Thursday, July 17, 2008

Gore: No nukes or petrol in 10 years!

Trying to compare Al Gore to Kennedy seems like trying to compare Darth Vader to Luke Skywalker; this goo-goo-eyed, Gore-lovin' AP reporter is making a bit of stretch. However, Gore’s right about a few things in this piece: First, Obama and McCain are both climate change believers, so we’re stuck there; the best for which we can hope is that McCain can be dissuaded from his stupidity once elected. And second, we do need to reduce our dependence on foreign oil for national security reasons. Other than that, Gore goes skipping down Tree-hugger Lane while spouting his usual, trite alarmist rants and overly optimistic views on the potential of renewable energy.

These non-nuclear, non-petrol solutions (i.e., wind and solar) are not efficient enough to replace current demand, and they’re very expensive to implement. I’m not saying we shouldn’t pursue these alternatives, but we should DIVERSIFY our energy sources. In other words, don’t put all your eggs in one basket! Let’s do nuclear, oil, coal, solar, and wind! Forget this global warming nonsense; let’s get real and do something positive for our security and economy, instead of scaring people with a nonexistent problem.

Senator Voinovich in the article below this one puts it much better than I ever could! And let's not forget Al Gore's prediction of doom which he made in January 2006...can't wait to see if that one holds true. We now have only seven years left to survive global warming.

Gore sets 'moon shot' goal on climate change

WASHINGTON (AP) - Just as John F. Kennedy set his sights on the moon, Al Gore is challenging the nation to produce every kilowatt of electricity through wind, sun and other Earth-friendly energy sources within 10 years, an audacious goal he hopes the next president will embrace.

The Nobel Prize-winning former vice president said fellow Democrat Barack Obama and Republican rival John McCain are "way ahead" of most politicians in the fight against global climate change.

Rising fuel costs, climate change and the national security threats posed by U.S. dependence on foreign oil are conspiring to create "a new political environment" that Gore said will sustain bold and expensive steps to wean the nation off fossil fuels.


"This is an investment that will pay itself back many times over," Gore said. "It's an expensive investment but not compared to the rising cost of continuing to invest in fossil fuels."

Called an alarmist by conservatives, Gore has made combatting global warming his signature issue, a campaign that has been recognized worldwide - from an Academy Award to a Nobel Prize. He portrayed Thursday's speech as the latest and most important phase in his effort to build public opinion in favor of alternative fuels.

He knows politicians fear to act unless voters are willing to sacrifice - and demand new fuels.

The Hill's Blog Briefing Room » Voinovich Finds Gore's Energy Speech 'Ridiculous':

You can consider Sen. George Voinovich (R-Ohio) as definitely not enthused by former Vice President Al Gore's speech Thursday on U.S. energy policy.

Voinovich had an initial one-word response — "ridiculous" — to Gore's speech at Washington's Constitution Hall, in which the Democrat called for the United States to end its dependence on carbon-based fuels and begin using renewable energy to produce electricity within the next 10 years.

Voinovich elaborated that ruling out carbon-based fuels such as coal would be unreasonable because of the country's vast energy and economic needs. Instead, he said the country should take a multi-pronged approach that includes but doesn't rely solely on nuclear, wind and solar power.

"We could put windmills from the Atlantic to the Pacific and, yes, it will increase the amount of carbon-free energy production, but the fact of the matter is, it's not going to get the job done," Voinovich said. "What we need to do is to look at all of the various sources of energy… We'd be much more realistic to realize that it's going to take all of these things in order for us to meet our energy demands."


Sean said...

It seems that Mr. Gore has changed his marketing message. While he still makes multiple claims that are a little hard to substantiate, he doesn't seem to be making the wild claims he did in An Inconvenient Truth (see

Now, Mr. Gore is taking the energy independence tactic. This is much more realistic and more people are likely to make "sacrifices" for the sake of energy independence if we state that we have to break away from the Mideast and destroy their power over us. He seems to put a lot of his reliance on solar energy though and we should probably include nuclear and hydrogen in that discussion.

G.W. Denier said...

Do you mean like this claim he made back in May of this year (just two months ago) where he blamed the Myanmar cyclone on global warming?

First, giving this buffoon the honor of "Mr." in front of his name is something I just can't do, because I absolutely have ZERO respect for Gore (and neither does his own home state of TN).

Second, he's still 100% against all carbon-based fuels, so coal, natural gas, and oil are out, and he wants them gone in 10 years. This is the most insane thing I've ever heard; if we tried this we'd absolutely destroy our economy.

Swearing off hydrocarbons is Gore's way of saying he still believes in global warming, which is absolute hogwash. He'll never admit he was wrong, because look at how stupid he'd look; he's holding a Nobel Prize and an Oscar for a hoax that he helped create. He already looks dumb enough now, so waiting for him to admit he was wrong will be a cold day in hell.

T. Boone Pickens probably has the best energy plan for the country, which includes natural gas, oil, wind, nuclear, hydroelectric, and solar. We need diversity in our energy sources; that's realistic and will help get us off the oil of despots.