EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
- Wisconsin Bill Would Treat Organic Milk, Sharp Cheddar, Brown Eggs as "Junk Food"
- As Death Toll Rises Beyond 500, Garment Factory Disaster 'Worst in World History'
- Climate Change's 'Evil Twin': Ocean Acidification
- Patent Filing Claims Solar Energy ‘Breakthrough’
- Disaster Capitalism Strikes as Hedge Funds Circle Near-Bankrupt Municipalities Like Vultures
- Move Over, Koch Brothers: A Bigger, Darker Rightwing Funder Is Out to Destroy Public Education
- Patent Filing Claims Solar Energy ‘Breakthrough’
- Wisconsin Bill Would Treat Organic Milk, Sharp Cheddar, Brown Eggs as "Junk Food"
- Climate Change's 'Evil Twin': Ocean Acidification
- Disaster Capitalism Strikes as Hedge Funds Circle Near-Bankrupt Municipalities Like Vultures
Popular content
Today's Top News
Al Gore: Obama Isn't "Relying On Science"
Al Gore has posted a note entitled "confronting disappointment" in which he takes President Obama to task for "[bowing] to pressure from polluters" in ordering the Environmental Protection Agency not to seek a tightening of air-quality standards.
The EPA's proposal had been under fire from Republicans and business groups who cast it as job-killing regulatory overreach. The new rules, which would have strengthened air quality standards beyond where they stand in many states, could have forced reductions in oil and gas projects, the Wall Street Journal reports.
"President Obama ordered the EPA to abandon its pursuit of new curbs on emissions that worsens disease-causing smog in US cities," Gore wrote, after lauding the recent protest of the "tar sands pipeline" at the White House. "Earlier this year, the EPA's administrator, Lisa Jackson, wrote that the levels of pollution now permitted -- put in place by the Bush-Cheney administration-- are 'not legally defensible.' Those very same rules have now been embraced by the Obama White House."
Jackson had submitted the standards, called the Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards, in January of last year. In his statement announcing the decision to ask her to withdraw them - which was released on the Friday before the Labor Day holiday, a prime time to bury negative news - Mr. Obama said his administration has taken "some of the strongest actions since the enactment of the Clean Air Act." Yet the decision infuriated environmentalists already frustrated by the lack of serious action to combat climate change during the Obama presidency.
In his note, Gore went on to suggest Mr. Obama was ignoring both economic and scientific concerns.
"Instead of relying on science, President Obama appears to have bowed to pressure from polluters who did not want to bear the cost of implementing new restrictions on their harmful pollution--even though economists have shown that the US economy would benefit from the job creating investments associated with implementing the new technology," he wrote.
Added the former vice president: "The result of the White House's action will be increased medical bills for seniors with lung disease, more children developing asthma, and the continued degradation of our air quality."
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
116 Comments so far
Show AllAlthough he may be ignoring your "economic concerns" and my "economic concerns" Obama isn't ignoring his personal "economic concerns".
Obama IS relying on a corporate funded billion dollar 2012 campaign war chest, while Obamabots are relying on faith, not evidence as they continue to support and enable this corporate collaborator disguised as a "hope and change" President.
Nice of Al to 'post a note'.
Why the heck doesn't he stand up and say it out loud??
And, also lambaste the Republican candidates and all of the reigh-wing pols who ignore every aspect of science and environmental concerns in thier greedy pursuit for more power and wealth??
In all fairness, who cares what Al Gore has to say? The MSM certainly doesn't, except when it needs an object of derision.
In all fairness and honesty ~~corvo~~ Al Gore sought the wisdom, confidence and words of the very best scientists in the world when he made his accurate film, An Inconvient Truth.
How Al Gore conducts his personal life has absolutly no bearning on the (truth) of global warming or the pollution of our enviroment, our ocean waters' and our air quality.
How Al Gore conducts his personal life however, does give the GW deniers and supporters of big busiess, the opportunity to attack Gore and attempt to show he isn't credible... And Al Gore didn't get arrested protesting the Tar Sands deal because the fine is $100 bucks.
By not being arrested mean he isn't credible? No; it means he's a rich prik and way above the lower class in his mind.. He's still right about the enviroment however.
The petty crap, sniping and throwing rocks from the bushes attack tactic used by GW deniers and shills for big business in their attempts to show Al Gore isn't credible, is somewhat effective for them to promote their false agenda. The deniers are excellent deceivers.
re: "By not being arrested mean he isn't credible? No; it means he's a rich prik and way above the lower class in his mind.. He's still right about the enviroment however."
Doesnt' being a rich prik (sic) and way above the lower class damage a persons credibility in your pov? I does in mine.
Yes, Gore has provided a credible voice on the specific topic of climate change, but he seems a bit weak for me when it comes to challenging the real perpetrators, and calling them out on a name by name basis.
If you ask me, Gore's been too sullied by all the decisions and neoliberal/deregulatory insanity of the Clinton administration. As a long time beltway insider, and an obvious bourgeois softy, he's played a big role in empowering those who are the ultimate cause of man-made climate change. He's another neo-liberal last time I checked, and they are the problem, not the solution.
Yes, Al Gore has been right about global warming for many years. And yes, the fact that Al Gore did not participate in civil disobedience last week, when he has called for others to engage in civil disobedience in the past, does seriously tarnish Gore's record of leadership regarding the threat of global warming even further.
You misunderstand me. I think Al Gore is entirely credible; after all, he's only reporting sound science. But who cares what he has to say? The MSM doesn't; America doesn't. You may care; I may care -- but we're nobody. Left-of-Oblahblah is simply not part of the American public debate.
I certainly do not disagree that how Gore acts personally detracts from his credability, it does.. I do care about what he says however, because few others are saying it and he does have credibilty, even though I do agree not as much as he could or should have if he wasn't a rich pri-k (sic). Intentional "sic", Lol.
Gore gets publicity, he would have gotten a lot more if he'd been arrested and paid the $100 buck fine... However,,, important however,,,, if Gore should ever decide to become real active in politics once again, having an arrest record would not be very smart, when big business controls the press and Gore is pretty darn smart.
"Gore gets publicity, he would have gotten a lot more if he'd been arrested and paid the $100 buck fine"
I'm not sure that assumption is at all warranted. If the MSM chooses not to cover it, after all, then there's no publicity to speak of.
"IF",,, correct ~~corvo~~, you are not sure, no one could be sure... Anyway; I care what Gore says and much more importantly, Obama should care what he says. .Butttt, then... that isn't very likely. I'dbetter add a (sic) for "buttt"... I love this website, fun and it is often educational.
Some years ago Al Gore called for civil disobedience in protest of the failure to implement any measures to curb the fossil carbon emissions that are causing global warming.
Al Gore has been a lightening rod for the right wing. Still, why didn't Al Gore get arrested in front of the White House protesting TransCanada's Keystone XL pipeline last week?
He's a big wooden softy man.
Gore certainly is not a Mommy Teresa but he's spot on about the enviroment. Even rich priks can be spot on about a most important issue.
As I see it everything is pretty much going his way, Most of the factories have closed and moved elsewhere, Less Jobs means less people can afford to drive, or fly. Container shipments have slowed as alot of people without jobs can't buy much.
Al Gore should be Happy, as most of the industrilised world reverts to the stone age!!
and he has the money form all those books to live in a quiet gated mansion and keep all the lights on! >^^<
Our presidents do not rely on 'science',,, because sceince does not give them millions of dollars in campaign contrabutions,,, the oil and coal industries do.
If the presidential candidates want to win the election so that they can do the (right) things, they need the (money) from big business so they can win... After winning they do what those who gave the money tell them to do.
That is why our system of government isn't working as planned.... That is why our election system is corrupt.... That is why our government is now fascist.... And the beat goes on... Obama is caught in that Washington DC catch 22 merry go round, only it really isn't very merry.
If the candidates play ball with big businss, big business will play ball with them. If they don't play ball with big business, big business will shove the bat up their ass.... That's how the DC merry go round works.
But I thought the use of psyops to manufacture mass consent *was* scientific.
Speaking of economics... isn't that a mathematics discipline? Nothing illogical or 'unscientific' about Obama's banker friends reeling in their nets, and watching the numbers (and assets) rack up in their own accounts. In fact, the fleecing of America is a mathematic inevitability considering the system of debt and interest upon which our nation 'rests' (tosses and turns is more like it).
No, I'd say Obama and his benefactors/beneficiaries have TOO much science on their side.... just not the science that benefits We the People, or the planet upon which we depend.
One could call it science in the service of instrumental reason. :-)
Exactly. It would be the height of irresponsibility for our leaders to act or do other than they have been. Stability, security and sustaining our 'superior way-of-life' demands no less than the responsible and proven provisions Obama has taken for his precious constituents.
Instrumental reason indeed.
By all means we should leave climate in the hands of scientists, they have done such a remarkable job on nuclear energy, petroleum extraction, cancer and all the other chronic diseases, bio-technology with animal and plant reproduction inhancements, and lets not forget those scientifically controlled food production environments. Oh wait, maybe these things are all connected in some way? At best scientific contribution is like a little puppy that just went pee-pee on your favorite rug and will now send you a bill to clean it up. Clean air is not free and if you want to breath in the future you damn sure will pay somebody.
Okay, so you don't trust any scientist, on any subject, ever. Ignorance is the guide you prefer. Presumably you never visit doctors or dentists. Good luck with that.
Regrettably, it isn't a choice. The world survived just fine without science for millions of years. And if you have those mercury fillings I hope you will look into having them removed. Ignorance.
"The world survived just fine without science for millions of years."
The world survived without human beings for millions of years. What is this tautology meant to imply? The question is: what is an appropriate attitude toward the employment of intellect? You cannot seriously advocate ignorance, the only alternative to scientific thinking.
Destructive instrumental anthropocentric attitudes have infected scientific practice, and all other forms of human discourse, from time immemorial. This is a justified indictment of humanity, not of science. The question comes down to whether one should draw conclusions about reality from the evidence Nature presents, or instead from the authority of some priest.
There is a way to live with the earth and a way not to live with earth, it is that simple. If by ignorance you mean that human beings can not learn by their own observations and apply that information in a sustainable way without using a linear world view then I'm here to tell you that there are still people that do this. I understand you have never lived that way, probably have never met anyone that has this information but it does exist and "it" is not ignorance. The nuclear Japan, forty years of nuclear waste all over the world is the proliferation of ignorance.
When you say that people should "learn by their own observations and apply that information in a sustainable way," you are describing what I call the scientific method. The distinction is between intuitive, faith-based, or authoritarian doctrine, and rigorous observation. Good scientists are just people who have agreed not to let their personal prejudices get in the way of observational rigor.
The scientific tradition is inherently linear in some sense - nobody needs to re-invent the Pythagorean theorem, it's enough to rely on previous work. On the other hand, mathematicians are constantly inventing new ways to prove ancient theorems (even Pythagoras'). Godel showed it's possible to construct a proof about the limits of mathematical systems - about what is mathematically impossible. And that's another brick in the edifice of collective understanding.
I have no idea what your problem with any of this is.
I agree good observation is an element of science, the other distinctions are within this model and have some accuracy but have very little to do with the natural world. (we can agree to disagree about this because it is not about proof) I guess my objection is that this is the only view accepted as valid and that this constitutes implied consent.
There are (many) different sciences ~~clearbluesky~`... Don't confuse Earth Science, Ocean bio-chemists, geologists, atmospheric, paleontologists with the chemist's scientists.
Comments such as yours' detract from the common sense truth that our enviroment is in extremely horrible shape and we "must" clean it up... (Must) is the key word there... I'm sure you would agree with that obvious, common sense and honest fact... Or perhaps you do not agree?
Yes I having an understanding of science, I'm drinking fluoridated water at this very moment. I worked for several years in behavior science and when you apply that to scientific contributions you come up with a system as corrupt as any. Human beings know how to live sustainably, I would encourage you to examine your own knowledge or find someone living sustainably and learn from them.
That was a (non answer) to a fair question ~~clearbluesky~~ .
You wrote,,, ("Human beings know how to live sustainably, I would encourage you to examine your own knowledge or find someone living sustainably and learn from them.")... That commment has zip to do with what is now occurring in our atmosphere and our oceans.
You attempts to avoid the issue are pitiful... The fact that some humans know how to live sustainably is not relevant to the issue of burning coal like Hell would not have it and thereby killing our oceans and atmosphere.
Your first comments were to deny any science is worth anything. I didn't ask if you (understood) science... I asked if you agree there are many different scientists and the scientists Al Gore and I are talking about are those who know how our atmosphere works and how we are killing our atmosphere and our oceans... Do you disagre with those scientists?
Wayne WR, let me say I enjoy most of your posts and I think you are sincere in your concern for the environment. I share your concern but my perspective is different from yours. You want to frame this within what you consider relevant options, I'm just asking your to take a closer look at those options because there are some serious flaws.
So here is my best answer to your question. Al Gore and the scientific information available to him have a point to be considered but to say this is reliable, accurate, ethical or in the best interests fixing what has been damaged is an extreme that is based on an extreme model. It doesn't take into consideration that the earth can and will heal its self if we stop the constant assualt. Scientific analysis of just how long and how much we can destroy the earth before it dies is not relevant.
~~clearbluesky~~ How can you or anyone who is intelligent, honest and has any degree of commn sense, deny that burning fossil fuels, especially coal is the major problem with our horribly polluted planet?
The science of how our atmosphere works, how our oceans work is well proven, long estabished science and physics... If you disagree with that, you should immediatly write new science text books, publish and sell them
If you have discovered the well (proven science and physics) is wrong, go to Princeton University or MIT and have a seminar and prove your new science,... Good luck.
In the meantime; until you have done that, you and everyone had better accept the proven science and accept that the Arctic ice is rapidly melting, our oceans are rapidly dying due to acidification and altered Ph from burning so much coal and that unless leaders of the world, including President Obama listen to the more than 10,000 scientists who are warming us that we must correct that and take firm sensible action to change it, it will continue until what happened 250 billion years ago on Earth will happen once again. It wasn't good (clear blue sky) and we are rapidly running out of time to take any firm sensible action.
We need to change how we do things. We need to respect our values and know that what we do has consequences. I prefer the natural world to a scientifically controlled planet. So there you have it.
Who is suggesting a "scientifically controlled planet"?__ Only you.
What we currently have is a planet controlled by a very few, very rich people, who conrol the way we produce electrical power and they are destroying the planet and scientists are telling us how serious the situation is and that we must very soon change things.
Why would what the scientists are saying and are warning us of bother any sensible, honest, intelligent and sane person?
I do not have one bit of a problem of us all doing all we can as individuals to help keep our atmosphere, land and water clean.
We use solar at our home.. That isn't the issue here, big business controlling ALL life on Earth IS the primary issue and you ignore and deny it.
Your type of attitude and posted comments helps big business, the oil and coal cartels and I am arguing with your type for doing that and I will not stop.
No doubt greed is a huge influence but having an even bigger scientific stick is still extreme. Ask yourself who determines what clothes you wear, what food you eat, what your yard care requirements are, what chemicals are used in your living environment. What is safe for you to engage or not engage. These are big influences in American culture and maybe even world culture. I am not denying that they are but I don't make the same separations you do because they have a multiple source and one of those sources is science. I listed a few of them, I could list lots of them. I don't support big business but it is getting darn hard to avoid. If in your conscience you feel this is your only option ok but think there may be more to the earth and sky than even science knows or cares to define.
The (science) Al Gore is talking about is atmosperic and oceananic science and how to correct the mess we are now in... You are rambling in all different directions and if you don't think you are supporting big business, you are fooling yourself..Your comments are just like those of a closet professional GW denier.
The only thing I'm denying is that a hotter planet is worse than the sum of extraction processes and common use practices that prevail. And one more thing, that by keeping it in a scientific view will solve it. You can perseverate on this all you want.
What? __ Where have you said any such thing as that?
How about you saying you don't want a planet "controlled" by science,etc, etc.
Alright, answer this question for us. Do you agree with the vast majority of scientists 97%, who have proven and say our current GW is caused by human activity? A yes or no is fine.
It is a preference, I'm not big on scientifically controlled environments as a model for living. Does human activity influence climate, yes. Has science established a link between human activity and climate change, evidently yes. Do I agree this collective behavior is the only thing driving GW, no. The point to all this is, we have caused damage and need to stop harmful activity, that means everyone, including science.
But you don't believe Obama should listen to thd scientists? If you do,what is your argument here? As another state to you, I don't understnd why you are arguing. And by sicietits saying we have to stop burnigng coal is not being controlled by science. That is a professional GW deniers type of obtuse argument.
The scientists who AL Gore wishes Obama to listen to are not harming the enviroment. Big business is.
I don't see this the same way you do, what I do see is a lot of manipulation on this issue and by this constructed argument. (not specially by you) This issue is going to
be around for a long time and it doesn't have to be resolved today. Lets hope we get some good ideas from this. If I was a GW denier, I would straight up tell you so.
Okay
WayneWR and all,
I agree with a lot that you say. Your points are well taken. But it is very healthy to bash Al Gore. That guy is one of them.
I've been telling people over for 20 years that our way life is destructive. From the Redwoods that I helped protect to the solar energy systems I design and install. If Al Gores says "I told you so!" I'll punch him in his damn fat face and throw him on that last piece of melting ice!
Up till 3 years ago Gore owned 4 huge houses, one about 10,000sqft. Think of the coal and natural gas to cool and heat those houses.
Everybody needs to do their part. And that does not mean putting solar on your roof. Buy smaller dwellings, insulate, turn off all the damn gadgets everybody thinks they need. People are prisoners of this information age. They always have to have the television on (mostly news networks) and internet on. IT IS ALL A MIND TRAP!
Obviously, sitting here writing comments on Common Dreams or any other website is not changing anything. All this does is keep us imprisoned in this info world of nonsense and steals energy from us to actually act on our principles. If people want to make real changes, I would advise to get out there and act. First in your own personal being, space and community. Then expand from there. As you know, most governments are not going to do the right thing. We have to do it Ourselves. Save YOUR energy and go join the real battles out there.
These comment forms should be used to organize people. Not to pontificate OUR intellects. That comment is not directed at anyone or any post on this article. But it is directed to many posters on here that I have read through the years. Believe me, I mean no harm. I've been down that road. I lost many friends and a very close loved one because of my tree hugging views, especially when I was younger.
I just don't see the changes we need to happen, happening with peoples current way of doing things. I almost agree with Al Gore that PEOPLE, not just the young need to throw themselves in front of the bulldozers. Anybody that is healthy and sees what is going on has the responsibility to ACT. Not just the young. Even fat ass, loud mouths like Gore.
We all can be hypocrites (including myself first), but can we Act the change we need?
Sorry for the rant.
Great post, hang on to those values as they shine brightly.
Mr. O'Compromise doesn't rely on science, or law, or the constitution. He's a man who knows only compromise.
"Al Gore called for civil disobedience"
It is a very good question. Why did he not get arrested ? It is easy to do and sends a loud message. Especially if you have called for others to do this. Especially if you are an ex vice president. Sure Gore is rich. That has nothing to do with it. He is smart enough to know what is effective and we have to assume that he wishes to be effective. He could have shown the strength of his convictions.
Jim Hansen has done this.
There is another reason perhaps? Perhaps not a simple answer. I do not know.
But it seems to me that that action might have been effective. What do you think ?
I do not usually post but this question intrigues me.
Posted for Joe Seven and Others
* * * * *
Excerpt from “Al Gore, James Hansen, and Civil Disobedience” by Gordon Clark, Common Dreams, September 7, 2007:
In his recent global warming op-ed in the New York Times ("The Big Melt," August 16, 2007) , Nicholas Kristof reported on a conversation with Al Gore in which the former Vice-President said: "I can't understand why there aren't rings of young people blocking bulldozers, and preventing them from constructing coal-fired power plants." His comment was a reaction to the ever-quickening pace of polar ice meltoff, with all its catastrophic implications, and the huge role played by coal-fired power plants in advancing our demise through global warming.
Gore's comment was also strikingly similar to a recent quote from Dr. James Hansen, the top climate scientist at NASA: "It seems to me that young people, especially, should be doing whatever is necessary to block construction of dirty (no CCS) coal-fired power plants."
Article URL: www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/09/02/3566
* * * * *
Excerpt from “Gore Urges Civil Disobedience To Stop Coal Plants” by Michelle Nichols, Reuters, September 25, 2008:
"If you're a young person looking at the future of this planet and looking at what is being done right now, and not done, I believe we have reached the stage where it is time for civil disobedience to prevent the construction of new coal plants that do not have carbon capture and sequestration," Gore told the Clinton Global Initiative gathering to loud applause.
Article URL: www.commondreams.org/headline/2008/09/25-1
* * * * *
Excerpt from “Climate Disobedience: Is a New 'Seattle' in the Making?” by Mark Engler, TomDispatch.com, August 12, 2009:
In fact, arrests are piling up quicker than journalists can coin name-and-number nicknames. The Coal Swarm website keeps track of an ever-lengthening list of protests. New headlines now appear weekly:
"Activists scale 20-story dragline at mountaintop removal site in Twilight, WV"
"14 Arrested at TVA headquarters in Knoxville, TN"
"10 activists board coal ship in Kent, England"
"Activists shut down Collie Power Station, Western Australia"
In August 2007, Al Gore, Nobel-prize-winning author of An Inconvenient Truth, told Nicholas Kristof of the New York Times, "I can't understand why there aren't rings of young people blocking bulldozers and preventing them from constructing coal-fired power plants." By the time Gore made that statement, some young people had already started blocking bulldozers, and many more, young and old, would soon follow.
Still, Gore can be excused for feeling that such measures were overdue. With global warming, perhaps more than any other issue, there is a disjuncture between a widespread acknowledgment of the gravity of the situation we face and a social willingness to respond in any proportionate way.
Article URL: www.commondreams.org/view/2009/08/12
* * * * *
Excerpt from “Civil Disobedience Needed to Win Action on Climate Change, New Greenpeace Chief Says” by Laurie Goering, Reuters, December 3, 2009:
[Question & Answer: Q = Laurie Goering; A = Greenpeace International's new executive director, Kumi Naidoo.]
A: We have to recognise that leaders will not act until they are pushed. They have shown the complete inability - particularly the most powerful ones - to move from rhetoric to implementation.
It would be better if these politicians honestly said, 'We don't think climate change is such a problem.' Now everyone acknowledges it's a problem but their actions are not in line with what they say publicly.
You have to look at history and what it teaches. That's that we have only managed to reverse major injustices and win struggles - take the civil rights movement, or the anti-apartheid movement - when decent men and women are willing to say, 'Enough is enough,' and put their lives on the line, go to prison if necessary.
Right now what is needed is peaceful civil disobedience on a scale that we have not seen before.
Q: You've talked Al Gore into joining in?
A: At a meeting last year I told him that I could go and get arrested but who would care if I did? Isn't it time for you to engage in civil disobedience? Gore's response was that nobody had ever put that to him, and that he'd have to check it out with Tipper (his wife). But subsequent to that, he's been talking up the importance of civil disobedience [emphasis added].
One thing we have to recognise is that politicians have a chronic hearing problem on climate change. They can't hear what the science is saying, what people are saying.
Article URL: www.commondreams.org/headline/2009/12/03-6
Posted for Joe Seven and Others
* * * * *
Excerpt from “If Gore Were Arrested...” by Mark Hertsgaard, The Nation, October 25, 2007:
Fresh from winning the Nobel Peace Prize for his climate change evangelism, Al Gore is apparently considering an invitation from a prominent environmental group to engage in civil disobedience against the construction of new coal-fired power plants.
Rainforest Action Network issued the invitation to the former Vice President, according to RAN executive director Michael Brune. The San Francisco-based group has a twenty-year history of protesting against destructive logging practices and other causes of climate change; it specializes in targeting corporations as much as governments.
"We came across a quote from Gore in an interview with [New York Times] columnist Nicholas Kristof back in August, saying he didn't understand, quote, 'Why there aren't rings of young people blocking bulldozers and preventing them constructing new coal-fired power plants,'" said Brune. "We thought, 'Great idea!' That's the kind of activism we do at RAN. So we decided to invite Gore to join us."
Gore's office confirmed that the former Vice President had received RAN's invitation and was considering it, though no decision has been made.
"He has not accepted any of their offers to date," Kalee Kreider, a spokeswoman for Gore, said of the RAN offer. Kreider did not deny that this phrasing leaves open the possibility of Gore saying yes down the road [emphasis added].
RAN plans a national day of protest against coal on November 16, according to Brune.
If Gore did end up getting arrested during a protest against a coal-fired power plant, it would make front-page news throughout the world and put a spotlight on what some climate scientists and activists consider the single most important priority in the fight against climate change: halting the use of coal as the world's top source of electricity production. Coal is the most carbon-intensive of the three major fossil fuels (the others are oil and natural gas) whose combustion produces most of the carbon dioxide that is helping to raise temperatures and change climatic patterns on earth
Article URL: www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/10/25/4806
Are you using common html tags?
<p>Pretty much.
<p>For some reason it only works in <i>news</i> articles, not in the <i>views</i>. Paragraph breaks are most easily done (imho) by means of a <p> before each paragraph.
<p>But you can also do <b>bold</b> or whatever.
<blockquote>Blockquote is one of my personal favorites, for indentation.</blockquote>
Gore bashing only plays into the hands of the delighted chemical, oil and coal barons and their freak media fools such as Rush limb-bawl
So if any agree with the Koch Bros, Exxon, BP, Shell, Rush, etc, ,,,, bash Al Gore.
Just give him a call and convince him to show a spine, lose some of his copious cash, and stand side by side with the many others who are walking the walk, and not just talking the talk. If he valued his message so much, he would not accept the cognitive and ethical dissonance of standing on the sidelines. The end. He's not a bad guy, he's just no big hero either, as you seem to want to convince us.
I am glad he has done the work he has to spread the message of the danger global climate change. But he could easily do more if he had the desire to make a bigger difference. His participation would make a strong statement, and cause him little suffering. So what's the reason for balking?