Of far more interest is what he plans to do with the millions in proceeds. According to some wire services it'll be going to a "bi-partisan" foundation he supports called the Alliance for Climate Protection. Thinking about that title for more than a moment should produce a chuckle. It's akin to having an alliance to protect volcanoes.
But just how bi-partisan is it? Well, Brent Skowcroft is on their corporate board, the same Skowcroft who has lately become an avid Bush basher. Does that count? The board also includes Clinton's former EPA honcho Carol Browner. Listed as a partner is Participant Productions, the company that released such non-partisan thrillers as "An Inconvenient Truth", "Syrianna", "Good Night and Good Luck" (the story of Keith Olberman) and who are currently working on "Charlie Wilson's War", which will likely attempt to blame the War on Terror on America.
Quite literally the site is a boiling stew pot of modern liberalism, complete with embedded political messages and convenient alarmism. For example, Mr. Gore, in trying to make his point, at one point compares the Earth with Venus:
As a result, while the average temperature on Earth is a pleasant 59 degrees, the average temperature on Venus is 867 degrees. True, Venus is closer to the Sun than we are,Well yes, other than that little factoid about the distance it's virtually the same! Gore makes the point that Venus is even hotter than Mercury, although the latter has no atmosphere. But geez, when Bush tried to tie Saddam with bin Laden (not for 9/11) the left crucified him and called it an alarmist lie, yet Gore can subtly suggest the Earth might turn into Venus and he gets the Nobel.
More troubling is the term "climate emergency" peppered throughout the site. These same folks are apt to call the GWoT a "bumper sticker" even though a few nukes going off in a major city would solve the climate crisis pretty fast. Nuclear winter tends to have that effect.
Without advocating political favorites the site has no problem allowing Gore to say "a domestic regime to reduce global warming pollution" (is needed) in 2009, which can only mean they favor a Democratic Congress coupled with Gore or Hillary in order to sign the new, tougher climate treaty (not called Kyoto) whereupon the forced compliance can begin.
That may seem rash but when advocates use the term "crisis" it's a euphemism for immediate controlling action, similar to evacuations from coastal areas in front of an approaching hurricane or exit orders from a condemned building. Here Gore discusses those who would express dissent about America's role in the mitigation process (taxation):
There are some who will try to pervert this precedent and use xenophobia or nativist arguments to say that every country should be held to the same standard. But should countries with one-fifth our gross domestic product -- countries that contributed almost nothing in the past to the creation of this crisis -- really carry the same load as the United States?True, but for some reason he fails to mention Chiner (Rudy-speak) who just surpassed the US in annual CO2 output. Must have been an inconvenient truth. His main point seems to be that WE caused global warming, therefore only we can fix it. If you disagree, you are a racist. And you hate children.
I've nothing against conservationists or those who desire to protect the environment. It's downright distressing to see empty Starbucks cups tossed on the side of the road, for example. But when self-anointed ex-politicians run around scaring the wits out of people using terms like "emergency" it's a problem.
That's why the recent judicial ruling in England was a step forward, but it's only a finger in the dike. This issue is far too tempting for professional politicians to resist, what with visions of generational leftist control dancing around in their heads. Some would say the same temptation exists on the Republican side via terrorism but climate holds far more promise for worry simply due to the scope of possible control.