RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Print

On April 15 to 18, 10,000 young leaders have converged on DC to reclaim our democracy from polluters and lead the way to a clean energy future. Al Gore gave the keynote presentation to young activists in the climate movement.

Al Gore spoke to thousands of young climate activists at the Power Shift 2011 Conference. (photo: Graeme Robertson/Guardian UK)
Al Gore spoke to thousands of young climate activists at the Power Shift 2011 Conference. (photo: Graeme Robertson/Guardian UK)



Let's Get to Work

By Al Gore, Reader Supported News

16 April 11

 

Al Gore set the stage for the Power Shift 2011 Conference, delivering the following keynote presentation to an audience of young activists in the climate movement. The transcript of his speech follows the video. -- CW/RSN

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aNhoAvkTaLA

 

Former United States Vice President Al Gore: Transcript, Power Shift 2011 Keynote Address

hen I was young, during the civil right movement, people could not answer the moral question of discrimination. That's when the laws began to change.

2010 was the hottest year ever recorded. What part of that is difficult to understand? Biggest drought in Russia's history. Food prices at all time high. Look at the American Southwest. Evergreen trees destroyed by climate change. We have to take action to protect our country and the world. Flood in Pakistan, destabilizing a nuclear-armed country.

Would these things be happening without global warming? No.

Columbia - 2 million homeless due to flooding. Australia. - Area equivalent to France and Germany flooded. Tennessee - Once in 1,000-year rainfall.

Happening all over the world. As temperature has gone up, warmer air holds more moisture. So when it rains, you get floods. Temperature dries out soil moisture.

New study projecting consequences of droughts, are we supposed to stick our heads in the sand and ignore this? We've got to respond to reality. Takes courage and leadership. We've got more work to do.

Also in this past year, we saw a big block of ice - 4 times the size of Manhattan, super typhoon, 190 mile per hour winds, the ocean acidification problem. You can go on. Look around the world.

People may wake up. Look at positive changes. Energy companies - oil, coal companies - have spent enormous amounts of money to paralyze political process. Response has to come from grass roots.

You can do it.

We have a grassroots, fantastic, growing movement. Photovoltaic energy - just a couple of years from being competitive with grid power. Wind power. Efficiency. Businesses can be more profitable by reducing wasteful practices. We need to change the laws. Put a price on carbon. Encourage us in the right direction.

Out of sight, out of mind. CO2 is invisible. Requires advocacy. Raising your voices. Your passion.

Pollution will be there for a long time. Short term - part of the problem we have to solve. Yes, it is complex.

What triggered recession? Mortgages given to people who could not pay back. Lumped together, made short-term profits. When tested, chain reaction. Same thing now. Trillions of dollars of sub-prime carbon assets. 90 million tons every 24 hours. We need to stop borrowing money from China to burn fossil fuel.

Young people gathered here. It is hard to grasp how important this is. Inconvenient Youth - thank you. Thank you.

I want to issue a challenge. We have not yet done enough. Our leaders have not done enough. 50 years ago. President John F. Kennedy - man on the moon in 10 years. 8 years later, Armstrong did it. Average age of systems engineers at NASA was 26. So they heard the challenge at age 18.

Old proverb:
If you want to go quickly, go alone.
If you want to go far, go together.

Let's start this movement and get it into high gear.

Make no mistake. When your children are your age. Depending on the circumstances they find themselves in, if they look at rising sea levels, and 100s of millions of climate refugees, a failure of policy, floods, political chaos, melted ice cap, they would be justified in asking, "What were you doing? Didn't you hear the scientists?"

If your children see they live a world with a sense of renewal. Building solar panels, sustainable agriculture and society, if they have hope in their hearts, I want them to look back, "How did you find the moral courage to face up to the coal companies?"

Part of the answer will be this meeting in Washington, DC. All we need is political will. Political will is a renewable resource.

Let's get to work.


Transcribed by tcktcktck.org http://tcktcktck.org/2011/04/transcript-al-gore-van-jones-keynote-address-powershift-2011/

Former Vice President Al Gore is co-founder and chairman of Generation Investment Management, a partnership that is focused on a new approach to sustainable investing. He is also co-founder and chairman of Current TV, an Emmy Award-winning, independent cable and satellite television news and information network based on viewer-created content and citizen journalism. In addition, Gore is a senior partner with the venture firm Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers, a member of the board of directors of Apple and senior adviser to Google.

Gore spends the majority of his time as chairman of the Alliance for Climate Protection, a non-profit focused on solutions to the climate crisis.

Gore was elected to the US House of Representatives in 1976, 1978, 1980 and 1982 and the US Senate in 1984 and 1990. He was inaugurated as the forty-fifth Vice President of the United States on January 20, 1993, and served eight years. During the Administration, Gore was a central member of President Clinton's economic team. He served as President of the Senate, a Cabinet member, a member of the National Security Council and as the leader of a wide range of administration initiatives.

He is the author of the bestsellers Earth in the Balance, An Inconvenient Truth, The Assault on Reason, and Our Choice: A Plan to Solve the Climate Crisis. He is the subject of an Oscar-winning documentary and is the co-recipient, with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, of the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize for "informing the world of the dangers posed by climate change."

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 

Comments   

A note of caution regarding our comment sections:

For months a stream of media reports have warned of coordinated propaganda efforts targeting political websites based in the U.S., particularly in the run-up to the 2016 presidential election.

We too were alarmed at the patterns we were, and still are, seeing. It is clear that the provocateurs are far more savvy, disciplined, and purposeful than anything we have ever experienced before.

It is also clear that we still have elements of the same activity in our article discussion forums at this time.

We have hosted and encouraged reader expression since the turn of the century. The comments of our readers are the most vibrant, best-used interactive feature at Reader Supported News. Accordingly, we are strongly resistant to interrupting those services.

It is, however, important to note that in all likelihood hardened operatives are attempting to shape the dialog our community seeks to engage in.

Adapt and overcome.

Marc Ash
Founder, Reader Supported News

 
-18 # Ace Hoffman 2011-04-16 16:48
Notice Al Gore doesn't say one word about nuclear power -- good or bad. That's because he's been a proponent of nuclear power all along, while pretending to be an environmentalis t, and he knows this isn't a good time to say such things. Smart politician. Bad environmentalis t. Sorry Al, you're unmasked now! He can't even say "Fukushima" in this keynote? Visit my blog for what I would have said at this thing (or close enough):

http://acehoffman.blogspot.com/2011/04/japans-biggest-problem.html

Al Gore is full of radioactive hot air. He tries not to let it out but like Fukushima, it's there nonetheless.

Here's my expose of this impostor, from 2007:

http://acehoffman.blogspot.com/2007/10/another-pro-nuker-wins-another-nobel.html
 
 
+8 # Activista 2011-04-16 19:35
Gore is right - nuclear power could be made technologically safe with less risk than oil drilling - compared to BP drilling in the GULF.

Priority is of course energy saving.
Japan around the damaged reactors is dead land - full of carcinogenic radiation. Germany is going nuke free - good. The ultimate hypocrisy/crime is that US spends billions for upgrading ATOMIC BOMBS - Analyzing the Department of Energy's Fiscal Year 2012 Budget Request
About 46 percent of the Energy department's budget is for MILITARY nuclear activities - half is for BOMBS (hello Obama!)

Burning of fossil fuels is criminal - with long term effects equal to radiation.

I believe that we have even greater issue than nuclear and warming - using chemicals - herbicides and pesticides to kill environment. Honey bees in North America are indicator how we poisoned environment.
 
 
+10 # theshift33 2011-04-16 23:38
Chinas going with thorium. Don't look for the U.S. to follow as you can't get plutonium (needed for weapons) out of thorium. We'll continue to use uranium and dig up the Grand Canyon and the Black Hills to get it. Obama's already said twice since the tragedy in Japan that the U.S. will move forward with nuclear growth and development. There are already billions in loan guarantees for the nuclear industry. 2 new reactors are on the table for South Carolina and Georgia, the first reactors to be built in 30 years. Keep in mind that Obama is a close ally of the midwestern coal and tar sands industries as well as BP. Exelon, the largest coal and nuclear utility in the U.S. was his primary donor for the senate. That is why he did not say anything about global warming in his State of the Union address. They are trying to "rebrand" coal and nuclear as "clean renewable energy". Exelon is shopping nuclear reactors to the Saudis with State Dept. support. It is all about the money! This is one area of his history that our President isn't being too transparent about. I voted for him but the more I learn the more I'm searching for a different candidate.
 
 
+7 # soularddave 2011-04-17 08:23
Quoting theshift33:
2 new reactors are on the table for South Carolina and Georgia, the first reactors to be built in 30 years.


30 years ?? Climate change is killing people and our future NOW! We need to have the problem solved by then.

Wind generators can be made in America and installed around the world right now. The carbon sequestration schemers need to have it pointed out that the carbon IS ALREADY sequestered, and its the energy companies that are DIGGING IT UP! That needs to stop - leave the oil and coal in the ground for Pete's sake!

Stop killing us and do something else. There are alternatives, and the only interim solution is conservation of the energy that we do use. This is the hard part; we may all need to forgo the big energy wasters like *air conditioning*. Are YOU ready for the next step to save the planet?

Throwing rocks at those who speak the truth is just enabling those who profit from destroying us.
 
 
+7 # tomo 2011-04-17 12:35
"Throwing rocks at those who speak the truth" enables those who are destroying us. That's true. I am sure that Al Gore has many faults. More than most politicians though he has prolonged periods in which he focuses his mind on what is plausible and important regarding the human future. He has sustained periods of statesmanlike thinking.

We can say of Isaac Newton that he was, in his dealings with others, sometimes petty. So? That has not kept us from acknowledging that he apprehended some very large and important truths. We have acknowledged those truths and appropriated them into our decision-making.

I can think of a handful of ecological/poli tical theorists who have addressed the human future with sincerity and painstaking attention to facts. I'd put Lester Brown in that elite company. Also, Jimmy Carter. Al Gore is a prominent member of such company. Are these men without foibles? I doubt it very much. If we focus on what foibles we can find, and ignore the large truths these men present, we will deserve the catastrophic consequences to which such resolute ignorance leads.
 
 
+1 # tomo 2011-04-17 12:21
"I voted for him but the more I learn the more I'm searching for a different candidate." You do well, Shift33. Obama has one great goal: his own reelection. He is willing to negotiate away everything else. It is hard to make sense of this. Are people elected only so that they can win reelection? Are Presidents typically more effective in their second terms than in their first?

Obama is lost in narcissism and incapable of responding to the urgent challenges of our time. WE KNOW THIS! As Candidate-Obama rightly said: "It's the essence of folly to repeat what has not worked and to expect a different outcome." If ever something has not worked, it's Barach Obama.
 
 
+3 # Cliff 2011-04-17 17:36
I voted for both and would again. Neither one is perfect. No solution is perfect. That is my problem with nuclear, when it is not perfect it is a catastrophe.
 
 
+15 # Glen 2011-04-17 10:00
There is no safe nuclear power. There will be more and more pollution from fossil fuels and contamination the more people there are, demanding power. World population is growing daily, and no one is addressing that problem. Just how do we control anything at all with such a crowded planet?
 
 
+9 # Byronator 2011-04-17 11:01
Yes, that is the "Tragedy of the Commons". We assume a human right to unlimited reproduction, a right we deny to all other species, while ignoring the limitations of available resources. You've nailed the unmentionable "third rail" of environmental discourse.
 
 
+6 # Glen 2011-04-17 17:07
Whatever happened to zero population growth? It ended when the U.S. government decreased it's support and began using anti-abortion and other religious issues to stir the public and influence countries they give monies to. There is no profit in decreasing the working class or cannon fodder.
 
 
-2 # NCMike 2011-04-18 07:52
Quoting Glen:
World population is growing daily, and no one is addressing that problem. Just how do we control anything at all with such a crowded planet?


You can't and shouldn't control it. No one has (or should have) the power to tell someone else that they can't have children. It is a personal choice for each individual. What do your propose as a control?
 
 
+3 # Glen 2011-04-18 16:23
Education and survival. We teach our children manners, we teach them how to work, we teach all manner of social talents to survive in society. Why not responsibility in world environment and how to survive the future. Why not encourage adoption? Why not reveal the issues we face.

I'm not talking about brain washing and dumping fear on a child. I'm encouraging education and awareness. Of course, we face amazing obstacles from confused religious people who could care less about the environment due to there being a life better than this in their heaven.

If young folks with damaged genes and hereditary conditions can take responsibility for voluntarily not having children we can certainly encourage the same among our young.

In fact, I do know many people who have voluntarily made the decision to not have children or limit themselves to just one. They have been educated and are aware. And mature. Those who love children are adopting.
 
 
-7 # NCMike 2011-04-18 19:04
[quote name="Glen"]
If young folks with damaged genes and hereditary conditions can take responsibility for voluntarily not having children we can certainly encourage the same among our young.
quote]

So you are advocating the practice of Eugenics. When enforcing your regime, who gets to decide what constitutes
"damaged genes?" I assume you are talking about genetic diseases. Why stop there? How about we eliminate anyone with an IQ under 100? How about we get rid of all white babies for a few years (until they aren't the majority)? How about we get rid of all those that don't have blue eyes and blond hair too? The problem is that once you start making arbitrary distinctions, you keep sliding down the slippery slope. Eugenics is a horrific ideology that leads to very dark places. Population control is tyranny.
 
 
+4 # Glen 2011-04-19 07:58
You conveniently omitted the word "voluntarily" and "heriditary conditions". You took my statements to an illogical extreme to suit your own paranoia and resentments.

Education. Education. The young adults I have know who have conditions that are very often passed on to children were educated in their own condition and VOLUNTARILY decided to not have children. There was no one passing a law to force them to do it.

There is no advocating eugenics or some type of totalitarian regime in my comments, either. EDUCATION. There is no question that most women who receive a decent education VOLUNTARILY by choice limit the number of childlren they have.

No worries, NCMike, nobody is coming after you for selective breeding.
 
 
-2 # NCMike 2011-04-19 14:10
Eugenics - the study of or belief in the possibility of improving the qualities of the human species or a human population, especially by such means as discouraging reproduction by persons having genetic defects or presumed to have inheritable undesirable traits (negative eugenics) or encouraging reproduction by persons presumed to have inheritable desirable traits (positive eugenics).

It doesn't matter if you call it voluntary or not - you are still advocating the same thing.
 
 
+1 # Glen 2011-04-19 16:58
Oh, come on Mike, I am talking about hydrocephalic conditions, paranoid schizophrenics, certain types of cancer, that sort of thing. I've not mentioned the perfect child with fabulous teeth and blond hair. Be reasonable. We're not talking about improving qualities, we're talking about preventing serious illness and over population.

Education gives a person an educated choice and there is no pressure involved. If young people don't know about the environmental issues involved with overpopulation, they cannot make an educated decision concerning procreation.
 
 
+4 # Cliff 2011-04-17 17:15
442 nuclear power plant units are in operation in 30 countries. There have 29 Nuclear Accidents related directly to radioactive material that caused substantial health damage, property damage or contamination, the 60 years since nuclear plants have been built. That's over 6%. Those are terrible odds.

I thnk that solar and wind is the answer.
 
 
+7 # theshift33 2011-04-16 23:16
Kudos for calling a spade a spade.
 
 
+10 # soularddave 2011-04-17 08:08
Quoting Ace Hoffman:
Notice Al Gore doesn't say one word about nuclear power -- good or bad.

Al Gore is full of radioactive hot air. He tries not to let it out but like Fukushima, it's there nonetheless.


Many have had, in the back of their minds, the idea that nuclear energy might be safely harnessed for benefit. HOWEVER, they've now been schooled on the inherent dangers of that dangerous notion. We learn as we go.

This is no reason to tar and feather those who are out in front with the right idea when they obviously adjust their thinking to accept new realities. The terrible events in Japan should be lessons for all of us as we understand the imperatives of the future. Watching climate change leaders (believers and followers too) change with the science is perfect; NOT a bad thing at all!
 
 
+7 # LizR 2011-04-16 23:37
Nuclear power is non-renewable, but it may be a good stopgap. Obviously we need to build safe reactors, and subcritical ones are the best - if something turns off the power, they shut down rather than melt down! And there's plenty of thorium around to fuel them, and they can even be used to burn up old nuclear waste. (Just about the only downside is you can't use them to make bombs. I wonder why no one has done much research on them? It's a mystery...)

Long term we need to use proper nuclear power, like the stuff coming out the Sun. That's a renewable resource for the next 500 million years; and anyway, if we create a sustainable civilisation, we can look at long term prospects like colonising the solar system, building Dyson spheres etc. But no chance of any of that happening unless we get past peak oil and cope with the Earth getting warmer, preferably before the methane hydrate melts.

Who cares if Gore is full of hot air or whatever? The fact is that we have a huge problem and we need the sort of initiative that put people on the Moon - and that was just a Cold War publicity stunt. This is more serious. This is the future of the human race.
 
 
+3 # Cliff 2011-04-17 17:40
When the price of gas gets to a certain point, solar will become more viable. Then the price on solar will come down. There will be those who will try to prevent that, because solar power can be decentralized and they are making billions on oil.
 
 
+14 # giraffee2012 2011-04-17 01:44
We are spending Billions of dollars exporting Democracy to Afghanistan and Iraq (an now Libya) - even though we need Democracy here in the USA ---

There are corporations making Billions on this "Export" --- and we who some are: Blackwater, Haliburton, Kellog --

We cannot afford Medicare/Social Security (which we paid for before the government took our money out of the "fund" for SS) -- so how does this make sense.

And those wars pollute the air with their guns, boombs, and also our excuse of "spreading" democracy when we no longer are represented by the government SHALL STOP.

Vote 2012 -- do not vote GOP or TParty - who are giving away our money and freedoms to the rich and foreigners who (they claim) are our enemies.

They are enemies ONLY bc we bomb them. What do they expect those people to do?

Some day we will feel the bombs drop bc we started the fight.

We already have floods, droughts, and extreme weather to PROVE we are affecting our environment. The only reason Nuclear doesn't work is bc G.E. cuts corners and ignores the necessary components to make the reactors SAFE. G.E. & BofA & OIL & our GOVT are PIGS. HOGS. They want it all but when they get it the world will be destroyed.

Don't sit around and watch. Speak out and VOTE 2012 for a dem, lib, independent. No TP or GOP
 
 
+10 # Gary Ray Pierson 2011-04-17 06:35
Mass kill offs of birds and fish.. Bees disappearing and that's not good for even Monsanto... You have tornadoes where they almost are extinct happening and tornado ally has been turned into a desert and no tornadoes.. Earthquakes and 'Oh yeah, it's completely safe Atomic energy', and we can get stuff for bombs that will end it all and we think it's ok to continue down this road.. This road leads to famine. This road leads to tyranny. This road leads to our suicide... We need new roads and new people to build em.. The others got lost some where along the line building the roads to hell.. Way to go people, you show em! Us? God? Who??? What are you people doing? Admit it, your counting money and not trees. Your counting gold and silver but not people and water... Stop your counting and get out here in the public so we can bow to your greatness. Those of you who are smarter than the average bear. Cpl. Pierson, 101st, Airborne, Vietnam, great vacation spot by the way..
 
 
+8 # Activista 2011-04-17 09:36
"Bees disappearing " - indicator specie - the nature is disrupted by Homo destructor and we are like lemmings marching ...
Spending over half of our TAXES on military causing even more destruction ...
UNBELIEVABLE STUPID
 
 
-13 # forparity 2011-04-17 10:11
Earthquakes???

LOL.

Tornadoes were worse in the first 1/2 of the 20th century in the US - Cyclonic activity (hurricanes) were worse then as well. CA's been in a cooling trend for about 25 years. The great drought in the SW US from 900-1300 AD, was caused by what? The great drought in the SE US (I think it was late 1700's - 1800's) was caused by?

More deaths were caused by cyclones/floodi ng in Bangladesh before the rise of CO2 in the mid 1900's, became an issue.

Gore admitted a few months ago that his push in the early '90's (and since) for ethanol in the US was because he needed campaign contributions from the ag business in Arkansas. How many thousands of humans have now died - and millions faced starvation because of his greed?

CO2 emmissions in the US are now lower than they were 10 years ago.. FTR.

And Gore can complain about the pittance that is being spent arguing the AGW insanity - but it pales to what is being spent promoting it (promoting) - Last comparision I saw suggested that $50 billion had been spent trying to push the AGW theories - to $50 million against.

Last - The UN just scrubbed it's 2005 predictions and maps from it's website that had predicted 50 million folks would be refugees, in 10 years. There are none.
 
 
0 # NCMike 2011-04-18 07:55
You may want to get ready for the attacks about to come your way - not everyone likes things like facts to get in their way. There is a lot of information out there showing that AGW is not legitimate, unfortunately it is usually ignored by those worshipping at the altar of AGW.
 
 
+2 # sark 2011-04-18 10:02
Would you please post where you get the opinions you post?
For those that may be interested, look at the complete EPA report concerning CO2 emissions.
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/downloads11/US-GHG-Inventory-2011-Complete_Report.pdf

Also, concerning the UN;
http://www.unhcr.org/pages/49e4a5096.html
 
 
+4 # Gary Ray Pierson 2011-04-17 06:44
This is us and our World, lets keep it this way...
http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=2HiUMlOz4UQ&vq=large

garyray ^i^
 
 
-10 # greenisgreen 2011-04-17 07:37
Ahhh is current tv still Al gore's baby? Horrible channel, what is he thinking? Why is the man with clay feet~~(election aftermath 2000 when he gave up the stolen presidency without a fight.) leading our fight for the planet?
 
 
+6 # Glen 2011-04-17 09:40
Al Gore was never meant to be president. He knew it, and any who were familiar with how this country and presidential campaigns are run, knew it. Al Gore was not allowed to protest anymore than the recount was allowed.

None of us know what Gore is up to any more than a number of other high profile people, in spite of making good guesses. We do, however, know exactly what the federal government is up to.
 
 
-8 # forparity 2011-04-17 13:53
U might recall, that Gore's attorney, David Boies, argued against the Florida Supreme Court's want to order a state wide recount (something that Gore never wanted - never asked for). Boies argued that that there was nothing under the law that would allow it, and that the US Supreme Court would strike it down. They did. Besides, Bush won anyway, per the recounts that were done by the national media which wanted Gore to win.
 
 
+6 # Activista 2011-04-17 15:10
Baby "Bush won anyway, per the recounts .." ??????????
what recounts? Papa Bush supreme court STOPPED recounts (I wonder why ? .. the results were for GORE) ..
"On December 9, the U.S. Supreme Court voted 5-4 to stay (STOP) the Florida recount, because according to Justice Scalia: ...
 
 
-6 # forparity 2011-04-17 16:34
Hopeless..

Did I stutter?

Read the 4 sentences that I wrote. OK?
Gore argued against the recounts.
Fl. ordered them up out of the blue.
As Gore argued, they couldn't do that.
USSC agreed - as Gore had argued.
Yes - a consortium of the national media - did the recounts, as the Fl SC had ordered, and it determined that Bush still won the election.

Where were you? The national media was very disappointed, you might recall.

The over vote, by the way was 7-2, in it's decision that:

".. the per curiam opinion held 7-2 that the Florida Supreme Court's scheme for recounting ballots was unconstitutional."

further...

"In a 7-2 opinion, the court ordered that a ballot recount then being conducted in certain counties in Florida was to be stopped due to lacking a consistent standard. The court further declared, in a 5-4 vote, that there was insufficient time to establish standards for a new recount that would meet Florida's deadline for certifying electors. The ruling in effect awarded Bush the presidency."

Why? Well, because he won.
 
 
+2 # Ken Hall 2011-04-17 17:27
If one goes to Factcheck.org, one finds this tidbit. "On the other hand, the study also found that Gore probably would have won, by a range of 42 to 171 votes out of 6 million cast, had there been a broad recount of all disputed ballots statewide. However, Gore never asked for such a recount. The Florida Supreme Court ordered only a recount of so-called "undervotes," about 62,000 ballots where voting machines didn't detect any vote for a presidential candidate." It goes on to say that none of the result could provide a certain winner, so the idea the GW actually won the election is quite unsupported.
 
 
+2 # Ken Hall 2011-04-17 17:30
I forgot to mention the tortured logic of the SC decision, which it declared would only hold for this one special case. Those who are curious can read Robert Parry's articles explaining how conservative justices did back flips to award the presidency to their guy.
 
 
-2 # NCMike 2011-04-18 07:58
Or those that are curious could actually read the SC decision and learn the truth from that document. There is no need to read someone else's opinion when the source material is readily available.
 
 
+4 # sark 2011-04-17 17:20
Actually, Gore would have won by 393 votes if there had been a state wide recount.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/media/media_watch/jan-june01/recount_4-3.html
Of course this does not take into account the call brother Jeb received, as he was having a celebration dinner in Crawford, telling him FL was going for Gore. That is when brother Jeb got on the phone and made sure the polls were closed. Search FL 2000 voters turned away for stories about voter disenfranchisem ent. Bottom line is that if all the votes had been counted as cast and all the voters that wanted to vote been able to do so, Gore would have won the election.
 
 
-3 # forparity 2011-04-17 18:16
There's so many conspiricy stories out there - it boggles the mind. Gore was doing robo call using a firm in TX, causing alarm with voters in W. Palm Beach - that's where that crisis came from - they went after them.

Silly stories about the state police putting up roadblocks and keeping blacks from voting.. Yes, I talked to the state Attorney General, Gore's state campaign director, and he just laughed at how crazy these stories are.

They did have a car saftey check on rural road - they should not have done that on elecion day (it's a state law) - they pulled a handful of people, mostly whites, a few Hispanics and no blacks.

The other road block was on a cul-d-sac - a crime scene.

And the AG in Oregon, Gore's state campaign chair ther, wen't on national TV, as polls were closing, promising that he was going to bring in every vote for Gore that he could muster (oops.)

Politics -

Bottom line, if Bush been aresting for rape the week before.. you see, it didn't happen -- the votes can't be counted in ways that people dream up after an election that are not legal ways to do it.

I guarantee you, that as soon as a Republican .. shoe on other foot - you'll not stand for it then.. right?
 
 
+2 # sark 2011-04-17 21:45
Wrong, I think every voters' vote should be counted and that every voter should be able to vote. I am not afraid of honest verifiable elections where the vote is counted as the voter intended.
I am not interested in conspiracy "stories" but am interested when the word conspiracy is thrown out to try and deflect one from the truth.
I am pretty sure that the AG in Oregon, Gore's state campaign chair there does not own and or have financial interest in voting machine companies like the chairman and CEO of Diebold saying he was "committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the president next year." (That would be Bush)

One of the strong voices for election integrity where I live is a Republican. He says he likes to win but cheating to win is not winning.
I would like for every vote to count and be counted.
 
 
+3 # Glen 2011-04-18 08:56
forparity, it is not difficult to do some serious research on that "election". It is also easy to determine that the supreme court was outside the law when they interfered with the election results.

There is more than enough evidence concerning state officers and Jeb Bush that there was corruption, manipulating poll hours, location of same, and barring certain citizens from voting at all. There is even testimony from a past employer of the voting machine programming who stated he was asked to program in a backdoor. He assumed it was so the voting could be checked on to prevent fraud. It was, in fact, to aid in voting fraud. Until my last computer crashed I had the audio of that testimony stored.

Heck folks involved in serious investigations were found dead, one in a motel in Georgia. The Bush family and cohorts such as Karl Rove are quite capable of such acts. Karl Rove did, in fact ruin a lot of lives in Texas.
 
 
+5 # reiverpacific 2011-04-17 09:34
Does anybody out there know if Mr. Gore is still invested in Occidental Petroleum of Los Angeles (as his paternal family had been for decades) who, in 1997 were confronted with the indigenous, nomadic U'ma Tribe of the Colombian Amazon's threat of mass suicide if this company continued exploratory drilling for oil and dumping resultant toxic waste on what they (justifiably) claimed was their natural roaming ranges in the Northern Amazon rain forest? I've been trying to get an answer to this for a while but with no result. To me, the more credible "Gore" is Gore Vidal of the same dynasty but who turned away from that dubious Southern famil and became a truth-speaker to power. And thanks for the good comments about Mr Al's refusal to fight for the presidency in 2001, his espousal of nuclear energy (the "clean coal" humbug too?) and especially ex- C'p'l Gary Ray Pierson's pungent statement that the current road we are on is tantamount to our own gradual, creeping suicide supported, and even driven, by the same powers who would have pushed the Umas to their courageous (but probably futile) self-ending. I mean, where will they sail their huge, ostentatious yachts when the oceans and rivers are too polluted to be on or in, and what value their gated, elitist anti-communitie s when the air they breathe in common with we of the riff-raff is deadly?
 
 
-4 # forparity 2011-04-17 19:12
Who cares. Rather large protests were held at the Democratic Convention in Los Angeles in 2000, about the Occidental - U'Wa peoples in Colombia. No reporting. Naturally, the national media, as with Obama this time, and Clinton before - had no intent to vet the Democrat candidate; their candidate.
 
 
+3 # estelle ellis-rubins 2011-04-17 14:11
LONG OVERDUE!! he hasnt been speaking out enough...or getting enough opportunity to get the press coverage that this message requiers. this speech needs to be given cross country and he has to get to the media talkingheads with it. he ha been silent too long...the movie is not enough
 
 
-6 # NCMike 2011-04-18 08:05
You mean the movie that has been found to contain in excess of 35 lies/misstateme nts of the truth? The same movie that made famous the "hockey stick chart" which has been proven to be either very poorly designed or deliberately designed to produce a certain outcome? Look up the studies that were done that showed the chart would look the same regardless of the numbers put into the formula. That movie was a piece of propaganda.
 
 
+3 # Ken Hall 2011-04-18 10:41
The list of supposed lies and factual errors in AIT has been refuted by good scence, i.e., the film has been vetted by scientists and found to be based on good science. I mention this because the flat statement that AIT contained lies is at least debatable, rather than solid truth as NCMike would have us believe. I encourage those who are curious to go to primary sources and make their own evalutations.
 
 
+4 # sark 2011-04-18 11:09
Skeptical Science has excellent scientific information.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/al-gore-inconvenient-truth-errors.htm

I find it to be a fantastic resource for addressing the opinions of skeptics.
Peace,
Sark
 
 
-5 # NCMike 2011-04-18 11:28
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckton/goreerrors.html

This link is from a well respected scientist and breaks down (briefly) each of the falsehoods. It also contains links to more detailed information for those that want a little bit of truth sprinkled in with their entertainment.

If the planet is warming (debatable) and if man has anything to do with it (unlikely), then we need to discuss facts to resolve the issue(s). So long as opinions and overblown statements are allowed to pass as scientific truth, we will never come to an agreement about whether a problem exists, let alone what to do about it.
 
 
+1 # sark 2011-04-18 12:01
Skeptical Science answers all of the Monckton stuff in great detail.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/search.php?Search=Monckton&x=14&y=6
 
 
-3 # NCMike 2011-04-18 12:48
Skeptical Science is not skeptical nor is it science. That site is full of distortions, omissions, and flat out lies. If you have the time, look into the opposition to Mr. Cook's opinions (yes, that site is based largely on one man's opinions).

Here is the bottom line - science is based upon the scientific method and proving hypthoses wrong. AGW relies on computer models based in opinion and consensus. Computer models show nothing but what they are programmed to show. Consensus doesn't prove anything.
 
 
+3 # sark 2011-04-18 13:28
I am sure Skeptical Science would discuss this with you. Just send them what you call "distortions, omissions and flat out lies".
Also, John Cook has addresses Lubos Motl at the Skeptical Science site.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-Gish-Gallop-of-epic-proportions.html
http://www.skepticalscience.com/motley-cruel.html
Any interested can easily go to the site and get the information first hand. They can also check out the following for more information.
1. Tom Crompton

2. Jay Gulledge

3. Susan Joy Hassol

4. Naomi Oreskes

5. Joseph Romm

6. John Abraham/Scott Mandia/Ray Weymann

Organizational:

1. Alliance for Climate Education

2. Climate Change Media Partnership

3. Sea Grant Climate Network

4. Skeptical Science.com

5. The Earth Journalism Network

6. Union of Concerned Scientists
 
 
+4 # Ken Hall 2011-04-18 15:22
Thank you for the excellent list, Sark. I'm a member of UoCS and find the website to very informative
 
 
+3 # sark 2011-04-19 06:08
Ken, Thank you.
I agree that UoCS has excellent information in addition to ways to take action. I have been with them for years.
I do like how Skeptical Science organizes the scientific data. I also like the daily emails.
I find that I continue to be surprised when Monckton is brought up because he has been completely discredited by the scientific community.
Again, Thank You.
 
 
+5 # fredboy 2011-04-17 18:33
Al, we appreciate your good thoughts but don't know what to do now. After 11 years of twisted government, and the continued deaf ears of Democrats, we are seeing our nation savaged.

Tried hard to share debate and speech coaching that would have put you over the top in 2000, but your team rejected the idea. You would have won and been a great President. Instead, we experienced hell.

Saw a great bumper sticker that says it all: "Nature bats last."
 
 
0 # Glen 2011-04-18 16:26
And I, fredboy, have scrolling across my computer screen: Nature Is Waiting For Us To Leave.
 

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.

RSNRSN