I don't see the Clintons and Gores working together. If Hillary can't get us out of Iraq or escalates war in the Mideast and looks shaky for 2012, (can't you see the slogan "2012 - 12 years of Clintons is enough") Hillary is going to be caught between the wrath of the left and the wrath of the right and Gore is still waiting in the wings.

The "inconvenient truth" that matters about Bush is that he frittered away 7 years doing nothing as the leader of the free world towards combatting global climate change. He went so far as to loudly declare repeatedly that global warming was just a poorly supported theory that he didn't even believe in.

Very few people are in a position to make globally significant moves that may at least delay global warming. One of those is the US President. Given that golden opportunity to make a difference, Bush preferred to defer to the polluting industries.

That's the inconvenient truth.

Hoppy in Sacramento

The "inconvenient truth" that matters about Bush is that he frittered away 7 years doing nothing as the leader of the free world towards combatting global climate change.

unless things have radically changed, the Koyoto nations have been in Bush's boat longer. i.e. None of the signer nations, as far as I know, have come close to meeting their targets; Economic growth trumped environmental restraint.

in his movie, Al Gore talks about "celebrating victories that really aren't victories" and, as far as I can tell, Kyoto is one of those celebrations.

Al Gore is also on the board of Apple Computer, and what a dismal environmental record they have!

FOR EXAMPLE:

Steve Jobs defended his company's environmental practices during the annual shareholder meeting, but also took time to reflect on market share and the Mac maker's transition to Intel chips. (source)

AND:

Apple may produce top-of-the line computers and electronics, but its environmental practices are less than stellar. Apple has consistently lagged behind competitors, particularly Hewlett-Packard and Dell, in environmental programs (source)

so Gore's PR machine, as usual, hides the reality that Gore is "show me the money" Gore because, at Apple, he had the opportunity to push for positive environmental change but didn't. And, as VP, he also failed to act.

To boldly go...

A person with the demonstrated virtue of Al Gore doesn't need me to defend him. But just in case some uninformed person might be mislead by mcs's posts:

1. Apple's environmental record is as good as or better than any other major US electronic manufacturer's. Some environmentalist groups have produced biased studies purporting to show that Dell or HP is better, but those studies amount to unsupported claims that "We think pollutant X is worse than pollutant Y."

2. The right-wing smears about Gore's house have been abundantly refuted.

The "average" home electricity use quoted by TCPR is a national average that includes apartments and mobile homes. In Gore's climatic zone, the East South Central (Dept. of Energy PDF), the average is much higher, thanks to hot, humid summers and cold winters. Within that zone, Gore's usage is three (not 20) times average, and his per-square-foot usage is squarely average.

The Gores are not an average family. He's an ex-VP with special security arrangements, and has live-in security staff. He and his wife both work on their many business and charitable undertakings out of their house, so they have space for offices and office staff. All that would be tough to cram in an average size house.

Gore buys the maximum allowable green electricity from the program offered by his utility.
Most of the electricity in TN comes from hydro and nuclear, and so doesn't generate all that much CO2 anyway,

Moreover, Gore buys carbon credits to offset his carbon use. Can you show any evidence of Bush doing the same thing?

First, Hillary Clinton will not be President of the United States, but if she were, you'd have to be crazy to think she would ever do anything about climate change. Hillary's purpose is to secure her place in history and satisfy her own ego and that is where it ends.

The impact of Gore's Nobel win isn't about whether he will run for President. The impact comes from the tremendous pressure his win puts on whoever becomes President to actually do something. I think it's great because everything else is but so much wasted energy if we don't reverse global warming. Gore has been right all along and all of the rest of them have been wrong. This prize shames the entire American political system. Perhaps it will have heaped enough shame on the American system to actually cause them to act responsibly and quickly to save the earth.

We don't NEED a franchise, we need the car
companies to kick out efficient equipment.
Stripped down, take 3/4 of that electronic
crap out, you're not trying to do the 1/4 mile,
you're trying to get to work etc. all week
without going broke. Can they do that, or do
we have to build our own cars etc? It can
be done, there's tons and tons of aftermarket
stuff on the shelves...they can go on strike
or whatever...I'm glad that some of these companies got out of the real estate business,
though. They can use the money saved to install
robotic production systems.

This is the kind of idle and pointless speculation that clutters and obscures the facts. This is gossip, ugly and without any purpose other than to pretend the self-important writer has some sort of "insider" status and actually knows something.

"Gore isn't the easiest guy to work with?" How would you know that? All of the evidence points to exactly the opposite of that and yet you type it as though you know it for a fact. "Some backers were concerned...that there would eventually be a feud..." so what if they did? It doesn't make it a fact, and it obviously didn't happen because Gore was there but the writer just can't pass by the opportunity to sling a little mud on Gore and the Clintons.

Gore couldn't just win the Nobel Peace Prize because he deserves it, there has to be some "cynical" motive, some dread storm cloud on the horizon, a feud waiting to explode, an "it's all going to end in tears" prediction because the jealous little pricks in the news media just can't stand for something good to happen to someone else.

CFL? Chloro-fluorocarbons?

Gore pays for electric-power offsets. Yeah, he could do more, and I hear that is planned.

The CO2 not emitted by Bush's house is overwhelmed by that emitted by the military's M1 tanks, helicopters, and Humvees.

I'll give Bush credit for some reduction from expected oil consumption due to war-caused price hikes. But he gets no envirnomental credit overall, since under his watch, the Cheney Energy Task Force emphasized more oil and gas production, at the same time the EPA was inhibited from reporting the risks associated with that, and from enforcing New Source Review on coal power plants.

So, who cares about Bush's house?

Apple's environmental record is as good as or better than any other major US electronic manufacturer's.

well, where's the proof? the only thing I see-- over and over again, is Apple fighting environmental standards; they're surely getting tips from Gore on how to lobby their side.

unfortunately, even if Apple is better, they're still pretty bad.

Within that zone, Gore's usage is three (not 20) times average, and his per-square-foot usage is squarely average.

Looks like enronish numbers to me. A 20 room mansion is excessive by any stretch of the imagination. And, because you show that he's an energy pig, if he had the courage to reduce his energy use, he'd make a big impact regionally, nationally and globally!

Moreover, Gore buys carbon credits to offset his carbon use. Can you show any evidence of Bush doing the same thing?

I'm not sure that "carbon credits" have been effective. My litmus test would be that Gore cuts his consumption. Kyoto has been a failure since everyone thinks that they're an exception like Gore and they can greenwash their pollution away with "carbon credits" and other enronish green tricks. Gore has made millions off apple and google stock and is probably more than happy to fork over pocket change for "carbon credits" so he can continue to consume whatever he wishes.

As far as I can tell, Gore is a hoax.

To boldly go...

CFL = Compact Fluorescent Light bulbs They require something like twenty five percent of the energy for the same light output as an incandesant bulb.

Bush in not all that concerned about man made climate change unlike Gore who maintains that drastic changes must be made within the next ten years to avoid catastrophic climate change. So it is a bit unfair to criticize Bush for hypocracy compared to Gore who engages in conspicuous consumption.

House #1 is a picture of the Gore farm and not the house where the bogus energy figures were supposedly taken.

House #2 is a picture of a guest house on the Bush ranch for which no billable hours were given for the house, the guest houses, the ten trailers housing staff or the heated swimming pool.

It is extremely important to understand what is causing climate change if the solution to man make global warming is an economy crippling reduction in energy use. If climate change is a natural phenomenon, better to allow economies to grow and use the additional resources for damage mitigation.

I didn't say it was not important to find the cause of climate change, I said it is unimportant as to who or what is the cause in mitigating the damages. Whether it is caused by industrialization or by natural phenomenon, we can still do what is possible to avert disaster - we should be like paramedics at a car crash - our job is to treat the most injured, regardless of who is at fault.

No, the photo is a picture of Gore's farm, not his house in Belle Meade. What this poster is describing is a fraudulent e-mail that makes the rounds with two photos of houses, neither of which fit the description.

The photo that accompanies the second description is of the old house that stands on the Bush property, is currently used as a guest house and has been replaced with a house built of limestone and glass, along with a new guest house and swimming pool.

Gore was a terrible candidate.

Why, because the MSM said so?

ecotourism
WeGoEco.com

Even the figures given for the Belle Meade house are deliberately misleading - Al Gore couldn't use 150,00 kilowatt hours if he was milling aluminum in the basement.

Clemons: But at the same time, Gore knows he needs a strategic, capable thinker who can push forward hard-to-digest legislative imperatives in the White House -- and if he's not in favor with Hillary Clinton (if she's got the keys to 1600), then his efforts are going to significantly suffer ... Hillary Clinton, if elected, is going to need [Gore's] approval and support, though it's going to be painful for her to ask for it. Gore's not the easiest guy in the world to work with.

Thank you for redefining Clinton Pap Smear.

It's Clinton who demands media and political servitude but it's Gore who isn't easy to "work with" because Clinton may need to "ask" approval?

Pap: Clinton the all powerful will shove you under a bus if you don't play on her terms according to her rules.

Smear: Gore doesn't play well with others.

Excuse us for saying, but I can think of a dozen officeholders and a few candidates not initialed HRC who better fit the description of "strategic, capable thinkers who can push forward hard-to-digest legislative imperatives in the White House" and at least 1 Nobel laureate who could shepherd difficult legislation through Congress and initiate substantive global climate initiatives that aren't mere totems to Clinton hubris.

However, we've no doubt Clinton could deliver a bed of heads should Gore refuse to play, just as the Clinton machine may have assisted Bush/GOP media efforts to sabotage Democratic nominees viz. Gore 2000, Kerry 2004, in quid pro quo for Hillary 2008.

Which is precisely why Gore should run.

As America's first Nobel POTUS, Gore would credibly reassert US legitimacy as a global leader on climate change.

As America's first Nobel POTUS, Gore could expedite multilateral cooperation toward the development of incrementalized, more realistic protocols that would achieve attainable, sustainable results sooner than later.

As America's first Nobel POTUS, Gore will stimulate business/job growth in emerging need sectors for resource and energy efficiency where the US still maintains technological and scientific preeminence.

As America's first Nobel POTUS, Gore would reemphasize science education at all levels of learning to maintain US competitiveness in global markets & a global labor force.

As America's first Nobel POTUS, Gore increases US leverage in any matter of diplomacy, conflict resolution or crisis.

As America's popularly elected President in 2000 and America's first Nobel laureate cum qualified, experienced Vice President, many Americans might feel shamed, even ashamed, if they didn't cast their next vote for Gore.

Hence, the Clinton-inspired suggestion Gore could do more by not "soiling himself" with public office is casuistry of the silliest, most risible order, clumsily transparent on face and substance.

POTUS is still the most powerful executive office in the world.

Who better than a Nobel laureate to lead honorably, effectively & judiciously wielding the power of such office?

She murdered Vince Foster too - she and Bill rolled him up in the oriental rug, put him in the trunk of the car and drove to the park where they dumped the body and skedaddled back to Alibiville.

You have to remember....Steve's entrenched in the beltway. That's what the Village Elders have all said therefore, that's what Steve Clements must propagate.

Which is why the major criticism of his campaign was that he distanced himself too much from the Clintons, was too populist, was too ambitious, was not ambitious enough, was too formal, wasn't formal enough, wore three button suits, wore khakis and polo shirts, listened to focus groups, didn't listen to focus groups, made an enemy of the DLC, was in the pocket of the DLC and yet managed to WIN the election - go figure.

It is indeed important to determine the cause of climate change in order to mitigate the damage.

If the cause of climate change is release of greenhouse gasses by human activity, future damage may be prevented by devoting resources to reducing emissions. If climate change is a natural cycle that humans do not have the ability to change, resources would be better dedicated to mitigating the effects of global warming as they occur over the next century.

Even if the cause of climate change is human activity, it is important to trade off the cost of prevention vs. the cost of adapting to climate change.

If Gore was as terrible a candidate as you say, I don't think he would have won the popular vote. But he did.

My problem with Hillary is with Hillary, not her husband, not her clothes, not her style, her policy decisions. Starting with the AUMF and all the way down to the Kyle/Lieberman resolution, wherein, for the first time I can remember, the Congress charged that a part of a sovereign country's armed forces was a terrorist organization. This unprecedented move, the way it's worded, I believe could easily be contrued on its face as giving the Commander in Chief the authority to take military actions against Iran. Will Hillary once again say she didn't know the gun was loaded if Bush uses her blank check to attack? I've also heard more protest from Al Gore about stripping this society of civil liberties and not exercising their oversight responsibility than I've heard from a sitting US Senator! Why? If Hillary was such a leader, why hasn't she shown herself to be all that decisive a leader in the Senate? I have a funny feeling that Hillary has been way too much involved with the corporations, as in perhaps bought and paid for. For whatever her reasons, she is far too calculating and triangulating, and I think she would find reasons not to vote for some things that would make me very unhappy.

I'm also not sure she would relinguish any of the power that was illegally grabbed in the Bush administration. I'm not so sure that she wouldn't grab for further power if she got the opening. In short, I don't trust her, even though I want to, because my gut tells me different. I don't feel that way about Gore.

Isn't that what I just said? It doesn't matter who or what is to blame, it is important to mitigate damages as far as possible. One way to mitigate damages is to reduce greenhouse gases caused by human activity. Whether it is causing climate change, is beside the point - it is contributing to it, and we can control that aspect of climate change. (Among other methods of mitigating damages.)

"How ya gonna keep 'em down on the farm now that they've seen Paree!"

The man was VP; do you really think he'd accept those positions, or, for that matter, that he needs a day job at all? No way! He'll just remain a private citizens of the world, thank you very much, if he really doesn't run himself. Although, he might accept having veto rights or rights to recommend for those positions.

If you can find anywhere in any of my posts for the last several years that I have been a member here, where I said anything remotely like that I'll send a check to Al Gore's foundation in your name. Since you can't I'll continue to think you've lost it.

IIRC-- it's been months since I looked it over, of course-- they were attempting to work backward from his bill at the standard rate, without accounting for the premium he pays (60%, maybe- ?) for green power. So yeah, even if they were attempting to be honest, which is a laughable concept for that crowd, the numbers would have been way off.

He actually could be somewhat difficult to work with, at least by Beltway standards... people who are thoughtful & methodical, who want to really work through issues, seem to belong to the civil-service class there (or anywhere; I deal with state government & it happens there too) if anything, not leadership positions. I imagine that an exacting, big-picture boss probably is a nightmare for a lot of political appointees who mostly want to get something palatable out there in front of whoever happens to count most.

Of course, I happen to not mind a tough boss if s/he is principled & really pretty extraordinary in the vision department. I've never heard anyone say that Gore is unfair-- just that he's very internally driven, somewhat inscrutable, and [depending on the source] can seem a bit moody at times.

the president will always own the franchise

If that's true then kiss the republic goodbye and welcome the presidential kingdom. Hail Caesar.

Her Lieberman vote was the last straw for me. Why she's even soft on Social Security!

Gore was part of Apple's and Google's boards. It's not like he needs to work, etc...

To boldly go...

The CO2 not emitted by Bush's house is overwhelmed by that emitted by the military's M1 tanks, helicopters, and Humvees.

Bill Clinton enforced the UN sanctions, etc... and Hillary Clinton won't promise to leave Iraq by 2012... So what's your point?

To boldly go...

So yeah, Gore's doing a helluva lot better than I am overall, and I say good for him.

if both drivers are drunk, it's not OK to let the one who drank less drive! you both need to clean up your acts! For the good of the planet!

To boldly go...

Bush is not exhibiting hypocrisy, true. He's consistently unconcerned about environmental issues. I didn't accuse Bush of hypocrisy, just pointed out the effects of his tenure.

Bush is the one that gave the order to invade. He is the one that is promoting continued exploration and production of oil and coal. He is the one that ordered the EPA to pull the plug on legislated programs such as New Source Review. He has done a lot of planetary damage, both through action and inaction.

By comparison, Gore is not living as small as he should. Call me unconvinced this matters a damn. It is not what one of us does that matters (other than presidents). It's what we decide to do as a nation.

Rather like taxation, where if one person countributes more than the legal obligation, he's a chump. But if we all agree to bump it up a bit, no one person is a chump, and we're all in it together.

Well for one, it's a double-bang supposition without precedent (Nobel laureate as president elect). However, if Gore is the leader we suggest, countries won't so much sacrifice at our behest but cooperate based on the evidence and adapt locally to our example.

Steve Clemons's article treats climate change as if it were a cheesburger to be marketed. His article is a paradigm for what's wrong with the political system - but i's also what's wrong with human society as well so the outlook is gloomy. If a large asteroid were en route to Earth and would collide with it in, say, 30 years, then I think Clemons wouldn't be talking about Ray Kroc. The only difference is the time scale - but that's what makes climate change such a difficult problem. Through evolution humans are hard wired to act selfishly and accrue resources at the expense of others. Only imminent disaster seems to have the necessary galvanizing effect.

All this talk of acting locally and about Gore's house is moot; what will likely happen is that there will be a progression of disasters that will radically affect how humans act on the planet - nations re-arranged, resource wars etc. It's not only climate change - all of the important resources on the planet would still be stressed, even in the absence of global warming, given the expansion and industrialization of China and India. What will finally emerge is unknowable but will probably be bad. That's how humans have typically acted historically. After all, if we are now a global village then the large wars we have seen in the past are bound to be repeated on a truly global scale.

I doubt that this can be avoided, but it can't be avoided by switching to energy-efficient lightbulbs.

Banning private ownership of cars within the next decade - and globally - might be a start. But what chance does that have!

Of course we could follow your advice, spend the next twenty years trying to find someone to blame, through endless committee meetings, political conventions, science seminars and studying the Armaggedon time line, and watch you throw your hands up in surrender and claim "there's not enough proof!, there's not enough proof!"

Are you joking? I've done science and know that it's easy to "fall in love" with an "invalid model."

People agree that "global warming exits" but that's different than "knowing how to solve it."

To boldly go...

Hmm, okay, I'll take your advice when...

actually, I won't, although I'll certainly give Gore my attention as long as he asks for it. No point in rotting the ol' frontal lobe by excessive exposure to wingers.

Steve Clemons' article treats climate change as if it were a cheeseburger to be marketed.

Some cheeseburger!

news report:
Global warming may lead to war

Washington-16/04/2007 -- Global warming poses a "serious threat to America's national security" with terrorism worsening and the US will likely be dragged into fights over water and other shortages, top retired military leaders warn in a new report.

Joining calls already made by scientists and environmental activists, the retired US military leaders, including the former Army chief of staff and President George W Bush's former chief Middle East peace negotiator, called on the US government to make major cuts in emissions of gases that cause global warming.

The report warned that in the next 30 to 40 years there will be wars over water, increased hunger instability from worsening disease and rising sea levels and global warming-induced refugees.

"The chaos that results can be an incubator of civil strife, genocide and the growth of terrorism," the 35-page report predicted.
http://www.news24.com/News24/Technology/News/0,,2-13-1443_2098950,00.html

If anyone asks "why the peace prize?", there's the answer.

ecotourism
WeGoEco.com

Who Will Own the Climate Change Franchise? The Clintons or Al Gore?

Silly question,

Gore has the copyright on the 'Climate Change/Global Warming' issue. :-)

However, at present "behaving badly" in terms of sprawl development, expanding the SUV share of the market, and factory farming have all been ... and in most cases still are ... the recipients of substantial government subsidy.

While it may not be an explicit government policy to consume more energy less efficiently, that has certainly been the behavior rewarded as a side effect of many government policies.

No, because he won the election narrowly rather than by a landslide, and then lost the fight to prevent the election results being reversed by the Florida Secretary of State.

Indeed, he is only one of three Democratic candidates to win a Presidential election since LBJ stood aside (and if he had run again, he probably would have lost) ... and Clinton ran with the benefit of a third party candidate taking more Republican than Democratic support.

Think of John Edwards as president and you have your answer. He just received the endorsement of Friends of the Earth and he won the moveon.org vote on who had the best environmental plan. His good work on the environment gave him good grades from the League of Conservation Voters. Edwards record 
So with Edwards as President, he will implement Gore's ideas and because he is the "labor" president, he will start to bring back manufacturing jobs and stop the pollution caused by shipping all our stuff from China. The big big picture guy is Edwards.

A thing moderately good is not so good as it ought to be. Moderation in temper is always a virtue, but moderation in principle is always a vice." Tom Paine

idlex said:

Sorry, but I stopped believing in global warming about 6 months ago...

Remember how the Reagan crowd used to deny the existance of, and ridicule the fact of, acid rain? The same gang is ridiculing the idea of global warming/climate change.

And I guess the jury is still out on evolution and gravity.

Does the overwhelming agreement among those who study it have anything to do with global warming?

Ironic that when a consensus is reached, that is the signal it must be mistaken. Perhaps a common misunderstanding of process is involved here. Science does not keep changing its mind. It learns stuff that works and moves on, adding to the existing body of knowledge. When a model becomes inadequate, a new one will be found. But we still use Euclid's geometry for surveying land and designing bridges. We still use Newton's mechanics for traveling to other planets. Both are known to be incomplete, but they're fine within their limits. That no one understands quantum mechanics doesn't stop it from being universally admired for its precision and wide application.

So it is absolutely not the case that consensus means something is wrong with the science. 

But there is no consensus.

Of 528 total papers on climate change, only 38 (7%) gave an explicit endorsement of the consensus. If one considers "implicit" endorsement (accepting the consensus without explicit statement), the figure rises to 45%. However, while only 32 papers (6%) reject the consensus outright, the largest category (48%) are neutral papers, refusing to either accept or reject the hypothesis. This is no "consensus."

The figures are even more shocking when one remembers the watered-down definition of consensus here. Not only does it not require supporting that man is the "primary" cause of warming, but it doesn't require any belief or support for "catastrophic" global warming. In fact of all papers published in this period (2004 to February 2007), only a single one makes any reference to climate change leading to catastrophic results.

In genuine science, sceptics are welcomed, because genuine scientists want to find out the truth. By contrast, the devotees of global warming ignore sceptics, and pretend that there are next to none of them. This is dishonest.

Also:

They call this a consensus?

"Only an insignificant fraction of scientists deny the global warming crisis. The time for debate is over. The science is settled."

S o said Al Gore ... in 1992. Amazingly, he made his claims despite much evidence of their falsity. A Gallup poll at the time reported that 53% of scientists actively involved in global climate research did not believe global warming had occurred; 30% weren't sure; and only 17% believed global warming had begun.

"A bit patchy and nothing new" does not equate with "bogus".

It's anyway entirely unsurprising that it's nothing new: there have always been plenty of sceptics around. And that is the principal point that needs to be made. People should understand, whatever they think about the global warming debate, that there are two sides to it.

idlex,

I looked at the sites you refered to, they might as well be American Enterprise Institute or EXXON's home page. You need to get out more often and try to find some objective analysis.

Why the Heritage Foundation? It's easy for me to produce two scientists, however. First, one of the world's foremost meteorologists, Dr William Gray:

"The human impact on the atmosphere is simply too small to have a major effect on global temperatures," Dr Gray said.

He said his beliefs had made him an outsider in popular science.

"It bothers me that my fellow scientists are not speaking out against something they know is wrong," he said. "But they also know that they'd never get any grants if they spoke out. I don't care about grants."

People don't get grants these days if they fail to subscribe to the received global warming wisdom - which is further evidence that it is a dogmatic belief rather than an established scientific fact.

Then there's one-time global warming alarmist, but now sceptic, Claude Allegre:

Dr. Allegre's skepticism is noteworthy in several respects. For one, he is an exalted member of France's political establishment, a friend of former Socialist president Lionel Jospin, and, from 1997 to 2000, his minister of education, research and technology, charged with improving the quality of government research through closer co-operation with France's educational institutions. For another, Dr. Allegre has the highest environmental credentials. The author of early environmental books, he fought successful battles to protect the ozone layer from CFCs and public health from lead pollution. His break with scientific dogma over global warming came at a personal cost: Colleagues in both the governmental and environmental spheres were aghast that he could publicly question the science behind climate change.

But Dr. Allegre had allegiances to more than his socialist and environmental colleagues. He is, above all, a scientist of the first order...

My case is simply that there are sceptics, with the relevant scientific qualifications and experience, who are not persuaded of AGW. Regardless of whether they are right or wrong, there can be no good science if such people are simply shouted down. ANyone who is concerned about doing good science - as opposed to advancing a political cause - will be dismayed at attempts to manufacture consensus.

sounds theorhetically acceptable but Jesus, in the new testament, "came to fulfil the law" that the old testament supposedly laid out.

the problem with policy is that it lags bad behavior and the bigger problem is how to make people aware of bad behavior before policy gets around to dealing with it.

it's not one or the other; apriori (free will) and aposteri (policy) behavior interventions are both necessary.

To boldly go...

Bush is the one that gave the order to invade.

wasn't "regime change" the policy of congress before bush got there?

To boldly go...

The problem of course is what to do about climate change now. Is it sufficient to simply ban incandescent light bulbs or will a serious curtailing of civil liberties be required along with an ugly confrontation with China? These decisions require an assignment of blame for climate change along with an evaluation of the possibility of mitigation of the damage caused by such change, all of which you dismiss out of hand.

Is the Noble peace prize based on scientific merit? I don't think so.

This doesn't sound like a scientific judgment, rather a comment on political skills. In fact I think there are substantial differences between Gore's predictions and the IPCC's.

Here's another climate expert, Christopher Landsea of the Atlantic Oceanographic & Meteorological Laboratory explaining his resignation from the IPCC.

After some prolonged deliberation, I have decided to withdraw from participating in the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). I am withdrawing because I have come to view the part of the IPCC to which my expertise is relevant as having become politicized. In addition, when I have raised my concerns to the IPCC leadership, their response was simply to dismiss my concerns.

What bothered him?

It is beyond me why my colleagues would utilize the media to push an unsupported agenda that recent hurricane activity has been due to global warming. Given Dr. Trenberth's role as the IPCC's Lead Author responsible for preparing the text on hurricanes, his public statements so far outside of current scientific understanding led me to concern that it would be very difficult for the IPCC process to proceed objectively with regards to the assessment on hurricane activity. My view is that when people identify themselves as being associated with the IPCC and then make pronouncements far outside current sc ientific understandings that this will harm the credibility of climate change science and will in the longer term diminish our role in public policy.

In short, the lead author was making stuff up. That would indeed seem to harm the credibility of the IPCC. Landsea ends saying:

I personally cannot in good faith continue to contribute to a process that I view as both being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound.

I'm not surprised.

Everything Al Gore is pushing is the result of scientific judgement as is the reason he won the award.

Robert Brown,

If we follow your line of thinking to its logical conclusion we conclude that no one in any government, anywhere, no one on the Noble Committee, and perhaps no one in the United Nations can offer legitimate commentary on global warming because they're all political people.

because either congress was given a "stand down order" or they were complicit and I think they were complicit especially because of the AIPAC speeches which both democrats and republicans give.

To boldly go...

That's silly.

All political commentary is legitimate but not all commentary contrubutes to science. Intellegent design commentary is largely political and is legitimate but it does not contribute to science.

The intelligent design I am referring to is the hypothesis that some intelligent designer guided evolution of life on earth. From what I have read of it, there is little science involved, largely just political talking points.

I agree that "intelligent design" is as you say but its holding power could be the apriori evolution versus the apostori intelligent design. i.e. as human psychology starts seeing itself as the creator, will evolution become less important or become intermixed with something else?

To boldly go...