in one direction and move wind in another direction and convert the fleet. The wind is producing electricity and the--then he wants to move natural gas into cars. But if we're going to convert cars and trucks, we, we should do it one time toward electricity.
But there are vehicles running today on natural gas. Chattanooga, Tennessee, has natural gas buses. It's, it's a respectable option. But I think that, I, I think that in the long term the better approach is to make this investment in a unified national grid that has low losses in transmission, that has the Smart Grid features that allows individuals to put up photovoltaic solar panels and sell electricity back into the grid and shift over to renewable sources.
Stop the tape. So, Gore doesn't want to use natural gas for cars. Instead, he wants to go electric -- which he's admitted to investing in. Wouldn't this be another opportunity for Brokaw to question Gore's possible financial motivation? It appears not:
MR. GORE: Now, the other thing that Boone Pickens agrees on is when he says we really "can't drill our way out" of this because the new discoveries--and he knows about the new discoveries, he's got chapter and verse--they have been coming in at a much slower rate than the demand for oil and coal have been increasing.
MR. BROKAW: This comes under the heading of politics makes strange bedfellows. You have common cause with T. Boone Pickens, who four years ago was a principal financier of the swift boat attack ads...
VICE PRES. GORE: Yeah.
MR. BROKAW: ...against your friend John Kerry.
VICE PRES. GORE: Yeah. And, and I think it's an illustration of how this, this climate crisis has to, to push us as Americans to take this issue out of the old partisan squabbling and political fighting that we're--we have to be in this as Americans. And America should be leading the world community to confront this climate crisis.
MR. BROKAW: Speaking of which, it was not so long ago that you called President Bush a "moral coward" on this issue for not standing up to his financial interests. For the last two years Democrats have dominated the Congress of the United States--the Senate and the House of Representatives. There have been no major, sweeping initiatives coming out of this Democratic-controlled Congress. How would you characterize that?
And that, as they say, was that.
This leads me to ask once again: will anybody in the mainstream media EVER question Gore about his financial interests concerning global warming and converting America's electricity usage to renewable fuels? Ever?
—Noel Sheppard is the Associate Editor of NewsBusters.
Comments Policy
Noel...
July 20, 2008 - 15:59 ET by AgentAmericanSadly, the only way that the MSM is going to change is that if ordinary people like you and me start questioning them...by storming their studios and seizing control like the people did in Communist Romania in 1989! Oh, those were the days!
You have to get the fat slobs away from their TV's and iPods to get it done though. Sigh!
Drill ANWAR
" There's enough solar
July 20, 2008 - 16:30 ET by scamorama" There's enough solar energy that hits this--the surface of the planet in 40 minutes to provide a full year's worth of energy for the entire world"
Yes, Al, and there's enough gold in the oceans to gold-plate everything on Earth. There's enough energy in the Gulf Stream to supply this county's electricity forever.
The question is: how do you extract it economically, and provide it to customers at a price they can afford?
I wonder where he gets his
July 20, 2008 - 17:33 ET by scamoramaI wonder where he gets his figures.
Total annual energy use worldwide is about 1.5 X 10^13 watts. The Solar Constant is 1.37 kW/m^2.
Gore's 40 minutes gives about 5.76 X 10^10 watts; not nearly enough.
Typical.
So he's off by 3 orders of
July 21, 2008 - 09:20 ET by dscottSo he's off by 3 orders of magnitude (1000 times). Which would be roughly 40,000 minutes or 1,666 hrs divided by 5.76 = 289 hrs. Your figure of electrical consumption is for the year, so even though Al is way off in exagerating the amount of power available, he is not technically wrong that it is possible (though not in the realm of probable) for solar to supply all the electricity. But this again runs up against another inconvenient technical difficultly - no means to store all that energy for 20 hours a day. Solar power is only good for 4 hrs/day due to the angle of the sun (earth's rotation).
But even the electric storage problem might be solvable if we imagine a really audacious plan (being sarcastic here) where we run a really, really large diameter copper wire from Florida to Alaska, cross the Berring Sea, down Russia across Mongolia and continue all the way to Spain. Every 4 time zones we put up a massive solar collector array (several thousand sq miles at 12 watts/sq ft) to continuously supply all the earth with solar powered electricity. For a reality check, it would take 1,300 sq mi just for 4 hours of US consumption, never mind the rest of the world.
Does this give you an idea of how absurd 100% solar power for electrical generation really is??? It's one of their worst panaceas. In fact, Al Gore should be made to get off the electric grid and demonstrate for us how a residence can be 100% solar powered.
Can you imagine the solar array necessary to power one of his mansions? 221,000 kwhr/year / 365 days / 4 hrs = 151.3 kwhr/hr solar generating day, assuming a net metering scenario. So that gives us 151,300 watts / 12 watts/ sq ft = 12,614 sq ft. There are 43,560 square feet in one acre, so that's 0.29 acres. Ok Al, what are you waiting for??? I mean for $8/watt installed cost, that's chump change for you right? Come on Al, what's $1.2 million dollars to you to make a point and show some leadership???? Oh, I see, why do so when you can get the taxpayer to pay for you??? Or get free carbon credits from your company??? Funny how libs call us uncaring for calculating dollars and cents to do something, but when they are faced with doing it themselves all of a sudden it's loads of excuses and diversions from why they won't do what they advocate.
Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, starving the poor one gallon of ethanol at a time. Fill your tank with E85 and cull a village.
de nile
July 21, 2008 - 20:10 ET by TruthMongerso you naysayers must work for big oil - harumph
so this sun out there there
July 21, 2008 - 09:26 ET by seaniepso this sun out there there puts our all this energy, enough to provide the entire globe enough energy to go for a year, and it does it in less than an hour - is this the same sun that has nothing to do with global warming?
wow - no wonder so many people don't understand the crisis we are facing - we have this crazy sun thing out there that doesn't make sense either
missed the opportunity?
July 20, 2008 - 16:30 ET by DelsaHe ignored the pathway all together.
He had no intention of going there either.
I miss Tim.
I believe he would have asked the guestion.
T. Boone Pickens, Is a business man.
July 20, 2008 - 17:13 ET by upcountrywaterHe's seen his oil business wiped out by "no you can't do that ever again permits".
So what's a guy to do? Drilling is still legal for natural gas!
Why not try a huge wind farm? Just maybe it will work when it's really hot.
Looks like algore would love to ban natural gas drilling so that we only can have electric cars, supplied by magic zero LOSS superconducting power lines.
This is soo typical: brokaw agreed to NOT ask questions about algore investments.
Liberals62%
IranianUranium
Not that theres anything wrong with that
July 20, 2008 - 17:33 ET by third eyeI watched this for the first minute or two, until the expression on Brokaw's face left me with little doubt that the two of them were playing footsies under the table.
I watched this
July 20, 2008 - 17:36 ET by TruthMattersI watched this "interview" with supernatural restraint to the overwhelming desire to insert my foot into Al and Tom's TV mouth. Did you notice the new buzz word...."climate crisis"? Gore must have said this a hundred times.
i will add it to the
July 21, 2008 - 20:53 ET by TruthMongeri will add it to the list
global warming/cooling/climate change/climate crisis/whatever
I watched it up until the
July 20, 2008 - 17:43 ET by bigtimerI watched it up until the T. Boone Pickens, Windmills in my Mind thing...like you said here..Brokaw didn't ask about his own investments...
I also turned it after all of the lovefest I could stand right after this..it is bad enough listening to the poor old wooden Indian Calijah...any place any time..
I will not listen again here...and good job for those who can...
I detest just seeing algore...let alone listening to all his hot air BS to pad his own and others pockets...at our expense if he gets his way.
."America isn't the problem...America is the solution." ~ Rush Limbaugh
"wouldn't this have been
July 20, 2008 - 18:03 ET by danbo"wouldn't this have been the perfect time for Brokaw to ask him about his own financial stake in such things?"
Yes it would have been the best time tio ask. Provided Tom wanted us to know.
The 2nd way to lie is to not tell all the truth. The sin of omission.
Limited Disclosure: I used to belong to the Sierra Club untill they went crazier. Worse of all, I was bribed by Exxon with free New Orleans Saints glasses with fill ups in the 70's.
Capitalist vs. Politician
July 20, 2008 - 19:47 ET by AmericanEnergistT. Boone Pickens is a businessman. He looks at a problem and thinks of ways to solve it.
Mr. Gore is a politician. He looks at a problem and thinks of ways to tax it.
Mr. Pickens problem is dependence on foreign oil. Mr. Gore's problem is global warming.
Mr. Pickens invests $50 million of his OWN money to solve his problem. Mr. Gore insists we sinners pay a 'tax' to polute.
With Mr. Pickens plan, he comes to a conclusion. With Mr. Gore's plan, we can continue to pollute the earth, as long as we pay for the priveledge to do so.
Should Mr. Pickens plan work as he describes, we will be less dependent on foreign energy and the price will for same will likely drop.
Should Mr. Gore's plan work as he describes, if the 'tax' money paid by the bad pollutrers has been put in a 'lockbox' and then disbursed to his Democrat cronies for research in all kinds of green energy and the pollution is reduced, THEN the tax will have to rise to cover the loss in revenues. (Does anyone remember that little thing called Social Security??)
Does Mr. Gore have any investments in the 'carbon credit' companies?? If so, it would make sense to own the 'tollbooth' instead of the turnpike!
www.ArmchairEnergist...
AmericanEnergist, UM algore has invested about a BILLION $$
July 20, 2008 - 22:33 ET by upcountrywaterof others people money
Blood & Gore
As you can see he locked into climate crisis ponsi tax scheme.
Liberals62%
IranianUranium
'Ponzi', not 'ponsi'.
July 21, 2008 - 00:36 ET by NL207'Ponzi', not 'ponsi'. Check out erstwhile Italian immigrant, Charles Ponzi. A humorous read, provided you weren't one of his victims.
Carbon foot print on your wallet, we will all be victims.
July 21, 2008 - 01:02 ET by upcountrywaterNL207 thank you for correcting my spelling.
This is what i read about the guy C. Ponzi
algore loved that man.
Liberals62%
IranianUranium
Problems with the Pickens Plan
July 21, 2008 - 11:33 ET by PopularTech"There are no turbines on my ranch, because I think they are ugly." - T. Boone Pickens, 2008
Pitfalls in the Pickens Plan (Institute for Energy Research)
The Wind Cries 'Bailout!' (Fox News)
Slim Pickins From T. Boone Pickens (Investors Business Daily)
Wind is incredibly unreliable as demonstrated in Texas:
Loss of Wind Causes Texas Power Grid Emergency (Reuters)
...among its many other problems:
- Wind Power is intermittent (wind farms must rely on conventional power plants to back up their supply)
- Wind Power costs twice as much as electricity generated from fossil fuels (the levelized cost of a kilowatt hour is 3.53 cents for coal, 5.47 cents for gas, 5.94 cents for nuclear and 6.64 cents for wind unsubsidized)
- Wind Power is not economically feasible without subsidies (subsidized at 1.9 cents per kilowatt hour in the United States)
- Wind Power equals only about 0.28% of the United State's energy supply (40% Oil, 23% Coal, 23% Natural Gas, 8% Nuclear and 0.28% Wind)
- Wind Energy cannot be harnessed to meet the timing of electricity demands (avoiding blackouts requires production and demand on an electrical grid be equal every second, so operators need gas-fired "load-following" generators that can adjust instantly)
- Wind Energy cannot be stored (unless batteries are used)
- Wind Farms are often located in remote locations, far from cities where the electricity is needed (this increases trasmission costs)
- Wind Farms can effect weather patterns (the turbulence from large wind farms creates warmer, drier conditions at the surface)
- Wind Farms can be eyesores (community members often complain about the blinding strobe-light sensation that takes place on wind farms at dawn and dusk)
- Wind Farms can produce noise pollution
- Wind Farms can interfere with radar
- Wind Farms have a devastating effect on birds (an estimated 44,000 birds have been killed over the past two decades by wind turbines in the Altamont Pass, east of San Francisco)
- Wind Farms need 100 times more land area than conventional power plants (to produce 1,000 MW of power, a wind farm would require approximately 192,000 acres, or 300 square miles; a nuclear plant needs less than 1,700 acres, or 2.65 square miles (within its security perimeter fence); and a coal powered plant takes up about 1,950 acres, 3.05 square miles)
- Wind Turbines have to be shut off in high winds or temperatures (wind turbines shut off in over 50mph winds or 100 degree temperatures)
- Wind Turbines can be dangerous (turbines can collapse, catch fire and the blades can break off)
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
Btw- when wind
July 21, 2008 - 13:50 ET by dscottBtw- when wind proponents have been confronted about the reliability issue, they shift gears and start claiming that to overcome that issue, you would network wind turbines over large distances via the electric grid so if one isn't generating then others probably will be.
We should bring to people's attention that by real world operating experience, wind turbines only operate 40% of the time, so that even if you would discount the 100% back up needed by a conventional power plant, you would still need to build 2.5 times the necessary wind turbines to reliably generate the rated electricity. Therefore the installed cost of a wind turbine ($1,000/kw as of 2005) is 2.5 times ($2,500/kw) whatever they tell you under a networked scheme just to get that 100% reliability. So not only is it more expensive first cost wise, but twice the energy cost in kwhr charge to the consumer. Gee thanks Al Gore. I think the plan by the Dems is clear, increase the cost of oil and gas until wind is "cost effective." So you people who heat with natural gas, in order for wind to be cost effective, your price will have to double what it its now to achieve Al's goals. Screw the little guy!
Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, starving the poor one gallon of ethanol at a time. Fill your tank with E85 and cull a village.
I saw the tail end of this
July 20, 2008 - 20:12 ET by futbolisgreat1I saw the tail end of this interview. I was shocked when Brokaw brought up the fact that there are many scientists that have not jumped on board the man made Global Warming caravan and that it looks like the debate is not over. Brokaw allowed Al Gore to weasel out of a sort of tough point by not challenging Al Gore when he said that there is a consensus in the scientific community and that the debate is over.
Brokaw never brought up the fact that the American Physical Society has actually said that the debate is not over and that a lot more research needs to be done. http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=12403
I am surprised NB didn't pick up on this.
Sick to my stomach
July 20, 2008 - 21:19 ET by wdhorningI had a hard time writing this post as I had to look at the ugliest, dumbest, sub-human to walk the face of the earth. In fact, I am so sick now I cannot write anymore.
Gore & Gravity
July 21, 2008 - 01:38 ET by Abe_JeffersonSo let me get this right. You're criticizing Gore for putting his money where his mouth is. Is that about right? Or are you criticizing Gore because you don't like him?
Wouldn't it be great if gravity was labeled a liberal hoax? Then you could easily tell who the looney right wingers are (as opposed to the good rational intelligent conservatives). They'd be the ones spending all their time clinging to objects fixed to the earth, like telephone polls, fire hydrants, buildings and such.
Does anyone else see the insanity of your political ideology determining what's true or not about science?
Abe
July 21, 2008 - 01:44 ET by Cool ArrowHow did you get all those hydrants and buildings and telephone poles stuck in the ground in the first place if you didn't have gravity?
Maybe you better go back and flesh out this hypothetical a little better, because it ain't even makin sense to a podunk hick like me.
LYDSEXICS UNTIE
Cool Arrow, of course it's silly but....
July 21, 2008 - 02:17 ET by Abe_JeffersonI stated that gravity would be labeled a liberal hoax, maybe started by someone who likes to defy/deny reality, say Rush Limbaugh. It would quickly spread and be accepted by the right. It isn't that gravity doesn't exist just as global warming may very well exist. It's that the looney right would buy into the liberal hoax idea. I confess I'm just like all the other users of NB's I don't know if GW exists for sure, let alone how much is or isn't humanity's fault, let alone how serious the consequences might or might not be. But I'm sure not going to let my political beliefs determine my belief in GW.
GW does exist
July 21, 2008 - 02:24 ET by Cool ArrowHe is our President.
Oh, that GW. Well, about all I learned from science as a kid was that we have this symbiotic relationship with trees and such, and the more CO2 we breathe out, the more the trees like it. And given how quickly photosynthetic organisms grow (algae, and seaweed for instance) we've really got to tax this earth to effect any kind of catastrophic imbalance.
Has anyone bothered to quantify the emissions of the California fires this Summer? These are plumes you can see from space, and nobody's taxing California for bad forest management.
I was sold on the chluorofluorocarbon thing, because it could be demonstrated scientifically just 1 CFC could wreak havoc on about 100,000 Ozone molecules. But this "consensus" thing doesn't sound very scientific to me. Sounds more like a vote.
And votes can be bought.
LYDSEXICS UNTIE
or Rush could label the WOT
July 21, 2008 - 21:08 ET by TruthMongeror Rush could label the WOT a hoax...
Rush could say that Bush orhestrated it with 9/11!
the buildings were wired with explosives...
a plane never hit the Pentagon...
it was all for oil and haliburton...
and Bush created Katrina - with global warming - and didn't help New Orleans - because of the blacks - all the while bombing levies to worsen the flood...
and Bush uses torture on innocent terrorists, spies domestically, never served in the National Guard...
Rush could do this ya know...
Abe_Jefferson sez: Does
July 21, 2008 - 09:56 ET by DontFeedTheTrollsAbe_Jefferson sez:
Does anyone else see the insanity of your political ideology determining what's true or not about science?
Pot, meet kettle.
D
Keep the ILLEGALS out, join NumbersUSA to send free faxes to your reps.
Sorry. My science
July 21, 2008 - 11:09 ET by danboSorry. My science determined my ideology. Rather than my ideology determining my science.
Maybe that's Abe's confession. He's supposed to be "honest". He must be telling us his ideology determined his science.
Really this former lib heard the AGW BS. I knew a few things about it that didn't make sense. Looked deeper and also at other liberal assumptions and became a conservative. That's my confession.
Thank you Gavin, James and Al for making me a conservative.
Limited Disclosure: I used to belong to the Sierra Club untill they went crazier. Worse of all, I was bribed by Exxon with free New Orleans Saints glasses with fill ups in the 70's.
Hey Don't, Huh???
July 21, 2008 - 17:36 ET by Abe_Jefferson"Pot, meet kettle." I don't (excuse the pun) know what that means in reference to my statement you quoted. Do you?
Do you or anyone else agree that if you're a conservative you must not believe in GW and if you're a liberal you must believe in GW, simply because you're a liberal or a conservative?
→ Abe
July 21, 2008 - 17:51 ET by Cool ArrowI have a car that runs on water.
If you are serious about doing something about this AGW, you will buy this car from me (only $50,000).
What's that? You want me to prove to you it runs on water?
I've got a better Idea, I'll put it to a vote here at NewsBusters, and if I can come up with a consensus that my car runs on water, You have to buy my car.
Fair enough?
LYDSEXICS UNTIE
Abe. Most skeptics aren't
July 21, 2008 - 19:56 ET by danboAbe. Most skeptics aren't republicans. Most skeptics aren't even Americans. We're from all over the world. There are people from all continents and likely all countries. This is international. Some are even socialist and communist.
This is not a "warming" web site and many of us are fairly conservative, but far from everyone world wide. If you think this is all about having an R or a D by you're name you've been listening to too many libs. Hang around and hear what others say. PT lists the names of lots of skeptical scientist.
As I said before. AGW and my skepticism brought me to conservativeism. Not the other way around.
BTW I consider myself an athiest. If I'm able to question the existence of god. What chance does Al, James and Gavin have? And when I question Al, James and Gavin. I find them wanting.
We've also see a lot of games and setups. Unfortunately. But if you're really curious. Hang around.
Limited Disclosure: I used to belong to the Sierra Club untill they went crazier. Worse of all, I was bribed by Exxon with free New Orleans Saints glasses with fill ups in the 70's.
I am criticizing Al Gore because he is a hypocrite and a liar
July 21, 2008 - 11:38 ET by PopularTechAl Gore and Global Warming - Is He a Hypocrite? (Video) (10min)
Al Gore's Gulfstream (Video) (7min)
Al Gore, Environmentalist and Zinc Miner (The Wall Street Journal)
- Environmentalist Gore allowed zinc mine (USA Today)
- Zero on Zinc: The mining double standard (National Review Online)
Al Gore, polluter? (WorldNetDaily)
Al Gore Refuses to Take Personal Energy Ethics Pledge (US Senate Environment & Public Works Committee)
Al Gore: Occidental Petroleum Connections (The Wall Street Journal)
Al Gore: The Other Oil Candidate (CorpWatch)
Al Gore's Inconvenient Stock Portfolio Exposed (PR Newswire)
Al Gore's Inconvenient Toxic Waste Dump (NewsMax)
Bush's Ranch House 'Far More Eco-Friendly' Than Gore's (CNSNews)
- George W. Bush's eco-friendly ranch compared to Al Gore's energy-expending mansion = True (Snopes)
Gore’s Entourage Lincoln Town Car Outside Global Warming Speech Idles w/ AC Cranking for 20 Minutes! (Canada Free Press)
Eco-warrior Al Gore serves up endangered fish at daughter's party (Daily Mail, UK)
Gore home's energy use: 20 times average (WorldNetDaily)
- Al Gore's Inconvenient Electric Bill (FOX News)
- Al Gore's residence uses considerably more energy than the average American home = True (Snopes)
Gore’s personal electricity consumption up 10%, despite "energy-efficient" home renovations (Tennesse Center for Policy Research)
- Al Gore's Epic Hypocrisy (FOX News)
- Gore's Mansion Uses More Energy After 'Going Green' (CNSNews)
Gore isn't quite as green as he's led the world to believe (USA Today)
Gore's Oil Money (The Nation)
Hypocrite Gore Should Practice What He Preaches (The Tech, MIT)
Integrity in the Balance: Al Gore's Record On the Environment (CorpWatch)
Meet the real Al Gore (WorldNetDaily)
Old-Growth Timber used to Rebuild the Veranda of the Vice Presidential Mansion (Newsweek)
Whose Ox Is Gored? The Former Vice President's Environmental Exaggerations and Hypocrisy (The Wall Street Journal)
Gore's "Science" was debunked in a UK Court and Peer-Reviewed Journals:
Debunked By Peer Review:
An Inconvenient Truth : a focus on its portrayal of the hydrologic cycle (David R. Legates, GeoJournal, Volume 70, Number 1, September 2007)
An Inconvenient Truth : blurring the lines between science and science fiction (Roy W. Spencer, GeoJournal, Volume 70, Number 1, September 2007)
Errors:
Al Gore's climate change film 'is propaganda' (The Daily Telegraph, UK)
UK Court finds 9 Inaccuracies in Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth (The New Party, UK)
- Al Gore's Convenient Untruths (FOX News)
- Al Gore's 'nine Inconvenient Untruths' (The Daily Telegraph, UK)
- Al Gore told there are nine inconvenient truths in his film (The Times, UK)
- An Inconvenient Lie (WorldNetDaily)
- Gore caught lying (WorldNetDaily)
- Gore’s Nine Lies (FrontPage Magazine)
- Judge attacks nine errors in Al Gore's 'alarmist' climate change film (Daily Mail, UK)
- Judge says Al Gore film has serious scientific inaccuracies (The Earth Times)
Schools must warn of Gore climate film bias (Daily Mail, UK)
- British Schools Ordered to Offer 'Balance' When Showing Al Gore's Global Warming Film (FOX News)
- So how did An Inconvenient Truth become required classroom viewing? (National Post, Canada)
- Propaganda-driven kids attack think tank (WorldNetDaily)
35 Inconvenient Truths: The errors in Al Gore’s movie (Science & Public Policy Institute)
25 Inconvenient Truths for Al Gore (The National Review Online)
20 More inaccuracies (PDF) (UKPRwire)
16 Errors in Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth (Science & Public Policy Institute)
8 Questions for Al Gore (Roy Spencer, Ph.D. Meteorology)
6 Inconvenient Truths Indeed (Robert C. Balling Jr., Ph.D. Professor of Climatology)
75 Falsehoods in Gore's An Inconvenient Truth (Book) (Wm. Robert Johnston, B.A. Astronomy, M.S. Physics)
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
Abe
July 21, 2008 - 11:39 ET by Noel SheppardAbe,
You claim in your bio section to be on the right, yet you come here and belittle conservatives. Could you explain that?
Taking this a step further, can you explain how you so poorly misinterpreted this article? This piece was about Brokaw not questioning Gore about his investments NOT a castigation of Gore having them. How did you miss this?
Let's understand that media are typically VERY antagonistic towards wealthy investors -- unless, of course, they're liberal. In this case, Gore has admitted to having a HUGE financial stake in technologies that he wants ALL electric utility companies to convert to.
Wouldn't it be appropriate for journalists to ask him about this? After all, for almost six years, we've been told that the reason we're in Iraq is because of Cheney's ties to Halliburton, and Bush's ties to Big Oil. Correct?
Yet, now we have a former Vice President, that has ADMITTED IN PUBLIC that he has investments in various renewable energy companies. He's traveling the world advocating everyone to get off fossil fuels and EXCLUSIVELY use renewable fuels. And he will make AN ASTOUNDING amount of money if nations accede to his request.
Isn't that newsworthy? Or, does the mere suggestion make me a looney rightwinger?
I await your response with great eagerness. ns
Noel, Thanks for asking....
July 21, 2008 - 18:42 ET by Abe_Jefferson"You claim in your bio section to be on the right, yet you come here and belittle conservatives. Could you explain that?" That claim in my bio is a play on the word "right" and sarcasm. I was using right to mean correct while realizing it sounds like I'm right in my politics. The sarcasm is in the common tendency of people believing they're always correct. Actually I am conservative in many of my political opinions. I've just been kept so busy pointing out nonsense and falsehoods here on NB, I haven't had a chance to express my conservative side or express agreement with just criticism of Democrats/liberals. For example, I'm right on board w/ calling Gore a hypocrite with his "Do as I say, not as I do.". I do not belittle conservatives for their conservativism, but if you feel the need not to believe in GW just because you're conservative you deserve belittling. Those are the ones I was referring to as the looney right.
What outrages me is that the ideology of Wm F Buckley, Barry Goldwater, and Ronald Reagan has been degenerated and deformed by some of the most dishonest, idiotic, ridiculous, self obsessed propogandists such as Rush, Coulter, O'Reilly, Hannity,and their ilk. Conservatives have made these idiots the spokespeople for an ideology that I believe in many many ways is good for America. Don't even get me started about Bush/Cheney and the religious right.
Abe
July 21, 2008 - 18:47 ET by Noel SheppardAbe,
Well, thank you for that. However, might you actually answer some of the questions I asked? Assuming the answer is "Yes," here's another one: is it your contention that the reason folks like me don't believe anthropogenic CO2 is warming the planet is our political leaning and NOT an understanding of the science involved?
Once again, I await your next utterance -- hopefully this time replete with answers to my questions, mind you! -- with great eagerness. ns
Noel...
July 21, 2008 - 19:33 ET by Abe_JeffersonIf your opinion on GW is based on science and not the need to believe one way or the other based on your ideology, fine. You're not a looney right winger for that any more than you're a looney right winger for rightly & justly pointing out Gore's investments/soliciting investments in sources of alternative energy.
No, I did not miss the point of the article nor misrepresent it. My comment was directed at the criticism of Gore for putting his money where his mouth is. Yes, I agree Brokaw bringing up Gore's investments would be appropriate.
You are incorrect in stating that we've been told the (as in only) reason we're in Iraq is because of Cheney's ties to Haliburton. Yes, we been told it's one of the reasons and some may have expressed that's the only reason., But we've been told many different reasons. The Bush administration has changed the reasons. As for me, the benefit of the no bid multi-billion contract to Cheney's former company and cronies is more than a convenient coincidence. But I don't think it's the reason we're in Iraq.
Does that answer your questions? Any more?
Abe
July 21, 2008 - 19:44 ET by Noel SheppardAbe,
"My comment was directed at the criticism of Gore for putting his money where his mouth is."
Please show me where in this piece I criticized Gore for his investments. Do so with direct quotes. ns
Noel, My criticism was not directed at you.
July 21, 2008 - 22:34 ET by Abe_JeffersonNoel, My criticism you refer to was not directed at you but others who criticized Gore for investing in what he supports and believes in.
Abe_ ;algore is positioning himself to make a KILLING on the
July 21, 2008 - 22:55 ET by upcountrywatercarbon tax.. By passing laws to make it illegal NOT to buy his products..
Is that your idea of the free enterprise system?
Liberals62%
IranianUranium
Science does not support AGW
July 21, 2008 - 20:05 ET by PopularTechMan-Made CO2 driving climate change is not supported by the science without using irrelevant computer models while catastrophe is only supported by alarmists like Al Gore.
You have a large scale of positions scientists take on the issue but when you actually investigate the far majority of positions you find even those who believe man-made CO2 has contributed to some warming they do not believe in catastrophe nor that CO2 is a climate driver. This position is then distorted by the alarmists to pro-catastrophe vs. "denialists" positions.
The Global Warming Skeptic's Guide:
20/20: Give Me a Break: Global Warming (Video) (8min)
Don't Believe the Hype (Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Meteorology, MIT)
The Case for Skepticism on Global Warming (Michael Crichton, A.B. Anthropology, M.D. Harvard)
Climate chaos? Don't believe it (Christopher Monckton, The Daily Telegraph, UK)
Climate Science: Climate Change and Its Impacts (PDF) (David R. Legates, Ph.D. Climatology)
Is the Sky Really Falling? A Review of Recent Global Warming Scare Stories (PDF) (Patrick J. Michaels, Ph.D. Ecological Climatology)
Nature, Not Human Activity, Rules the Climate (PDF) (S. Fred Singer, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Environmental Sciences)
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
Pop Tech...
July 21, 2008 - 20:13 ET by Clear thinkerPlease check your PM.
45 Communist Goals for America http://www.nationmakers.com/com_goals.htm
PT Looks like I got banned.
July 21, 2008 - 20:47 ET by danboPT Looks like I got banned. (Someone tell me if one of my last 3 post ever appear. )
I was curious if you were still in. But get to CT 1st.
Limited Disclosure: I used to belong to the Sierra Club untill they went crazier. Worse of all, I was bribed by Exxon with free New Orleans Saints glasses with fill ups in the 70's.
All 3 of my last posts were deleted at RealClimate
July 21, 2008 - 21:20 ET by PopularTechIt is the only way they can win an argument by pretending we don't respond.
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
I only got one of 4
July 21, 2008 - 21:45 ET by danboI only got one of 4 through. The 1st one. They didn't even allow me to respond to the lecture we got from the the Swiss woman. I thought I was rather restrained.
I have to be honest. Next time one of Gavin's flower children starts lecturing us and singing the prase of Gavin and RealScaredClimatologist. I will likely have to pointout that their guru is affraid to let me speak. And if he's affraid of me a very small fry, what will he do when the big guns show up.
I guess the reason he thinks everyone agrees with him, he's affraid to go around people who disagree or let them speak.
Limited Disclosure: I used to belong to the Sierra Club untill they went crazier. Worse of all, I was bribed by Exxon with free New Orleans Saints glasses with fill ups in the 70's.
well, danbo
July 21, 2008 - 21:51 ET by BlondeHe's afraid of you because you're smarter than he is. Just like Al Gore.
They're only used to sheeple bleating.
And they can't stand the big hound dogs.
P.S. I got "Blue Planet...Living Seas" this weekend. Totally awesome on the plasma monster. The striped marlin & sailfish "balling" the bait (in almost real size) is just amazing. The Coral Sea episode was insane...they had a time lapse of coral growing that must have taken two years. Best $40 bucks I've ever spent, I think.
David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive
Hey girl How ya
July 21, 2008 - 22:39 ET by danboHey girl How ya doin?
Really. This is his arena. He should know more than little ole me. But that doesn't mean I'm a dodo or that I'm gonna just agree to a simplistic answer or one where I know he's full of brown matter.
One of the post was someone giving a list of scientist and asking for an investigation on them and what their angle was. Apparently my response that their angle might be science and a careing for humanity wasn't appropriate. However there were several post approved calling them major denialist, crazy etc. (Like Dr Vincent Grey(someone I respect.)) Lying by calling themselves experts. I actually came away from ReallyScaredClimatologist thinking that Tim Lamberts Deltoid was a step above them.
BTW How's the water down there. Julie and I are hoping to do some diving in the keys next month. And maybe dive in Disneys tank in Epcot in December. I bet the movies great. Coral in this area is small and restricted to wrecks, old bridge rubble etc. Sand bottom.
Limited Disclosure: I used to belong to the Sierra Club untill they went crazier. Worse of all, I was bribed by Exxon with free New Orleans Saints glasses with fill ups in the 70's.
and about 15 of my recent
July 21, 2008 - 21:29 ET by TruthMongerand about 15 of my recent posts on religion were deleted from NB!
coincidence?
hmmm...
July 21, 2008 - 03:16 ET by winston smithYou make a poor argument abe. After you carry on about the "looney" right you make this statement:
" I confess I'm just like all the other users of NB's I don't know if GW exists for sure,"
By your own words, GW as we know it may not actually exist at all. And if it can be proved that it doesn't, your "looney right" isn't so looney after all, is it?
If you're truly an honest skeptic you will look at *ALL* the data and research --- not just the ones that jibe with your political ideology. There's plenty of good, contrary, anti-warmist science out there. Read some and then maybe you'll begin to understand why many of us believe the media and parts of the government are helping Al Gore perpetuate an immense hoax.
How may viewers can Tom lose?
July 21, 2008 - 07:39 ET by Red JeepA whopping 1% of the public watched MTP a week ago Sunday, 3,242,000, according to mediabistro.com which was more than the other Sunday talk shows, but Russert used to get 4 million. Maybe if Tom keeps up he can get that 3 mill down to 2 mill, by only asking softball questions.
Economic Suicide pact . A
July 21, 2008 - 07:55 ET by danboEconomic Suicide pact . A warning from the EU.
Limited Disclosure: I used to belong to the Sierra Club untill they went crazier. Worse of all, I was bribed by Exxon with free New Orleans Saints glasses with fill ups in the 70's.
isn't there something just slightly unethical or even illegal
July 21, 2008 - 09:14 ET by lunaticcringeradioconsidering al gores investments and holdings and his political influence and the actions he's taking to force government into "green" products and ideas, for him to make profit off of the fear mongering he's pushing about global warming, doesn't that just hint a tiny amount of unethical practices. of course i'm joking, isn't that illegal as hell?
i mean if tabacco companies can be sued for their products being advertized and people freely choosing to buy the product that harms them, why can't al gore be prosecuted for falsely misleading the global population to better his bankroll.
lunaticcringeradio
Here are some other rather
July 21, 2008 - 13:23 ET by dscottHere are some other rather obvious questions that an informed interviewer should have been asked of Al Gore by Tom Brokaw instead of giving Al Gore a platform for promoting a plan to enrich himself at the taxpayer's expense:
Since solar power is only available for 4 hours a day, how do you propose to supply the other 20 hours?
Since wind power is unpredictably intermittent and can be counted on for only 40% of the time, what do you propose to do the other 60% of the time?
For every MegaWatt of wind power you must have an equal amount in standby capacity. How can wind power be competitive if you have to have 100% back up power from a conventional power plant?
Given the unreliability of wind and narrow power generation window of solar, why bother with their extra costs when all of it has to have a duplicate conventional power station to back it up??
Current technology geothermal is 5 cents/kwhr (versus 2.21 cents for coal), however the first cost (installed cost) is $2,500 per kw versus $1600 per kw for a coal plant. If geothermal was so cost effective why haven't the electric companies done this years ago???
http://www1.eere.energy.gov/geothermal/faqs.html
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf02.html
-----
Given the current economics that geothermal is only cost competitive for peak power utilization for less than half the day, it's usefulness would be only for giving relief to the customers of natural gas to minimize the competition for this resource which would make this the only one of the alternate energy options even remotely viable. Geothermal would if allowed to displace natural gas fired generators lower the cost of natural gas to homeowners and general industry. IMO, while natural gas fired generators are the cheapest first cost to install at $711/kw, they make most expensive electricity and what's worse make homeowners and general industry compete for a limited natural resourse causing an unnecessary cost of living increase. Yes, you can blame the regulators and Dems for the price of natural gas since it was their policies that insisted utilities use the wrong fuel source for the wrong application. This is what government energy policy does for the country, thanks Chuck Schumer for your stupidity. Now can we get back to the consumers and electric companies making the decisions instead of you meddling know-it-all idiots in government???
Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, starving the poor one gallon of ethanol at a time. Fill your tank with E85 and cull a village.