Despite Gore's Nobel Climate Not Top Issue

Former VP In An Effective Advocate, But The American Public Focuses On More Iraq, Health Care

(WASHINGTONPOST.COM)  By Juliet Eilperin
Former vice president Al Gore's Nobel Peace Prize meant the same thing yesterday to both his supporters and detractors: He ranks as the world's most effective advocate for curbing global warming.

While an array of activists, politicians and business leaders have all called in recent years for more stringent limits on greenhouse gases linked to climate change, no one more than Gore has reshaped public perception of what was once a wonkish scientific debate. But for all that, the issue remains far down the priority list for Americans.

Through his tireless travel and slide-show presentations, captured on screen in the 2006 film "An Inconvenient Truth," Gore has inserted himself into the policy debate at home and in other countries across the globe.

"It's difficult for Americans to comprehend how Gore is one of the most influential global leaders of our time," said Icelandic President Olafur Ragnar Grimsson, who met Gore more than two decades ago. "He is influential not only for his views, but for how he is mobilizing action and awareness in all countries, on all continents."

Polls show that Gore's efforts have helped raise the profile of global warming among Americans -- an April Washington Post-ABC News survey found that the percentage of respondents identifying climate change as their top environmental concern had doubled from a year earlier, to 33 percent -- but in the public's mind, it still lags far behind such issues as the war in Iraq and health care in importance.

In a September Washington Post-ABC News poll, less than 1 percent identified global warming as their top issue for the 2008 presidential campaign, and a January poll by the Pew Research Center ranked it fourth-lowest out of 23 policy priorities that Americans want the president and Congress to address.
Susan Solomon, a senior scientist at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration who co-chaired the international scientific study this year that called the evidence of global warming "unequivocal," said she was not surprised that the U.S. public does not rank global warming as a higher priority.

"The world has many problems, and just like every person, we tend to put on the back burner the ones we don't think will erupt tomorrow morning," Solomon said in an interview. "The key thing is that people understand the problem, and I have a lot of faith in humanity's ability to solve the problem it understands."

Rep. Jay Inslee (D-Wash.), who had dinner with Gore and a few friends in Seattle two weeks ago, said he jokingly chided Gore for not being "sufficiently alarmist" about the possible consequences of climate change in his movie and public appearances.

"I said, 'You really dropped the ball. You really undersold this global warming thing,' " Inslee said, adding that new scientific results consistently show that the climate is changing more rapidly than researchers had anticipated. "He said, 'I agree. Virtually everything you see is going faster, and in a more negative direction, than I described.'"

Regardless of its immediate policy impact, the Norwegian Nobel Committee's decision to honor Gore -- along with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change -- speaks to the emerging political and scientific consensus on the need to make more dramatic cuts in the carbon dioxide emissions generated by human activity.

John P. Holdren, a Harvard University scientist who chairs the board of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, said the award establishes that "climate change is the most challenging of all environmental problems that threaten peace and prosperity. It's a recognition that he has done more as an individual, and the IPCC has done more than any organization, to bring the reality and the urgency of that danger to the rest of the world."

Hollywood producer and environmentalist Laurie David recalled that, when she first proposed making the documentary in 2004, Gore was skeptical that people would watch it.

"That was the hardest part, to convince him to make the movie," David said. She added that though she initially had to beg friends in Los Angeles and New York to attend Gore's climate lecture, she remained confident that his message would resonate with the public.

Some skeptics, such as Myron Ebell, who directs energy and global warming policy at the libertarian Competitive Enterprise Institute, said they now fear that Gore's heightened fame would lead to a carbon cap that they and many Bush administration officials oppose. "Clearly, the momentum in this country is for mandatory energy rationing policies," Ebell said.

Polling director Jon Cohen contributed to this report.

[taotxzen]

allow for Iraq to get their *** together to defend themselves.

katg21

How do you purpose this when all the military leadership in Iraq keeps saying that there is no military solution to the war and yet Bush refuses to press for a political solution, where is Ms. Rice these days?

What is our political policy in Iraq? I know the Bushes refuse to talk to Iran, thats a great first step to avoid a conflict.

[taotxzen]

katg21

I think the lesson here is BEFORE you kick the door in on a country and go in ''Guns Blasin'' you had better first consider the ramifications of your actions.

''You break it, you own it.'' Colin Powell

[katg21]

Remember, science is based on facts, NOT consensus
ROTFLMAO, Seig Heil, Hillary.!!!
Posted by MCVett

Now we agree on something.

[katg21]

Yet you are endorsing a policy of attacking Shiite Iran simply because Bush and the Saudis are telling you that they are the ''''terrorist...Posted by taotxzen

No, not what I say or endorse. We are fighting fundamentalist wackos here and they are in Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Seria, you name it they''re everywhere. It just so happens that Iran is sponsoring the shiite wackos in Iraq, how could you not be suspicious of their motives? God help us if we have to invade Iran but it may be necessary, that''s all I''m saying here. I think it is most important for our country to maintain strength in that region and allow for Iraq to get their *** together to defend themselves. We leave and we give a crazy dictator all of the control. Do you really want that?

[mcvett]

In the 1970''s, it was scientific consensus that the
earth was going to have "global cooling"

So tell me, who won the Nobel "Peace" Prize in the 1970''s for
their work on "global cooling"?????

A few centuries ago, an overwhelming majority of scientists
stated as "fact", that the sun revolved around the earth.
Until a fellow by the name of Copernicus proved the "consensus" wrong with facts.

Remember, science is based on facts, NOT consensus

ROTFLMAO, Seig Heil, Hillary.!!!

[taotxzen]

You need to understand that there is a very calculated reason that Bush Inc. refers to this as a war on ''terror'' rather than a fight against Al Qaeda, you know the people that actually attacked the US.

You ask most Americans who are the terrorist in Iraq and they will say Al Qaeda which is Sunni. Yet you are endorsing a policy of attacking Shiite Iran simply because Bush and the Saudis are telling you that they are the ''terrorist.''

Saddam was a %u2018terrorist%u2019 Iran is now a %u2018terrorist.%u2019 Make no mistake, I do not care for Iran%u2019s leadership, however, they had zero to do with 911 and Al Qaeda.

[taotxzen]

katg21

It certainly sounds like from your perspective it is all about the oil.

OK, here is how your scenario plays out: we support the Sunni Warlords (that until recently were allies to AL Qaeda) and help them defeat the Iranian backed Shiia. We declare victory and invade Iran.

You have now further destabilized the area. Al Qaeda now has an ally running Iraq and can easily return and bin Laden and company are still free and by the way quite giddy, they could not have orchestrated it any better!

[katg21]

taotxzen,

Also, this is not a war against Iraq, Iran, etc.. It''s a war against religeous extremists and they can be found in many middle eastern countries, any country for that matter. That is why this war is so difficult to "win". We do not dictate when this ends; it was they who declared holy war on us and it only ends for them when we are dead. Leaving Iraq does nothing to help our cause, only theirs. Sometimes I think you libs care more about our enemy then you do your fellow americans and soldiers. It''s very disheartening.

[katg21]

Also neither Iran nor Iraq attacked us on 911. Are you saying that Iran should be a higher priority than going after the Al Qaeda that did actually attack us?
Posted by taotxzen

We are going after Alqaeda, we''re beating their a$$es in Iraq. So you''re saying you trust Iran? They are sitting on one of the largest stocks of oil and you actually believe that they want to build the nuclear capability for energy purposes? Why is Putin helping them? Who''s the fool here. Look, doesn''t matter that Iran didn''t attack us on 9/11, they are just waiting to take advantage of Iraq''s "interests" if we leave, you okay with that happening? Believe me, we won''t be leaving any time soon and your dems in congress, Hillary, Edwards and Obama know that too. It would be political suicide to cut and run.

[taotxzen]

Also neither Iran nor Iraq attacked us on 911. Are you saying that Iran should be a higher priority than going after the Al Qaeda that did actually attack us?

[taotxzen]

what of Iran''''s involvement? What of Putin''''s friendship with Iran? Look at the whole picture my friend.

Posted by katg21

Iran is there to protect its own interest; if a hostile regime invaded Mexico do you think that we would do the same? That is what happens when you go in and destabilize an entire country. The neighbors, Saudis, Syrians and Iranians all rush in to protect their interest. Again, I will remind you that the majority of insurgents are coming from Saudi Arabia. But since Bush and the Saudis are one in the same we are taking their side against the Iranians, another reason that Iran feels threatened by the US.

Remember who fed you a steady diet of lies to get us into this quagmire; you are very naive to believe their spin on Iran now.

[katg21]

You want to stay in Iraq and try to chase down Al Qaeda in Iraq...Posted by taotxzen

YES, this goes way further than AlQaeda now! Sure they are there but what of Iran''s involvement? What of Putin''s friendship with Iran? Look at the whole picture my friend. We are in Iraq because it puts us in the perfect position to deal with a much bigger problem. Why do you think Iran is supplying insurgents with the weapons that are killing our soldiers? They want us out of there. You''ll never get your wish, Democrats won''t take the troops out of Iraq either. You dems keep screaming that this is a war based on oil...well you''re right. We are there to protect Iraq''s oil from those who would use it for their own gain which is to control the region. we can''t afford to let that happen.

[taotxzen]

(cont)

But there was a catch: The war hadn''t started yet, at least not officially. This was September 2002--a month before Congress had voted to give President Bush the authority he used to invade Iraq, two months before the United Nations brought the matter to a vote and more than six months before "shock and awe" officially began.
At the time, the Bush Administration publicly played down the extent of the air strikes, claiming the United States was just defending the so-called no-fly zones. But new information that has come out in response to the Downing Street memo reveals that, by this time, the war was already a foregone conclusion and attacks were no less than the undeclared beginning of the invasion of Iraq.
The Sunday Times of London recently reported on new evidence showing that "The RAF and US aircraft doubled the rate at which they were dropping bombs on Iraq in 2002 in an attempt to provoke Saddam Hussein into giving the allies an excuse for war." The paper cites newly released statistics from the British Defense Ministry showing that "the Allies dropped twice as many bombs on Iraq in the second half of 2002 as they did during the whole of 2001" and that "a full air offensive" was under way months before the invasion had officially begun.

[taotxzen]

badaxmofo

At least you got my name right.

Actually it started in Sept 2002:

Published on Thursday, June 2, 2005

The Smoking Bullet in the Smoking Gun

How Bush Began the Iraq Invasion Before He Went to Congress or the UN

It was a huge air assault: Approximately 100 US and British planes flew from Kuwait into Iraqi airspace. At least seven types of aircraft were part of this massive operation, including US F-15 Strike Eagles and Royal Air Force Tornado ground-attack planes. They dropped precision-guided munitions on Saddam Hussein''s major western air-defense facility, clearing the path for Special Forces helicopters that lay in wait in Jordan. Earlier attacks had been carried out against Iraqi command and control centers, radar detection systems, Revolutionary Guard units, communication centers and mobile air-defense systems. The Pentagon''s goal was clear: Destroy Iraq''s ability to resist. This was war.

(cont)

[taotxzen]

There''s a breathtaking chutzpah about this attempt to put the blame on the intelligence agencies. It brings to mind the joke about the boy who killed his parents, then pleaded for mercy on the grounds that he''s an orphan. Recall that all through 2002, when the White House and Pentagon were preparing to invade Iraq, Cheney and Rumsfeld were annoyed that the CIA was stubbornly failing to find evidence of an Iraqi nuclear program or of a connection between Saddam and al-Qaida. The New York Times reported in October 2002 that Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, and Doug Feith had set up their own small intelligence shop in the Pentagon to pore over raw intelligence, looking for connections that the CIA had obviously missed. Meanwhile, Cheney was making trips to Langley, applying pressure at the source.

[taotxzen]

Oct. 8, 2004
War Without Reason
The total collapse of Bush''s arguments for invading Iraq.

By Fred Kaplan

The official rationales for the war in Iraq now lie in tatters. Earlier in the week, the CIA and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld conceded that Saddam Hussein had no links to al-Qaida. Yesterday, George W. Bush and *** Cheney accepted the findings of Charles Duelfer, their chief weapons inspector, that Saddam didn''t have WMD after all.
The Duelfer report, President Bush said to reporters on the South Lawn, "confirms the earlier conclusion of David Kay that Iraq did not have the weapons that our intelligence believed were there." Yet, he quickly added, going to war was still the right%u2014the necessary%u2014course of action.
Cheney, speaking in Miami, went further, claiming that the Duelfer report bolstered the case for war. "Delay, defer, wait," he said, "wasn''t an option."
Actually, the Duelfer report states that Saddam Hussein did not have the means. It concludes that, after the 1991 war, "Iraq''s ability to reconstitute a nuclear weapon program progressively decayed." Iraq destroyed its chemical-weapons stockpile in ''91, and "there is no credible indication that Baghdad resumed production." The biological-weapons program was "put on the shelf" after the last facility was destroyed by U.N. inspectors in 1996.

[taotxzen]

July 3, 2003


Bush administration pushed for proof linking Saddam, al-Qaida

By Jonathan S. Landay and Warren P. Strobel
Knight Ridder Newspapers

WASHINGTON - The Bush administration pressed the CIA in the run-up to the war on Iraq to look for evidence of close cooperation between al-Qaida and Saddam Hussein, but the agency found no proof, according to an internal CIA intelligence review.
The review also reaffirmed that U.S. intelligence agencies had no credible reports that Saddam knew in advance about the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on New York and Washington.
Some members of Congress and other critics contend that the Bush administration, in arguing for military action against Iraq, exaggerated the links between Saddam and Osama bin Laden''s terrorist network.

[taotxzen]

May 29, 2003

Bush: "We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological laboratories. You remember when Colin Powell stood up in front of the world, and he said, Iraq has got laboratories, mobile labs to build biological weapons. They''re illegal. They''re against the United Nations resolutions, and we''ve so far discovered two. And we''ll find more weapons as time goes on. But for those who say we haven''t found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they''re wrong, we found them.%u201D

[taotxzen]

Iraq had a lot to do with 9/11.

Mudbrain

What color is the sky, in your world?

[one_american]

For the Al Gore lovers:

The New York Times'' own comprehensive report shows Bush would have won the 2000 election, regardless of the Supreme Court decision.

Ford Fessenden and John Broder from November 12, 2001:

"A comprehensive review of the uncounted Florida ballots from last year''s presidential election reveals that George W. Bush would have won even if the United States Supreme Court had allowed the statewide manual recount of the votes that the Florida Supreme Court had ordered to go forward.


"Contrary to what many partisans of former Vice President Al Gore have charged, the United States Supreme Court did not award an election to Mr. Bush that otherwise would have been won by Mr. Gore. A close examination of the ballots found that Mr. Bush would have retained a slender margin over Mr. Gore if the Florida court''s order to recount more than 43,000 ballots had not been reversed by the United States Supreme Court."

Gore never won the election, despite all the liberal propaganda saying otherwise.

Another liberal lie is dead.