Al Gore: "Civil Disobedience Has A Role To Play"

Guardian:

Perhaps the best way to understand the extraordinary transformation of Al Gore is to study the changing rhetoric of his enemies. A mere nine years ago, back when George Bush was just a cheeky rogue with an adorable line in malapropisms, presidential candidate Gore was famously derided as wooden and dull. Having failed to win the presidency - though of course that depends, as ever, on your definition of the word "win" - he next became a pitiable loser, then a laughable climate-change wonk, then the Oscar-winning, peace prize-winning, Live Earth-organising darling of liberal Hollywood. And so it says something hugely flattering about his present-day stature, surely, that the new official anti-Gore line is that he is quite simply evil: an anti-American hypocrite, a supporter of world government, and, like Barack Obama, probably a communist or a fascist or both. A recent documentary about Gore made by Irish global warming denialists, Not Evil Just Wrong, made the mistake of diverging from this stance, prompting fury among parts of its intended audience in the US. Not evil? Get real.

Read the whole story: Guardian

Comments

[JerryAguy]

Just go to Google Earth and put in 312 Lynnwood Blvd. Nashville TN and you can see for yourself theres no massive solar panels or any windmills at all, there are 4 SUV size vehicles there though, They must not fit in the garage.

[OneVoiceInACrowd]

They've been there for 2 years

Do you think google earth gives you real time imagery?

get a grip

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2007/06/al_gore_gets_a.php

http://earth.google.com/support/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=21414

You should also understand that Gores neighborhood did not allow solar panels until 2007, and still do not allow wind mills.

There is no excuse for four SUV's though, unless some of them of from government security, which you know, he gets, don't ya?

[OneVoiceInACrowd]

I guess maybe he does not get SS protection anymore...

now i know..

[JerryAguy]

What an irresponsible man. Anything to further his investments. Tell me are trading credits going to help the average Joe? or a few connected people on Wall St. while our bills go up.

[Publicola]

fumes: "say pub.. re dr knorr:
if we are in agreement that the CO2 content of the a'sphere is about .038%..
and up until knorr's study about 1/3 of that was our fault..
then according to knorr: ''Half of the CO2 we emit stays in the atmosphere­..''
then are we or are we not now talking 1/6th of that total .038% is ours?"

No, Knorr's study in no way revises or challenges the fact that about 1/3 of current atmospheric CO2 is our fault.

Let's take this one step at a time - here's how the description that you cited of Knorr's study begins:

"New data show that the balance between the airborne and the absorbed fraction of CO2 has stayed approximately constant since 1850, despite emissions of CO2 having risen from about 2 billion tons a year in 1850 to 35 billion tons a year now."

You do understand that the "fraction" in this context is the proportion of man-made CO2 that stays in the atmosphere versus what gets absorbed by the Earth, and not an absolute value with respect to CO2 concentration in the atmosphere, right?

Please answer with a 'yes' or a 'no'; if 'no' we'll take a digression into basic math.

[fumes]

ha-ha..
if proportionally we are staying the same then where is it? correctly correcting me supports my argument not yours.. thanks! so where is all this evil CO2 going pub and why isn't the globe commensurately warmer? thanks again!

[Publicola]

You do understand that the "fraction" in this context is the proportion of man-made CO2 that stays in the atmosphere versus what gets absorbed by the Earth, and not an absolute value with respect to CO2 concentration in the atmosphere, right?

Please answer with a 'yes' or a 'no'; thanks.

[Publicola]

< ... crickets ... >

[fumes]

knorr's study found that CO2 was not staying in the atmosphere as was generally accepted and i agree with that part as it explains the missing weight. but then knorr goes on to say that still 50% of our CO2 is enough to cause global warming and there i disagree. .038% of the a'sphere is CO2. 1/3 of that was ostensibly from us until knorr's study came out which claims only half of that 1/3 doesn't stay in the atmosphere but is reabsorbed. so now we're left to believe that 1/6 of the total .038% is our fault and is causing global warming. the stuff is getting more cyanide-like then ever before and that's where i strongly disagree. do you guys really buy that a trace of a trace gas has that much thermal advantage over the climate lol?

[Publicola]

You don't understand what Knorr's study is actually saying. It's not saying that now only "1/6 of the total .038% is our fault" - it says nothing of the kind.

Try reading for comprehension, fumes. When you start to do that then who knows - you may even begin to actually understand global warming science.

[Publicola]

"do you guys really buy that a trace of a trace gas has that much thermal advantage over the climate lol"

According to what you've stated previously fumes, without that CO2 trace gas up there in the atmosphere the Earth would be 33 degrees colder.

* Are you now going back on your own word?

* Or do you still believe that that CO2 trace gas has that much thermal advantage over the climate?

lol.

[fumes]

not my word pub.. i think that that is from wiki @ the CO2 page and is the starting point for the more is better crowd. cold clear nights dispute even that: except for the timely sunrise all heat would be lost!

[Spiky Kitten]

The clearest nights are the coldest nights.

[OneVoiceInACrowd]

Hi Fumes,

And at the south pole, where the sun doesn't shine for months at a time, and is considered to be the driest place on the planet-

Why there, does the lowest temperature not reach the colds felt in space?

world coldest temp on record - lake vostok -90C

What is the coldest temperature on the moon again? - 160C?

I would say that atmosphere does a lot in regulating, for the better of life, the temperature of our climate.

[fumes]

thanks spikeykitt­en..
w/o water vapor around to do the heavy lifting, CO2 and methane have center stage on clear nights and don't appear to form much of a greenhouse effect.. if at all..

[Publicola]

fumes: "not my word pub"

Yes it was your word, fumes - my how quickly you forget.

Here's your exact wording, and the link:

"CO2's RESISTANCE to outgoing infrared AND the sun's daily replenishment of high frequency radiation do keep us about 33F warmer than we would otherwise be"

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/23/obama-mit-green-speech-we_n_331903.html?show_comment_id=33406908#comment_33406908

Again you got the number wrong - it's actually 33C, or roughly double 33F - but there you at least acknowledge the scientific fact that atmospheric CO2 is a very significant greenhouse gas.

So again:

* Are you now going back on your own word?

* Or do you still believe that that CO2 trace gas has that much thermal advantage over the climate?

lol.

[fumes]

uh.. and just how do you think i came up with that? original research lol?

[Publicola]

fumes: "not my word pub."

Again yes it was your word fumes:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/23/obama-mit-green-speech-we_n_331903.html?show_comment_id=33406908#comment_33406908

fumes: "cold clear nights dispute even that: except for the timely sunrise all heat would be lost!"

Again what part of:

----------­­---------­-­--------­--­-----

What a "forcing agent" means in in the context of global warming is an agent that initiates, aka "drives," global warming. Water vapor does not and cannot do that - water vapor is instead a function of temperature.

When a global warming forcing agent - such as increased atmospheric CO2 - raises the mean global temperature that in turn induces higher water vapor concentrations, which, since water vapor too is a greenhouse gas, in turn induces still more warming and then still more water vapor in a positive feedback loop until thermal equilibrium is reached - which in a global sense won't happen while radiative forcing via global warming forcing agents continues to significantly increase.

On the other hand if one takes away or reduces global warming forcing agents then water vapor concentrations, which again is not a global warming forcing agent but instead a function of temperature, will be reduced accordingly as well.

----------­­---------­-­--------­--­-----

do you still not understand?

lol.

[Publicola]

fumes you assert below that Dr. Knorr's study "argues" that "CO2 in the atmosphere isn't contributing to global warming.''

Dr. Knorr, however, explicitly refutes that assertion:

"That would be a very superficial interpretation of these results. Half of the CO2 we emit stays in the atmosphere and that's enough to cause global warming."

So how is that you are under the impression that Knorr's study "argues" otherwise?

Do tell, fumes.

[fumes]

''Earth's early ocean cooled more than a billion years earlier than thought.
The early global sea turns out to have been tepid, not a hot primordial soup as had been thought.''
http://www.physorg.com/news177168552.html

and this was with a 95% CO2 atmosphere!

and we're now at only .038%..

[OneVoiceInACrowd]

besides the fact that a 100 degree ocean (50C) is still rather hot as compared to todays ocean (16C), do you really think comparing climate now to the climate then lessens the effect of what we know now about greenhouse gases?

3.5 billion years ago the
earth was 90% of the mass it is now
absorbed more heat into the oceans
did not have polar caps
did not have much if any dry land

but even if you don't agree with those points, which are really besides the point, what does a cooler early ocean have to do with the ghg theory?

[Publicola]

"this was with a 95% CO2 atmosphere!"

?!?

lol.

In the surreal world of global warming propaganda that may be a "fact," dunno.

Here in the real world of actual science, however, it is not.

Not. Even. Close.

But hey, fumes, don't let actual scientific facts get in the way of your deeply disingenuous global warming denier propaganda.

[Publicola]

fumes now: "and we're now at only .038%."

fumes last month: "CO2's RESISTANCE to outgoing infrared AND the sun's daily replenishment of high frequency radiation do keep us about 33F warmer than we would otherwise be."

Again you got the number wrong - it's actually 33C, or roughly double 33F - but there you at least acknowledge the scientific fact that atmospheric CO2 is a very significant greenhouse gas.

And again "and this was with a 95% CO2 atmosphere!" assertion is a joke too.

[fumes]

oops..
November 10, 2009
New data show that the balance between the airborne and the absorbed fraction of CO2 has stayed approximately constant since 1850, despite emissions of CO2 having risen from about 2 billion tons a year in 1850 to 35 billion tons a year now.
This suggests that terrestrial ecosystems and the oceans have a much greater capacity to absorb CO2 than had been previously expected.
The results run contrary to a significant body of recent research which expects that the capacity of terrestrial ecosystems and the oceans to absorb CO2 should start to diminish as CO2 emissions increase, letting greenhouse gas levels skyrocket. Dr Wolfgang Knorr at the University of Bristol found that in fact the trend in the airborne fraction since 1850 has only been 0.7 ± 1.4% per decade, which is essentially zero.
The strength of the new study, published online in Geophysical Research Letters, is that it rests solely on measurements and statistical data, including historical records extracted from Antarctic ice, and does not rely on computations with complex climate models.
This work is extremely important for climate change policy, because emission targets to be negotiated at the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen early next month have been based on projections that have a carbon free sink of already factored in.
Another result of the study is that emissions from deforestation might have been overestimated by between 18 and 75 per cent. http://www.physorg.com/news177059550.html

[fumes]

and so..

the dynamic equilibrium described in my post above..

explains why billions and billions of tons of CO2..

have not warmed the globe.. my coffee.. or clear nights!

and you gloom and doomers should be happy but won't be lol..

[DocSkull]

fumes - "explains why billions and billions of tons of CO2.. have not warmed the globe"

You misunderstand. What Knorr is saying is that his numbers suggest that we've not reached the point where land and water have reached a diminished capacity to absorb CO2. It certainly does not argue that the CO2 in the atmosphere isn't contributing to global warming.

I'm glad you've come to recognize that we're producing a lot of CO2.

[fumes]

''It certainly does not argue that the CO2 in the atmosphere isn't contributing to global warming.''

uh.. yeah it does!

[fumes]

good news from the war on CO2: adsorption is back!

University of Warwick researchers have made a breakthrough in adsorption systems design that dramatically shrinks these devices making them small and light enough for use in both domestic heating and automotive air conditioning. They have devised and filed a patent on a clever new arrangement. This has enabled the Warwick team to create adsorption based equipment that is up to 20 times smaller than was previously possible.
"This is exciting stuff. The technology has been proven in the University's laboratories at the sizes needed for vehicles and domestic systems, and there are several other large markets. The ability to provide products which make significant reductions in both energy consumption and CO2 emissions at a similar price to existing products will make Sorption Energy very attractive to customers, and is very satisfying for the team."
http://www.physorg.com/news177076423.html

[DocSkull]

Same price and 30-percent more efficient, that'll help reduce some of the costs of cooling your house. I guess it would also increase fuel mileage slightly since A/C is a pretty small part of the total power usage.

[JerryAguy]

It is irresponsible to call for this type of activity. Just look at ELF and the havoc they've been able to pull and the damages they have done, all they need is Al Gore to give his blessing to damage more property and families homes.

[DocSkull]

That isn't what he's talking about.

[Tim303]

Thoreau did some pretty awesome civil disobedience and wrote an essay about it. It's called "civil" for a reason.

[JerryAguy]

A man who has made so much money of of the whole "man made global warming" would certainly have many reasons to be push the whole thing. He certainly does not ACT like he believes things are as dire as he claims. You don't buy a condo right on the ocean if you truly fear the very claims he makes. Money can change a persons view I would think. His power bill in a month is more than I make in a year for pete's sake.
It'll be just great paying a higher power bill every month when people are barely getting by as it is while he corners the carbon market and trades his credits.
People named a scheme after Charles Ponzi and that was small potato's compared to this "Market"

[DocSkull]

If only character assassination cooled the planet.

[Tim303]

The last time I checked it was okay in America to make money out of things you are passionate about. Or would you rather live in Moscow circa 1980?

[realpolitic]

JerryAguy says: "A man who has made so much money of of the whole "man made global warming" would certainly have many reasons to be push the whole thing."

And why would hundreds of climate scientists from around the world, like the 94% of the total who believe in anthropogernic warming, just go along with him? For the fun? Think, please, think!

[daultman463]

How about the thousands of experts that say this is nonsense.W­here did that 94% total come from,al gore?I bet if you took the 1000 leading experts on climite science and ask them about global or what is it called now climate change the would chuckle a little and say they don`t even know if its true or not.

[power1]

The Nobel Peace Prize became a complete joke when Obama received one for doing nothing.

[fumes]

changing the course of mighty rivers of opinion..

and bending the steel of hope in his bare hands..

is not ''doing nothing''!

[DocSkull]

Peace does come from not doing things -- not attacking the wrong country, not holding prisoners indefinitely, not torturing people, not being needlessly antagonistic with other countries.

[realpolitic]

See Fumes is not so much an Obama man. One day Fumes will announce he has changed parties like Lieberman.

[power1]

I've done nothing about the environment because I have more important things to worry about.

[fumes]

roger and doc..

cold clear nights are living proof of CO2's potency to block escaping infrared photons..

were it not for the rotisserie effect of the timely sunrise..

all heat would be lost.

[DocSkull]

I can't say that I'm confident that I get your point, but the sun always rises on schedule and cold clear nights are proof of a local high pressure system.

[fumes]

''I can't say that I'm confident that I get your point''

agreed..

[Publicola]

And your point here is what, exactly? Oh that's right - you don't have one.

[fumes]

same point as always:

CO2 is irrelevant­..

[uniskywriter]

Civil Disobedience undoubtedly has a role to play as former Vice-President Al Gore suggested in the article. The link is to Why Thoreau Is Still Relevant.

Why Thoreau Is Still Relevant
http://hnn.us/articles/116290.html

[GalinMcMahon]

What does the article have to do with the headline?