It is sad, but it seems that his message is not getting through becasuse he is looked at as going too far over the top. Maybe this award will open more minds.

Score one for the American Ecozealot.

The capper to this would be if George W. Bush is indicted by a war crimes tribunal in The Hague.

I'd support him in a heartbeat.

But I don't think he's playing coy. I think he's really serious about sitting this one out. Besides, the Democratic field is stronger than I've ever seen it already. Even though he's my first choice, I'm good with Edwards and Obama. And I can (reluctantly) live with Hillary.

Gore is not going to run this time around. (In my opinion). First, our field of candidates far out paces all of the Republican candidates. Second, he would be entering way too late not only for fund raising but he'd also have a serious struggle getting on all of the ballots in all 50 states for the primaries... maybe not California where they already have been working for sometime getting him on the ballot, but in much of the rest of the US. Third, I think that though he may still have presidential desires, he is not seriously contemplating a run this time around.

The great thing about Gore is, he gets better with time.

Of course, there is the hope that he could latch on to one of the current Democratic candidates as a VP or Presidential candidate which would make up for a late entry. But, the clock is ticking pretty fast either way.

he could raise $50 million by next weekend if he announced he was in.

That may be true. I know I'd write a check on the spot.

He's not running. He doesn't want the presidency obviously. Why ask the stupid question? This speculation at this stage of the campaign is ridiculous and speaks to how much self-delusion there is in the blogosphere.

Good on Gore for winning the Nobel. It's truly a shame he's decided not to run. I have nothing but the deepest contempt for the Democratic Party, but I'd vote for Gore in a heartbeat. Hillary and Obama are pure poison, as are the leading Republicans. I'll probably have to write in "none of the above" like I did in 2004.

He might make a great Climate Change Czar under our next president, however.

Not if the next president is in hock to corporations that make money off polluting businesses as usual.

I hope Gore is not distancing himself from traditional politics. Wal-Mart has jumped on board with a few environmentally friendly projects because they save money, get good PR and their customers want to buy environmentally friendly products. We shouldn't be ignoring "traditional politics" even when dealing with dramatic global issues such as climate change. A strong, middle class with a work force that is treated with respect and dignity is at the heart of good environmental policy and at the heart of traditional democratic politics. When an individual has to worry about keeping food on their table, paying rent and keeping their job, their concern for the environment disappears. I don't think we can separate Wal-Mart's horrific labor practices from their environmental practices. Wal-Mart selling a few energy efficient light bulbs, turning of their trucks when idle, and selling Organic goods from China should not shield them from their horrific anti-union, anti-worker and anti-community practices.

I would love to see Gore run but I doubt it will happen. I am hoping he endorses Obama or Edwards sometime soon.

On another environmental issue. How is Portland the third most toxic city in the U.S.? http://money.aol.com/bw/realestate/most-toxic-cities-in-the-united-states

Please, please Al run! Please! On top of all his other credentials, he could flush out all the rot the bushies have placed in federal agencies.

He did not make the "shermanesque" statement yet.

I give him until Halloween, then I throw my volunteer time in for Edwards.

Why should Gore run? In the last eight years, he's made great strides in improving public awareness of the climate change issue, and given a Democratic Congress and White House to work with, he should be able to effect real policy change without all the compromise and public spectacle that occupies the President's time.

Don't get me wrong: I'd happily cast my vote for him in both the primary and general elections. If he's found a way to be effective and fulfilled without suffering the constant scrutiny and pressure of public office, though, then I say more power to him, and so much the better for all of us.

Social leaders such as Gore has become can't be voted out of office, unlike senators or presidents.

Kari Chisolm:

I'm not sure. I don't think the filing deadlines have passed in most states.

Bob T:

Well, that's a drawback to all of those states wanting to front load themselves into the primaries just so they can "feel more important".

The result is an earlier practical deadline that some potential candidates can't meet, and more delegates being won before we have normally found out some juicy, negative information about the candidates or before they show themselves to be unworthy all on their own.

Bob Tiernan

Congratulations to Al. He has been championing the environment for quite a while. Did you folks read "Earth in the Balance"?

I started reading your comments with the thought that he should run, but your argument that he can accomplish more (and with fewer hassles) as a private citizen makes a lot of sense. I have a lot of respect for Al, and I would vote for him in a minute, but if he chooses not to run, then I understand.

Well, an advantage of Gore is that he is already vetted. And we found out his big secret:

SHOCK, he sometimes wears brown!

Al can jump in at the last minute and the grass and netroots will get his signatures and money in a heartbeat. 72 hours and he could be in every state. Pre-vetted, sexy and ready to rock and roll.

GO AL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I'm in the camp that thinks he can do more good as a private citizen. If Al were in government now, I don't think the understanding of the magnitude of the problem would have penetrated the mainstream as much as it has. The hardcore 28 percenters are dismissing his message now, but I think even more people would dismiss it if the general public saw him as a political partisan.

Just yesterday, The Royal Courts of Justice in Strand, London declared that Gore made NINE factual errors in his film. The below is cut & pasted from MR JUSTICE BURTON’s decision of 10.10.2007

The ‘Errors’ 1. ‘Error’ 11: Sea level rise of up to 20 feet (7 metres) will be caused by melting of either West Antarctica or Greenland in the near future. 24. In scene 21 (the film is carved up for teaching purposes into 32 scenes), in one of the most graphic parts of the film Mr Gore says as follows: “If Greenland broke up and melted, or if half of Greenland and half of West Antarctica broke up and melted, this is what would happen to the sea level in Florida. This is what would happen in the San Francisco Bay. A lot of people live in these areas. The Netherlands, the Low Countries: absolutely devastation. The area around Beijing is home to tens of millions of people. Even worse, in the area around Shanghai, there are 40 million people. Worse still, Calcutta, and to the east Bangladesh, the area covered includes 50 million people. Think of the impact of a couple of hundred thousand refugees when they are displaced by an environmental event and then imagine the impact of a 100 million or more. Here is Manhattan. This is the World Trade Center memorial site. After the horrible events of 9/11 we said never again. This is what would happen to Manhattan. They can measure this precisely, just as scientists could predict precisely how much water would breach the levee in New Orleans.” 25. This is distinctly alarmist, and part of Mr Gore’s ‘wake-up call’. It is common ground that if indeed Greenland melted, it would release this amount of water, but only after, and over, millennia, so that the Armageddon scenario he predicts, insofar as it suggests that sea level rises of 7 metres might occur in the immediate future, is not in line with the scientific consensus. 2. ‘Error’ 12: Low lying inhabited Pacific atolls are being inundated because of anthropogenic global warming. 26. In scene 20, Mr Gore states “that’s why the citizens of these Pacific nations have all had to evacuate to New Zealand”. There is no evidence of any such evacuation having yet happened. 3. ‘Error’ 18: Shutting down of the “Ocean Conveyor”. 27. In scene 17 he says, “One of the ones they are most worried about where they have spent a lot of time studying the problem is the North Atlantic, where the Gulf Stream comes up and meets the cold wind coming off the Arctic over Greenland and evaporates the heat out of the Gulf Stream and the stream is carried over to western Europe by the prevailing winds and the earth’s rotation ... they call it the Ocean Conveyor … At the end of the last ice age … that pump shut off and the heat transfer stopped and Europe went back into an ice age for another 900 or 1000 years. Of course that’s not going to happen again, because glaciers of North America are not there. Is there any big chunk of ice anywhere near there? Oh yeah [pointing at Greenland]”. According to the IPCC, it is very unlikely that the Ocean Conveyor (known technically as the Meridional Overturning Circulation or thermohaline circulation) will shut down in the future, though it is considered likely that thermohaline circulation may slow down. 4. ‘Error’ 3: Direct coincidence between rise in CO2 in the atmosphere and in temperature, by reference to two graphs. 28. In scenes 8 and 9, Mr Gore shows two graphs relating to a period of 650,000 years, one showing rise in CO2 and one showing rise in temperature, and asserts (by ridiculing the opposite view) that they show an exact fit. Although there is general scientific agreement that there is a connection, the two graphs do not establish what Mr Gore asserts. 5. ‘Error’ 14: The snows of Kilimanjaro. 29. Mr Gore asserts in scene 7 that the disappearance of snow on Mt Kilimanjaro is expressly attributable to global warming. It is noteworthy that this is a point that specifically impressed Mr Milliband (see the press release quoted at paragraph 6 above). However, it is common ground that, the scientific consensus is that it cannot be established that the recession of snows on Mt Kilimanjaro is mainly attributable to human-induced climate change. 6. ‘Error’ 16: Lake Chad etc 30. The drying up of Lake Chad is used as a prime example of a catastrophic result of global warming. However, it is generally accepted that the evidence remains insufficient to establish such an attribution. It is apparently considered to be far more likely to result from other factors, such as population increase and over-grazing, and regional climate variability. 7. ‘Error’ 8: Hurricane Katrina. 31. In scene 12 Hurricane Katrina and the consequent devastation in New Orleans is ascribed to global warming. It is common ground that there is insufficient evidence to show that. 8. ‘Error’ 15: Death of polar bears. 32. In scene 16, by reference to a dramatic graphic of a polar bear desperately swimming through the water looking for ice, Mr Gore says: “A new scientific study shows that for the first time they are finding polar bears that have actually drowned swimming long distances up to 60 miles to find the ice. They did not find that before.” The only scientific study that either side before me can find is one which indicates that four polar bears have recently been found drowned because of a storm. That is not to say that there may not in the future be drowning-related deaths of polar bears if the trend of regression of pack-ice and/or longer open water continues, but it plainly does not support Mr Gore’s description. 9. ‘Error’ 13: Coral reefs. 33. In scene 19, Mr Gore says: “Coral reefs all over the world because of global warming and other factors are bleaching and they end up like this. All the fish species that depend on the coral reef are also in jeopardy as a result. Overall specie loss is now occurring at a rate 1000 times greater than the natural background rate.” The actual scientific view, as recorded in the IPCC report, is that, if the temperature were to rise by 1-3 degrees Centigrade, there would be increased coral bleaching and widespread coral mortality, unless corals could adopt or acclimatise, but that separating the impacts of climate change-related stresses from other stresses, such as over-fishing and polluting, is difficult.

Full Decision: http://Downloads/Heartland.org/22161.pdf

Wal-Mart has jumped on board with a few environmentally friendly projects because they save money, get good PR and their customers want to buy environmentally friendly products.

Wal-Mart customers shop at Wal-Mart because prices are low. I would be surprised if more than a minority of them were concerned with the environment. I would like to be proved wrong on that but doubt that is the case.

Posted by: lestatdelc | Oct 12, 2007 1:59:53 PM

Freudian slip? Homo-erotic slip? Wishful thinking?

Kari and others mentioned filing deadlines. In 1987, Gary Hart waited until the deadline to (re)file for the mid Feb. 88 NH primary. I beleive that deadline was Dec. 15th. Cuomo waited until a similar deadline in '91 to finally decide that he would sit out '92

NH is approx a month earleir now, so I'm guessing the deadline is mid Nov. Most states have a two month deadline. OR, for example usually has a 2nd Tues in March deadline for the May primary. Most of the Feb. 5th states probably have late Nov./early Dec. deadlines. Someone mentioned NY. NY and IL are two states that have direct election of delegates in the primary, so those slates have to be filled (or not, Kerry lacked full slatesas he was written off during that period in '03) and that can be a costly time consuming process.

So, it can happen, but the Gore supporters have to put their money where their mouth is, or their time. In OR, the requirment is 5,000 valid signatures (or is it 5,000 per CD?) Lyndon LaRocuhe's crazies do it every time. Why not Gore? ( I think the filing fee is $500 or $1,000). If in doubt, call Bradbury's office.

I would love to see a political slugging match between Al Gore and Hillary Clinton.

lestatdelc FYI, Karlock is reciting the claims made by the person who was suing, not what the judge ruled. JK: I suggest you learn how to read. That came directly out of the decision PDF file listed at the end of the article. lestatdelc The judge in the actual DECISION stated that the decision did not at all address the alleged factual errors, JK: There are too many errors to try to correct all of them. Heck, even Al’s science advisor’s web site acknowledges that CO2 is not the most significant greenhouse gas and that the antarctic ice cores show CO2 LAGGING warming by hundreds of years. . . . the maximum supportable number for the importance of water vapour alone is about 60-70% and for water plus clouds 80-90% of the present day greenhouse effect. (Of course, using the same approach, the maximum supportable number for CO2 is 20-30%, and since that adds up to more than 100%, there is a slight problem with such estimates!). (realclimate.org/index.php?p=142)

At least three careful ice core studies have shown that CO2 starts to rise about 800 years (600-1000 years) after Antarctic temperature during glacial terminations. These terminations are pronounced warming periods that mark the ends of the ice ages that happen every 100,000 years or so. (realclimate.org/index.php?p=13)

lestatdelc In short, the ruling made no determination of the "errors" of fact the person suing was alleging, which you are reciting JK: Then what the heck was the judge writing about? He listed a Gore statement (lie really) and told why it was wrong. Nine times.

The two most impressive claims have been shown wrong: 1. 1998 was not the warmest year in 400 years or in 1000 years. 2. The so called hockey stick temperature curve is false and probably a fraud.

This is all Lyssenko grade science and just a dangerous.

Thanks JK

Give it up, Karlock. You would do better convincing a group of avid Pentecostals that Christ is not the messiah than trying to persuade this bunch that there are a few problems with Gore's brand of global warming theory. Those who dare question the great doomsday prophet are infidels guilty of heresy in these parts.

lestatdelc (Quoting The judge:) All these 9 'errors' that I now address are not put in the context of the evidence of Professor Carter and the Claimant's case, but by reference to the IPCC report and the evidence of Dr Stott. (JK’s Bolding) JK: Again you are having trouble reading. The judge clearly said that he based his judgment, not on the Claimants, but on the IPC C report and one Dr. Stott.

lestatdelc (Quoting The judge:) This is distinctly alarmist, and part of Mr Gore's 'wake-up call'. It is common ground that if indeed Greenland melted, it would release this amount of water, but only after, and over, millennia, so that the Armageddon scenario he predicts, insofar as it suggests that sea level rises of 7 metres might occur in the immediate future, is not in line with the scientific consensus.

lestatdelc The IPCC report does say that the ice sheets will melt if warming is sustained over millennia, but does not rule out it happening sooner: JK: So what? It also does not rule out the sun going supernova either.

lestatdelc Yes there is: Seeing themselves as climate refuges some Tuvalans are already leaving their islands, moving their communities to higher ground in a new land. ... Fala and Suamalie, along with international environmental activists, argue that Tuvaluans and others in a similar predicament should be treated like refugees and given immigration rights and other refugee benefits. This tiny nation was among the first on the globe to sound the alarm, trekking from forum to forum to try to get the world to listen. New Zealand did agree to take 75 Tuvaluans a year as part of its Pacific Access Category, an agreement made in 2001.

JK: That is an environmental news site. Do you have anything credible? BTW, I just scanned the story - does the story even claim that there HAS ACTUALLY BEEN A RISE IN SEA LEVEL? Beyond the rate that the sea has been rising for thousands of years? Or is this just an example of people being scared by all the hype?

lestatdelc Gore's statement is badly worded, since it could be understood to to be saying that entire countries have been evacuated rather than some of the residents. JK: That is Gore’s whole method: to mis represent things, in essence lie. That dual meaning is likely no accident. It is typical of many pressure groups.

lestatdelc The IPCC says that by "very unlikely", they mean a 5-10% chance of it happening. Since the consequences would be very bad, I think Gore is justified in saying that it is worrying, JK: Are you saying that we should destroy the world’s economy, hurt millions of people and let many die, simply because of some speculation of a 5% chance?

lestatdelc though it would have been better if he had said that it was a possible rather probable result of continued warming. JK: There is a name for that: a lie.

lestatdelc The relationship is very complicated. But there is one relationship that is more powerful than all the others and it is this. When there is more carbon dioxide, the temperature gets warmer, because it traps more heat from the sun inside JK: As usual Al left a few little details: 1. The CO2 LAGS temperature, at least in antarctic ice cores. 2. Oceans hold vast amount of CO2 and warming drives some out to the atmosphere. 3. Although long speculated, it appears that no one has ever actually PROVEN that CO2 causes warming. (Note: real proof, not statements on blogs, web sites or the popular press)

lestatdelc And that does reflect the scientific consensus. (link is to realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/04/the-lag-between-temp-and-co2/ ) JK: You forgot this from the same web site: At least three careful ice core studies have shown that CO2 starts to rise about 800 years (600-1000 years) after Antarctic temperature during glacial terminations. These terminations are pronounced warming periods that mark the ends of the ice ages that happen every 100,000 years or so. (realclimate.org/index.php?p=13) The site then goes on th say that CO2 could have continued the warming. Well so could have the original, unknown, cause. (You don’t suppose it could be the sun do you?)

lestatdelc The Kilimanjaro glacier may or may not be disappearing due to global warming, but it is making other tropical glaciers disappear. JK: Your souce is NOT credible - it is run by (or for) Al’s science advisor. The fabricator of the, now discredited, hockey stick temperature chart.

lestatdelc So while he could have picked a better example, it doesn't affect his argument. JK: Yes it does. It shows his lack of even basic knowledge.

lestatdelc Sanjay Gupta reports: The United Nations Environment Programme says that about half of the lake's decrease is attributable to human water use such as inefficient damming and irrigation methods. The other half of the shrinkage is due to shifting climate patterns. Anada Tiega of the Lake Chad Basin Commission blames climate change for 50 to 75 percent of the water's disappearance. JK: Please cite a credible source, not CNN. You must have missed this: “shifting climate patterns” - climate patterns are always shifting. For example, right now, as the arctic ice is being blown away from poles, people are panicking. Lest you worry about this see New York Times Feb 20, 1969: “Expert Says Arctic Ocean Will Soon Be an Open Sea”. Of course on New York Times May 21, 1975 said: “Scientists Ask Why World Climate Is Changing: Major Cooling May Be Ahead.”
lestatdelc Burton is badly wrong here. Look at the news story on the drownings (my emphasis): (link is to http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article767459.ece) JK: Got anything credible? For instance one polar bear expert says that most colonies are doing just fine and that they routinely swim up to 60 miles and they will probably do better in warner times. For instance they are real pests at some city dump sites.

lestatdelc but the usual suspects will, of course, ignore the fact that the judge found that Gore was "broadly accurate" and try to make it look as if there are serious problems with AIT and climate science. JK: NO, He pointed out the Gore parroted the IPPC’s party line, not “accurate”. There is considerable controversy about that report when you look deeper than CNN, the Unte reader and the Sierra club.

There are still questions about how corrections are being made to our land based temperature records, further the problems may go even deeper as current research is finding even deeper flaws in temperature measuring.

Of course there is also the excellent correlation between the solar cycle length and earth temperature. It is closer than the CO2 relationship.

Thanks JK

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2007/10/13/an_inconvenient_peace_prize/

Daily Kos? I read that Crap just to see what the communist party is saying Blue Oregon is A little to the Right of them Anyway Read another say once in a While Just to show how "inclusive: you are.

We need him more than he needs us, I'm afraid.

There is probably some truth to that statement, and if it is true then it is testimony to how flawed we, the people of this nation, have become. The Republicans have a sorry bunch from which their nominee for president will emerge while the Democrats look like they will give the nation someone who will not have an easy task proving she is the lesser evil.

About 30 percent of the people still support Bush while a large number of Democrats look like they will give the nomination to Hillary who, like Bush, has indicated she has no problem supporting wars if they appear to be to her personal advantage. She is equally facile in lying and dissembling about her pro-war positions. Bush and Cheney have made the presidency more imperial than ever, and only a fool would believe Hillary will cede some powers to a spineless Congress and restore the necessary balance.

There is a reliable minority with enough sense to oppose wars, but they probably represent only around 20-25 percent of the population. Between them and the pro-war faction is a gullible and ill-informed mass that supported the war on Iraq, then changed their minds, but with enough fear mongering could move back into the pro-war camp.

Gore might be able to lead the nation to some rational order, but he probably realizes that in Washington he would, like Jimmy Carter, be a president without a party with the DLC and the Republican oligarchy opposing him.

We probably need Gore to become president, but he would also need the people to support him, and there is little reason for him to be optimistic about getting that support. Ironically, whoever becomes president will very likely make Gore's task of countering global warming much more difficult.

Shouldn't they have given him an Environmental Science Award? It is a tenuous connection to Peace, at best.

It's more like an SAT Question: pick the name that doesn't belong in the below group...

Mother Theresa, Desmond Tutu, Gen. George C. Marshall, Albert Schweitzer, and AL GORE?

Oh well, at he's finally discovered capitalism, post Supreme Court loss. He's rumored to be worth something north of $200 million now. Do they make a stretch Prius?

My kingdom, for a hypocrite:

It's more like an SAT Question: pick the name that doesn't belong in the below group...

Mother Theresa, Desmond Tutu, Gen. George C. Marshall, Albert Schweitzer, and AL GORE?

Bob T:

Not to mention Yassir Araffat who gloated over explosions in ice cream parlors full of kids.

Bob Tiernan

"An Inconvenient Truth" is such an apropos title.

Gore Derangement Syndrome