The “We” Campaign has organized a press conference for Thursday of this week for a presentation by Al Gore that will set a national goal for a clean energy future.
The speech will offer a new way of thinking about our energy production and consumption and a new sense of what is possible when we choose to work together. It will propose a means of tapping America’s innovative skills to build a more secure energy future.
I look forward to hearing the remarks, and will pass along any details. The bipartisan approach of the “We” Campaign provides the right sort of springboard for this type of message. I’m encouraged by the strong push for renewable energy with a focus on innovation.
{ 5 comments… read them below or add one }
Right, we should listen to a man. Who for starters, made his mansion in Nashville more “green”. Yet the mansion comsumes more energy than before the “improvements”.
Two, he doesn’t practice what he preaches. I wonder if that nice big new hot-tub in his San Fran flat is solar powered?
Three, the various companies or carbon credit schemes he has going on. Plus, his bottom line sure has fatten since this whole cursade on “man-made global warming”.
I bet I could find many more.
Anyway, keep following y’alls “prophet”.
Btw, I’ve never seen this covered on this blog. So much for objective reporting.
http://www.oism.org/pproject/
or even this.
http://www.heartland.org/NewYork08/newyork08.cfm
Wait, the evil Heartland Institute. Can’t listen to what they have to say! Now, can we?
KoS
I understand that the mention of Al Gore may raise hackles in some circles, but we’re talking clean energy here, and a more secure energy future. There’s bi-partisan support of the “We” Campaign, including Newt Gingrich and Pat Robertson. It’s an important message regardless of the messenger.
With that said, you’ll never see me debunk the science of climate change. There’s too much evidence with too much at stake.
An important message, could be. But the messenger is everything. If one can’t live by what they preach. Then what good is the message. It must not be that urgent or too much at stake, if the messenger can’t be bothered to “walk the walk”.
Ummm no offense, mentioning Newt and Pat doesn’t do the messeage any good either. I won’t go into specifics as to why.
Evidence, you may want to rethink that. And frankly if someone isn’t willing to look at boths sides and yes there are both sides, regardless the claims that the debate is over. Then how does one know what the evidence is? To many people are blindly taking the word of one side.
Here is a group who is willing to look or talk about both sides. http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200807/editor.cfm They even are taking a step back from whole-heartly agreeing with the so called “consensus”.
You do realize or maybe you don’t, we have and will always “fight” climate change. It’s something which has always happened and will happened until he earth goes boom. Climate change is a natural cycle.
Our influence on the climate, currently, is like the margin of error in a poll. The poll numbers go up and down regardless and is slightly influnced by the error. So it may normally be 90, but with the error it’s now 91. At least IMHO.
I wasn’t asking you to debunk, rather be fair and honest. No one can debate or debunk climate change, it’s a fact. What isn’t a fact, is the why’s and what’s that are causing or influencing the current climate change. That is still a matter of debate.
When y’alls side of the argument started out calling it “man-made global warming”, then “global warming” and now “climate change”. My red flag went up. Why was it necessary to change the title? Also, the almost solo focus on CO2, what about the other greenhouse gases?
That is fine you have an agenda and are batting for one team. You have set yourself up on this blog as a journalists, not just a regular blogger. I would think objectivity would carry more weight then. Then again, the sad state of journalism in generall, I’m not all surprise objectivity has been thrown out the window.
The situation isn’t dire. Good to see marketing tricks are still in use.
KoS
One more thing. yes this specific topic is about energy. Why are we even talking about it in this context? Because of “global warming” or “climate change”.
Changing our energy use will have zero impact on climate change. It will have an impact on that margin of error thou.
Don’t get me wrong. I’m all for clean energy and the like. But don’t have govt shove it down my throat, let people make those choices.
KoS
More food for thought, while I’m at it.
Aerosol and cloud effects on solar brightening and the recent rapid warming.
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2008/2008GL034228.shtml
KoS