Al Gore: politicians should pay a price for [ climate ] denial: Agree?

[Grummgug]

http://www.chicagotribune.com/bluesk...313-story.html

STIN, Texas — Former Vice President Al Gore on Friday called on SXSW attendees to punish climate-change deniers, saying politicians should pay a price for rejecting “accepted science.”

Gore said smart investors are moving away from companies tied to fossil fuels and toward companies investing in alternative energy.

"We need to put a price on carbon to accelerate these market trends,” Gore said, referring to a proposed federal cap-and-trade system that would penalize companies that exceeded their carbon-emission limits. “And in order to do that, we need to put a price on denial in politics."

He's making such vague comments here about politicians "paying a price" that he really should be asked to explain exactly what he means. Of course, the media isn't going to ask him to explain himself. Please don't attempt to run cover for Mr. Gore on such statements. He's a grown man. He knows what he is doing when he make VAGUE comments about "paying a price" politically. He's trying to start a conversation on political punishments for people who oppose his views.

And what does he even mean by "denial"? Does he mean someone who denies the planet is warming? Or someone who denies the future projections of where global temperature is heading? Or both? Or neither? If I approach Mr. Gore with data that shows solar will make fossil fuels obsolete in 2-3 decades, will he label me a "denier" and seek political punishment for me? Do you agree with the general notion of politicians "paying a price" for "denial"?

[Garnier Fructis]

And what does he even mean by "denial"? Does he mean someone who denies the planet is warming? Or someone who denies the future projections of where global temperature is heading? Or both? Or neither? If I approach Mr. Gore with data that shows solar will make fossil fuels obsolete in 2-3 decades, will he label me a "denier" and seek political punishment for me? Do you agree with the general notion of politicians "paying a price" for "denial"?

I recall asking for this data every time you say it, but I've never actually seen it, unless you posted it a long time after I asked or w/e.

Never mind the fact that solar taking over in 2-3 decades wouldn't even debunk climate change, but w/e.

You also seem to carry this notion that "climate alarmists" don't want solar to take over in a few decades ("because it will debunk climate change"), which is completely asinine considering everyone wants to push renewables.

[stabetha]

it's just Al Gore struggling to stay relevant

[Orbitus]

it's just Al Gore struggling to stay relevant

More like Grummgug trying to stay relevant. He made this bullshit post in to be partisan like he normally does.

[angelsdeath]

http://www.chicagotribune.com/bluesk...313-story.html



He's making such vague comments here about politicians "paying a price" that he really should be asked to explain exactly what he means. Of course, the media isn't going to ask him to explain himself. Please don't attempt to run cover for Mr. Gore on such statements. He's a grown man. He knows what he is doing when he make VAGUE comments about "paying a price" politically. He's trying to start a conversation on political punishments for people who oppose his views.

And what does he even mean by "denial"? Does he mean someone who denies the planet is warming? Or someone who denies the future projections of where global temperature is heading? Or both? Or neither? If I approach Mr. Gore with data that shows solar will make fossil fuels obsolete in 2-3 decades, will he label me a "denier" and seek political punishment for me? Do you agree with the general notion of politicians "paying a price" for "denial"?

I think he's saying that morons who deny science should not be reelected. Losing their cushy, do-nothing jobs is the only punishment that will ever make a difference, but the American public is so stupid they think there is still some kind of actual scientific debate on this issue and will vote for them anyway.

[Wildtree]

I think he's saying that morons who deny science should not be reelected. Losing their cushy, do-nothing jobs is the only punishment that will ever make a difference, but the American public is so stupid they think there is still some kind of actual scientific debate on this issue and will vote for them anyway.

Or politicians using their power given to them through election to let businesses pollute the air instead of slapping some regulations on them...

[Paranoid Android]

They will continue to deny climate change, mainly hard right Republicans, until it does not benefit them anymore. When Florida is under 30 feet of water and major drought in Midwest for crops, then you will hear all conservatives scream about how BIG government did not do shit and free market will make it all better. Sadly the people who support the Republicans, will ignore their how they were once against it and still support them.

[Gumboy]

Ah, I see the "political parties are just sports teams and thus I have to make everything a partisan issue so my side can win" people are out in force today :P


Voted disagree with al fire simply because to agree with al gore Goes against every fabric of my being though. I would have voted for any democrat in the country over bush, except al gore.

[IIamaKing]

Taxing carbon, Im sure that will help us stay competitive in the global market.

[Garnier Fructis]

Most younger voters and even a (slight) majority of young republicans are receptive to climate change and efforts to address it. Whether or not politicians should pay a price is moot, because they will eventually pay a political price if they continue.

Not that it much matters, because everyone on the world stage talks a great game and then essentially does nothing.

[Deleted]

Thats bullshit really this would set a dangerous precedent against basic democratic rights.

[Emageht Tsoluoy]

I like how we have someone that is mentally deficient in charge of NASA funding...

[Pterodactylus]

I think he's saying that morons who deny science should not be reelected. Losing their cushy, do-nothing jobs is the only punishment that will ever make a difference, but the American public is so stupid they think there is still some kind of actual scientific debate on this issue and will vote for them anyway.

That was my understanding of his comments.

[breadisfunny]

http://www.chicagotribune.com/bluesk...313-story.html



He's making such vague comments here about politicians "paying a price" that he really should be asked to explain exactly what he means. Of course, the media isn't going to ask him to explain himself. Please don't attempt to run cover for Mr. Gore on such statements. He's a grown man. He knows what he is doing when he make VAGUE comments about "paying a price" politically. He's trying to start a conversation on political punishments for people who oppose his views.

And what does he even mean by "denial"? Does he mean someone who denies the planet is warming? Or someone who denies the future projections of where global temperature is heading? Or both? Or neither? If I approach Mr. Gore with data that shows solar will make fossil fuels obsolete in 2-3 decades, will he label me a "denier" and seek political punishment for me? Do you agree with the general notion of politicians "paying a price" for "denial"?

no grummgug he would likely ask you why your harrassing him about climate change.

[Endus]

He's trying to start a conversation on political punishments for people who oppose his views.

Science isn't a "view". It isn't a political position. That's the entire issue, here; deniers are trying to make it one.

It's no different than if Republicans decided to dispute germ theory and push for medical care to be mandated under the theory of the Four Humours. It's exactly that ridiculous.

And yes, it would be equally ridiculous if it were Democrats taking an anti-science stance. Nor do all Republicans subscribe to this bollocks. This isn't a partisan issue, it's a willful ignorance issue.

And what does he even mean by "denial"? Does he mean someone who denies the planet is warming? Or someone who denies the future projections of where global temperature is heading? Or both? Or neither?

Don't pretend this isn't a well-described movement; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_denial

[matt4pack]

And his carbon footprint is bigger then just about anyone alive on the planet.

[Stormdash]

They will continue to deny climate change, mainly hard right Republicans, until it does not benefit them anymore. When Florida is under 30 feet of water and major drought in Midwest for crops, then you will hear all conservatives scream about how BIG government did not do shit and free market will make it all better. Sadly the people who support the Republicans, will ignore their how they were once against it and still support them.

When Florida continues stubbornly not to be under 30 feet of water for 10, 20, 50 years hence, though, all we'll hear is "you just wait!"

[Kallisto]

Thats bullshit really this would set a dangerous precedent against basic democratic rights.

When it comes to stability of climate vs a few small democratic rights. The Climate trumps because that can be a killer and more costly.

[Deleted]

And his carbon footprint is bigger then just about anyone alive on the planet.

Against most average people sure but probably average for an high profile american politican?

Owning some coal powerplant would blow his charts through the roof.

[Endus]

When Florida continues stubbornly not to be under 30 feet of water for 10, 20, 50 years hence, though, all we'll hear is "you just wait!"

Except it's already happening.

This isn't a guess about something that maybe might start happening in the future. Sea levels have been rising, for decades, and the rate is increasing.