Out of touch
Al Gore is so last decade. But he’s tried to reinvent himself with the relaunch of a new website, the Climate Reality Project (www.climaterealityproject.org). But even those who are convinced that AGW is a major problem are criticising Gore’s approach. From The Conversation:
Talking to those in the tent isn’t necessarily a problem. There are certainly times when you need to drum up the enthusiasm of the base.
But there is one aspect of the campaign that does need to be critiqued: the mindless and counter-productive demonisation of “Big Oil” and “Big Coal”. This echoes a regular refrain of The Greens here in Australia.
It’s as if somewhere out there “Big Oil” and “Big Coal” equivalents of Mr Burns, Mr Potter, Blofeld, Siegfried of KAOS and the Pentavirate are cooking up campaigns not to provide electricity and transport solutions, but to destroy humanity.
Ridiculous.
Those who got into the coal and oil industries did so for the simple goal of making a profit by providing us with the energy we need for the modern economy. They didn’t do it to be evil. They don’t want to destroy the world. They are not the nefarious oligarchs that so many would have you believe.
Yes, we now know that the carbon pollution produced by the coal and oil industries is a big problem for society. We all need to wean ourselves off such carbon intensive energy.
But we’re not going to do it by misrepresenting people’s intentions and calling them names. We’re not going to do it by punishing people who acted in good faith.
We’re only going to convince people to change by lining up their profit motive with everyone’s need for a low-carbon economy.
Yes, that’s right. We need to support the fat cats, just as we need to support anyone else in transition.
We need to encourage those who invest in coal and oil to move their money to less carbon-intensive investments. Incentive, not invective.
These captains of industry are not our enemies. They need to be our allies in de-carbonising the economy. (source)
There is little to disagree with here. But the problem is that environmentalists are, by and large, socialists. What the authors are suggesting here is environmental capitalism, which the Greens could not possibly accept alongside their Marxist social agenda. For them, “profit” does equal “evil” – which is why the Greens will never be a serious force in politics.
And let’s not forget, just as coal and oil corporations are there to make a profit, so is Al Gore, and a mighty big one he’s made so far…
As Judith Curry notes:
Al Gore is preaching to his (shrinking) choir. On the other hand, Grant and Lamberts provide a refreshing approach that might actually lead to productive dialogue on the climate/energy debate. (source)
(h/t Climate Etc)
Australian Climate Madness 
Perhaps people should be aware of Gores other little dealings he has going on such as this one.
Shrinking alright. Have a look at this. What’s left of his cheer squad had a quick squiz at his latest bunk then suddenly found better things to do.
My God! Imagine the carbon-footprint of this big fiasco … I hope they’re going to buy carbon credits to offset it.
Oh wait … sure, we can all buy our carbon offset credits in Al Gores own tax exempt company. The London-based firm invests money from institutions and wealthy investors in companies that are going green.
Call me a skeptic, but isn’t there something immoral in offsetting your own carbon emissions in your own company? It’s not like robbing Peter to pay Paul – it’s like paying Al to pay Al … and another thing, isn’t there a conflict of interest on one hand running around saying the sky is going to fall and then on the other hand owning a company that purports to fix it?
Oh yes … I’m sure he’s got your interest at heart … he’s an ex-politician and businessman!
GROUND BREAKING NEWS… Greenhouse effect supposition is finally trashed!
http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=8073
It proves that the greenhouse gas theory of global warming is utterly and totally refuted.
Let’s see Al Gore, the IPCC, and all the global alarmists put this in their pipes and smoke it. And lets see what happens to the many scientists and economists and their reputations who are so sure “the science is settled”!
Need to just tread a little carefully here. As far as I am aware the experiment shows that the heating in a greenhouse is caused by a limiting of the transport of heat away by convection. But I think that has always been well understood – it doesn’t disprove the theory that GHGs absorb and re-radiate energy, a hypothesis that I am at this stage prepared to accept, along with the fact that man-made GHGs cause some degree of warming of the climate system. But the question is the magnitude of that warming. Does that make me a “lukewarmer”? 😉
As Monckton explained in his comprehensive win of the debate at the National Press Club this week, it has been established empirically that the GH effect is logarithmic, viz. a doubling of CO2 concentration causes about 1 degC of warming. It is a progressively diminishing effect.
On a more positive note, this scientist is not just a pretty face!