Mike,
 
You raise some interesting points; recently (within the last 3-4 years), there 
was some hub-bub regarding Gore's monthly electric bill at his estate in 
Nashville (average $11,000/month) in contrast to his concern for Global Warming 
and encouragment of other citizens to live more "green" and eco-friendly. When 
this story hit the presses, he was asked to explain himself.  He said that 
because of all of his work in promoting (his "documentary") An Inconvenient 
Truth that he had acquired enough "carbon offset credits" many times over to 
justify using that much electricity produced by coal fired generators! Go 
figure... 
 
I recently attended a "webinar" regarding carbon credits for municipalities 
(urban forestry perspective) and it does not take one long to recognize the 
"angle" that is being taken in this issue.  Like many things, "follow the money 
trail" and you can often find the real agenda by some. Based on past 
correspondence, I know you see it too.
 
Steve Springer
________________________________

From: [email protected] on behalf of Mike Leonard
Sent: Tue 6/9/2009 4:23 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: [ENTS] Re: High elevation forest response to climate change and other 
factors



Neil,

Al Gore is the ultimate hypocrite. When he was VP he and Clinton did nothing 
about reducing fossil fuel use. They had no energy policy. In fact in 2000 when 
gas prices spiked about 20 cents/gallon he advocated releasing oil from the 
Strategic Petroleum Reserve to reduce prices to help him in the election. 
Clinton and Gore also had chances to mandate improved gas mileage for new cars 
but they wanted to keep Michigan in the Dem column so they acquiesced to the 
SUV lobby. 

I could also mention the failure to stop the Rwandan genocide or supporting the 
illegal Balkan Wars or not killing bin Laden when they had the chance but sorry 
I digressed.

Yes there are lots of reasons to despise Al Gore including his latest cashing 
in big time on the climate change issue while living in his palatial estate.

Mike


 Steve,

 Al Gore is not a climate scientist, but I have no problem with that

because he did not create the data or conduct any of the experiments.

He is the 'student' of many of the scientists performing state-of-the-

art research. When he was VP and post-VP, I know that he often

consulted with the top climate scientists [he would consult with folks

at my institution somewhat regularly]. I've seen the data he presents

presented by the scientists who performed the investigations. There

are only a couple of places in that part of the data where I would

quibble, but I am actually pretty comfortable with the climate science

portion of the movie.

Not much has been discredited by the science community. Some [a lot?]

has likely been replaced since the movie was made. Science is a moving

target like that; actually, some of the data he presented was somewhat

old. In fact, he stated that in the movie that in 50 or so years the

Arctic Pole would be free of ice. Within a yr of the release of the

movie, scientists had cut that estimate by 60%. Recent research

suggests that the Arctic will be ice free in the summer in 12-20 yrs.

So, some of that movie is out of date.

 The real problem with the movie is that many people do not like Al

Gore. They cannot separate the personality/politician from a very

nice, data-driven presentation that is based upon the work of

hundreds, if not thousands, of scientists. In no way am I confusing

him for a science researcher. He is simply the person who presented

the information, a person who has the ability to get such a movie made

and to get many people to watch it. If any of the scientists wanted to

do this, they would have trouble getting it made and then have trouble

getting more than a few thousand people to see it. So, in that sense,

Al was quite successful.

 So, as much as I did not think I would like the movie [and I waited

more than a yr to see it], I did. Al Gore did a decent job in

presenting the data. I have problems with some of the ecology he

presents and much of the invasive issue connection to warming - that

is actually a pretty poor connection. But, for the climate science, it

is pretty true to the data.

 neil







--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
Eastern Native Tree Society http://www.nativetreesociety.org
Send email to [email protected]
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/entstrees?hl=en
To unsubscribe send email to [email protected]
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to