The great thing about being a Nobel Laureate, an Academy Award winner and not in politics is that you can speak plainly without anyone cautioning you that criticizing your own is helping the opposition.
Former Vice President Al Gore's own party is not helping much anyway and that 'you are with us against us' mentality hasn't paid him dividends; Gore engineered a global warming bill in 2009 that would put limits on CO2 but it died in the Democratic-controlled Senate, even though it would not have needed a single Republican to not only pass, but be impervious to veto.
Yet, he still can't resist taking shots at Republicans. He cites former President George W. Bush as 'pulling out' of Kyoto, though America was never in it; Gore had a hand in its creation but it was never ratified by the U.S. so saying a Republican 'pulled out' when a Democrat never put us in is silly. In 2009, Democrats had a majority in Congress and the White House no party has had in 200 years yet they did not 'put us in Kyoto' so blaming Bush is predictable, but silly.
What Pres. Obama has done is spend a lot of money - economic stimuli for legacy green technology like wind vanes and solar panels that have done nothing to curb emissions, and implementing controls on emissions for the future without any road map how to get there except a belief in the miracle of capitalism when it suits people who otherwise believe only government can do anything.
Basically, Obama has pressing short-term concerns, like high unemployment despite spending all that money, and not everything can be red alert so global warming is not making the cut; it's almost impossible that anyone in the current field of Republican candidates can defeat him - he may not govern well but Obama campaigns well - but if he can be defeated, it will only be because disgruntled progressives stay home. Progressives have not voted for a Republican in decades but they have not voted, as in 2004, when Bush trounced Kerry.
"His election was accompanied by intense hope that many things in need of change would change," Gore writes in Rolling Stone. "Some things have, but others have not. Climate policy, unfortunately, falls into the second category."
- PHYSICAL SCIENCES
- EARTH SCIENCES
- LIFE SCIENCES
- SOCIAL SCIENCES
Subscribe to the newsletter
Stay in touch with the scientific world!
Know Science And Want To Write?
- What Lies Beneath West Antarctica?
- Planet Nine: A World That Shouldn't Exist
- Exodus 2100: Due To Climate Change
- Survival Of The Oldest
- One Third Of Antibiotic Prescriptions Unnecessary
- Nanoparticles Hold Promise As Double-edged Sword Against Genital Herpes
- Professor Frenkel: Why Shouldn't We Drop Algebra From Our Education System?
- "https://i2.wp.com/iceagenow.info/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Cooking-the-thermometer.png ..."
- "Top US scientist? He hasn’t published a paper in 50 years! He’s an interesting case. In 1990s..."
- "Ya, and your science consists of what? Conclusions based on data that has been homogenized (manipulated)..."
- "Just to prove that you know not what you speakith, the history of the study of logical fallacies..."
- "Hi, in general I do believe that number of articles, citations, h-index etc. can give you some..."
- NASA: Rising CO2 Will Help Food Crops
- NRDC Sues EPA Over Fracking – Has The Settlement Been Pre-Arranged?
- Vaccinate Pregnant Moms to Protect Babies from the Flu
- Pure Unstructured Structured Water – Because Some People Will Buy Anything
- Critical-Care Drug Shortages Continue, Despite FDA Action
- EPA Magically Makes Glyphosate Safety Report Disappear
- NASA Study: Rising carbon dioxide levels will help and hurt crops
- Satellites to see Mercury enter spotlight on May 9
- Researchers unveil architecture of mitochondrial calcium uniporter
- Stocks overvalued longer and more often than previously thought, says study
- Barrow researchers prove utility of imaging tool in surgeon's hand