iEntry 10th Anniversary RSS Feed About Us

Rebuttal of Al Gore’s NY Times Editorial

Photo courtesy kangotraveler.

Al Gore had an editorial piece printed in the New York times today.  It’s full of typical environmentalist talking points but only half of the truth is provided.  Follow along as I share my comments (in bold) under each of Gore’s paragraphs (in italics) so help break down the truth from the hyperbole.  While I’ll only excerpt parts of the opinion piece, the entire op-ed can be read by following the link at the bottom of this post.

[W]e…must make…an emergency rescue of human civilization from the imminent and rapidly growing threat posed by the climate crisis.

Imminent and rapidly growing threat posed by the climate crisis?  We’ve had three straight years of lackluster hurricane seasons.  We’ve had two years of record-breaking cold winters.  Global temperatures have fallen greatly from a peak in 1998.  Show me some proof of how imminent this climate crisis truly is, Mr. Gore.

To those who are still tempted to dismiss the increasingly urgent alarms from scientists around the world, ignore the melting of the north polar ice cap and all of the other apocalyptic warnings from the planet itself, and who roll their eyes at the very mention of this existential threat to the future of the human species, please wake up.

Many of us are still tempted to dismiss global warming because we see no increasingly urgent alarms, no matter what scientists tell us.  Scientists are still learning about climate science.  Their models in both the short and long-term are inaccurate.  Weather forecasting isn’t accurate past a few days.  Hurricane forecasts for each season are constantly revised and still wrong.  The predictions of global temperatures spiking higher and higher are wrong as well, even as carbon dioxide levels continue to accumulate in the atmosphere.  Polar ice is on the rebound in the Arctic.  Antarctic polar ice has had a net gain over the last 20 years.  So what are these other “apocalyptic warnings”?

Here is the good news: the bold steps that are needed to solve the climate crisis are exactly the same steps that ought to be taken in order to solve the economic crisis…

So we should put our country further in debt by giving another $800 billion, this time to solve the so-called “climate crisis”?  Throwing money at a problem doesn’t always solve the problem.  Our nation runs public education and we’re losing fast to other countries, even though we spend hundreds and hundreds of dollars per child.

Thirty-five years ago…the United States imported less than a third of its oil from foreign countries. Yet today…our dependence has doubled from one-third to nearly two-thirds — and many feel that global oil production is at or near its peak.

And environmentalists have gotten in the way every time by refusing to allow for offshore drilling, building of additional refineries and additional nuclear plants.  It’s the fear-mongering environmentalists, like yourself, that have caused us to import more and more of our oil from foreign countries.  Our country could increase global oil production if your fellow Democrats would allow our country to drill, Mr. Gore.  But your stubborn adherence to turning away from fossil fuels has only made the problem worse.

[W]e can make an immediate and large strategic investment to put people to work replacing 19th-century energy technologies that depend on dangerous and expensive carbon-based fuels with 21st-century technologies that use fuel that is free forever: the sun, the wind and the natural heat of the earth.

Who will pay for it?  The taxpayer?  With oil prices having dropped by more than half over the last several months, I’d hardly call carbon-based fuels “expensive” any longer.  In fact, the price of ethanol is subsidized by the government to make it remotely similar in price, even with less fuel efficiency.  All three of the options you mentioned – the sun, wind and natural heat of the earth, are inefficient at best and require billions of dollars to be spent on new systems and infrastructure.

First, the new president and the new Congress should offer large-scale investment in incentives for the construction of concentrated solar thermal plants in the Southwestern deserts, wind farms in the corridor stretching from Texas to the Dakotas and advanced plants in geothermal hot spots that could produce large amounts of electricity.

And how much will this cost the American taxpayer?  And who will pay for the ongoing maintenance of said solar thermal plants, wind farms and geothermal hot spots?  Will the budget be inexplicably short-sighted for these new power sources and will we, the American people, be forced to bail out yet another failed program?

Second, we should begin the planning and construction of a unified national smart grid…The cost of this modern grid — $400 billion over 10 years — pales in comparison with the annual loss to American business of $120 billion due to the cascading failures that are endemic to our current balkanized and antiquated electricity lines.

All I can say is that American business wouldn’t lose $120 billion each year due to rolling blackouts if environmentalists weren’t so set against the construction of new coal and nuclear power plants.  Your political party has caused this problem and now you expect lead the effort to get us out of it?  No thank you.  Oh, and isn’t Martha’s Vineyard a pretty rural area?  What happened to that wind farm that was to be built off the coast there?  Your former companion in the Senate, Ted Kennedy, shot it down.  So all of these plans are okay as long as a prominent Democrat doesn’t happen to own property anywhere near the proposed sites?

Third, we should help America’s automobile industry (not only the Big Three but the innovative new startup companies as well) to convert quickly to plug-in hybrids that can run on the renewable electricity that will be available as the rest of this plan matures.

So you support a plan to bailout the automakers as well and invest more in hybrids?  And how will you keep our country from going bankrupt, Mr. Gore?

Fourth, we should embark on a nationwide effort to retrofit buildings with better insulation and energy-efficient windows and lighting.

Will this be a new requirement for all businesses, at their expense, which will cause unemployment to skyrocket or will the government pay for this as well, causing our national debt to increase even more?

Fifth, the United States should lead the way by putting a price on carbon here at home…

Look out, folks.  More taxes are being recommended to help save the world.  Aren’t you taxed enough already?  Do you want to bring home even less from your job every week?

Of course, the best way — indeed the only way — to secure a global agreement to safeguard our future is by re-establishing the United States as the country with the moral and political authority to lead the world toward a solution.

This isn’t the only time Gore has related global warming to being an issue of morality.  Did Gore’s endorsement of ethanol which caused food prices to spike and millions to go hungry around the world constitute a moral judgment as well?  And since we have this supposed separation of church and state in America, why should we let the religion of Al Gore interfere with our beliefs?  After all, it is a moral issue and not a legislative one – at least not yet.  With a Democratic President and Congress, it seems likely that we very well could find ourselves under the moral compass of Al Gore.


Keep up-to-date with the latest at Skeptics Global Warming!
Subscribe to my FREE RSS Feed in your reader today!
Or, subscribe to FREE updates in your email.
Alternatively, you can follow me on Twitter.

About the Author

has written 2022 stories on this site.

A social and fiscal conservative, I scour the news for information that disputes the current man-made global warming indoctrination that takes place around the world. I take a rather sarcastic approach to reporting on the nonsense being spewed by the talking heads in the media and the governments around the world.

8 Comments on “Rebuttal of Al Gore’s NY Times Editorial”

  • JD Hill wrote on 20 November, 2008, 21:08

    Environmentalist in the way of building new refineries? Malarky. In the last decade big oil has bought out and tore down a significant number of small to medium refineries. That was a willful measure to decrease supply. Obviously, it worked. Then we get a round of speculators. Ah, let’s just blame it on the left.

    It is admitted by the oil companies that offshore and in Alaska there is conceivably about 3% to 5% of the worlds oil reserves. We currently use over 25% of the world supply. If we drilled everywhere we could, it won’t make much difference.

    Why not be real conservatives and start conserving, saving a little of what’s left for our grandchildren. That 3-5% might come to have a whole lot more meaning then, than it does now.

    Lastly, ’cause I don’t want to entertain the inherent flaws to all your arguments, I believe a ship sailed the northwest passage this summer for the first time, without the aid of an ice breaker. That doesn’t seem like a rebound to the polar ice.

    jd hill

  • Skeptic wrote on 21 November, 2008, 9:03

    JD, you’re ill-informed. Hopefully you’ll learn something here.

    With regard to the environmental lobby being i the way of building new refineries? Check this out:

    And this:

    And this:

    And this:

    I could go on, but you get my point.

    And if oil is indeed running out, how about letting us use nuclear power? Or is that not an option because of some idiotic environmental reason, too?

    Sea ice is recovering quickly. The numbers don’t lie. Have a search on this site for sea ice and you’ll quickly find what I’m talking about.

    But thanks for the comment!

  • JD Hill wrote on 21 November, 2008, 21:30

    No, it is you that are misinformed.

    Very few refineries have been shut down by environmental action compared to over 120 that BP, Amoco and others have bought ought and tore down since 81. Hell, they did that to 2 refineries within 100 miles of me in the last 8 years. One within 20 miles, which effected quite a few folks I know.

    The Texas coast is a hurricane flood plane. Not a great place for more refineries.

    Your your data is incomplete and 3 of the 4 sources you sited are muffs. It seems your “skepticism” is rather directed.

    I’m so out of here.

    jd hill

  • Skeptic wrote on 22 November, 2008, 9:14

    My skepticism is directed. I make no bones about agreeing with anything the global warming activists endorse or promote.

    I’m still waiting on you to address that fourth source that wasn’t a muff. And of the refineries that are left, environmentalists have forced this country to use many different blends of gasoline during the summer months, which lowers overall usable supply to the entire country. I didn’t see any liberals asking for more refineries be built. None. But if they all think like you – that we’re down to our last drops of oil on this planet – then I hope they can make the efficiency of solar, wind, water and geothermal sources of energy efficient and affordable without massive government subsidies. But government subsidies is what keeps the liberals in business.

    Hate to see you go. I guess the truth is difficult to debate.

  • Ron de Haan wrote on 26 November, 2008, 17:40

    Keep up the good job.

    No peak oil for the first century to come.
    Depending on price coal to liquid (gasoline) and gas to liquid (natural gas – clean diesel)
    In the meantime new technologies will be developed.

    We’re in the woods when the eco socialists take over.
    No respect for their own liberties let alone yours.

    Good to show Gore for what he really stands for.

  • Anne-Kit Littler wrote on 27 November, 2008, 1:52

    JD Hill said:
    “Lastly, ’cause I don’t want to entertain the inherent flaws to all your arguments, I believe a ship sailed the northwest passage this summer for the first time, without the aid of an ice breaker…”

    Sorry, JD, you believe wrong again! (shame you’ve left the discussion)Norwegian explorer Roald Amundsen successfully navigated the North West Passage in a single vessel (i.e. no icebreakers) in 1903.

    But I suppose you’re going to tell me Encarta is a “muff” as well … It’s a pretty well known historical fact, actually, and I don’t think anyone disputes it. If they know about it, of course. I have to say you’re a pretty good example of the dumbing down of the US public school system.

    Anne-Kit Littler
    Danish/Norwegian currently living in Australia

  • TonyfromOz wrote on 4 December, 2008, 19:37

    I submit posts to our parent site on matters related to same thing as is done here.
    I have a background in the electrical trade, and I detail what the implications might be if we are to actually believe that we have to change the way we do things because of this so called Science that has as many detractors in that science field as those who do believe it.

    When Al Gore gave this op ed, I provided a detailed reply from that electrical background in these three posts.

    I have also contributed a further 100 or more detailed posts in a similar vein detailing the implications. They can be accessed at our home site. Once you get there, scroll almost to the bottom of the screen. On the right you will see a the large word ‘KYOTO’ in the tag cloud. Click on that to access the posts.

    If you wish to link into any of them, please feel free to do so.


  • Skeptic wrote on 4 December, 2008, 20:00

    Thanks for the comment and welcome, Tony.

    Feel free to send me some of your articles that would work well here. I’d be glad to link up to them and get the word out about all this nonsense. I hope everyone will take the time to read the three articles you linked above. Good stuff. is an Privacy Policy and Legal
SEO Powered by Platinum SEO from Techblissonline