June 03, 2006

Al Gore Speeches: 2002-2006

Since the stolen election of 2000, Al Gore has given a number of exceptional speeches about some of the most important issues of our time. I thought it would be good to gather these speeches under one post where they could be easily found.

February 12, 2002: A Commentary on the War Against Terror: Our Larger Tasks
Council on Foreign Relations

September 23, 2002: Iraq and the War on Terrorism
Commonwealth Club of Northern California

August 7, 2003: Iraq War Aftermath
New York University

November 9, 2003: Freedom and Security (pdf)
American Constitution Society

January 15, 2004: Global Warming and the Environment
Beacon Theater, New York

February 5, 2004: Fear: It's Political Uses and Abuses
Keynote Address at NewSchool University’s Conference on Politics

May 26, 2004: Foreign Policy: Rumsfeld Should Resign

June 24, 2004: Our Founders and the Unbalance of Power
Topic: Institutionalized Dishonesty in the Bush Administration
American Constitution Society for Law and Policy

July 26, 2004: Let's Make Sure This Time Every Vote Is Counted
Democratic National Convention, Boston

October 18 , 2004: Iraq
Gaston Hall, Georgetown University, Washington, D.C.

April 27, 2005: An American Heresy: Breaking the Rules to Destroy Our Courts

September 9, 2005: On Katrina, Global Warming
National Sierra Club Convention, San Francisco

October 5, 2005: The Threat to American Democracy
Remarks to the Media Center

January 16, 2006: Restoring the Rule of Law
American Constitution Society

May 14, 2006: Al's Presidency
Headlining Saturday Night Live

Sept 18, 2006: Global Warming: What Should We Do

If you know of another important speech that Al Gore has delivered since 2002, please let me know.

Posted by Mary at June 3, 2006 01:00 PM | Recommended Reading | Technorati links |

Wonderful! Thanks for that!

Posted by: Daniel K at June 3, 2006 08:39 PM

I'm wondering who he'll endorse for '08.

I got to see his travelling global warming presentation in Portland awhile back. He's never been 'wooden' like the f'n media whores said.

However, I left my designs for Seattle transit with his entourage, but they never replied. Across the main map of "The Seattle Circulator Plan", I'd scratched 'blacklisted in Seattle'. Who knows what happened to them. Blackholed probably.

The main monorail proposal was 4 miles of low-impact single-track that converted the existing line into a Circulator running between Seattle Center and downtown and First/Capital Hills. Cost estimate: $500 million. It tied into light rail and streetcar lines very well. It reorganized the trolleybus system downtown. It has an equally inexpensive expansion plan to reach West Seattle and Ballard via Lake Union instead of Interbay because it would serve more people - duh.

I've been ahead of the game of giving people a choice how they might be enabled to stop driving their frickin cars so much. But Seattle MORONS and CROOKS frickin BLACKLISTED "The Seattle Circulator Plan" so YOU wouldn't get to see it. So much for doing anything about frickin global warming. If you ask me, Seattle Big Wigs purposefully, knowingly, degrade transit beyond viability. Too much money being made selling cars.

Posted by: Wells at June 4, 2006 11:30 AM

Thank you for listing Al Gore's speech.

October 5, 2005: The Threat to American Democracy
Remarks to the Media Center


Considering how much people on the left (and the right and in between) love their TV's, it was incredibly gutsy for Al Gore to make such a speech.

This speech did not get much coverage. Probably because for most people these ideas are pretty "out there". But, I bet 10 or 20 years from now, they will be considered common knowledge.

Remember TV = Soma

Posted by: Terry at June 6, 2006 10:53 PM

Scientists respond to Gore's warnings of climate catastrophe
"The Inconvenient Truth" is indeed inconvenient to alarmists
By Tom Harris
Monday, June 12, 2006

"Scientists have an independent obligation to respect and present the truth as they see it," Al Gore sensibly asserts in his film "An Inconvenient Truth", showing at Cumberland 4 Cinemas in Toronto since Jun 2. With that outlook in mind, what do world climate experts actually think about the science of his movie?

Professor Bob Carter of the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University, in Australia gives what, for many Canadians, is a surprising assessment: "Gore's circumstantial arguments are so weak that they are pathetic. It is simply incredible that they, and his film, are commanding public attention."

But surely Carter is merely part of what most people regard as a tiny cadre of "climate change skeptics" who disagree with the "vast majority of scientists" Gore cites?

No; Carter is one of hundreds of highly qualified non-governmental, non-industry, non-lobby group climate experts who contest the hypothesis that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are causing significant global climate change. "Climate experts" is the operative term here. Why? Because what Gore's "majority of scientists" think is immaterial when only a very small fraction of them actually work in the climate field.

Even among that fraction, many focus their studies on the impacts of climate change; biologists, for example, who study everything from insects to polar bears to poison ivy. "While many are highly skilled researchers, they generally do not have special knowledge about the causes of global climate change," explains former University of Winnipeg climatology professor Dr. Tim Ball. "They usually can tell us only about the effects of changes in the local environment where they conduct their studies."

This is highly valuable knowledge, but doesn't make them climate change cause experts, only climate impact experts.

So we have a smaller fraction.

But it becomes smaller still. Among experts who actually examine the causes of change on a global scale, many concentrate their research on designing and enhancing computer models of hypothetical futures. "These models have been consistently wrong in all their scenarios," asserts Ball. "Since modelers concede computer outputs are not "predictions" but are in fact merely scenarios, they are negligent in letting policy-makers and the public think they are actually making forecasts."

We should listen most to scientists who use real data to try to understand what nature is actually telling us about the causes and extent of global climate change. In this relatively small community, there is no consensus, despite what Gore and others would suggest.

Here is a small sample of the side of the debate we almost never hear:

Appearing before the Commons Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development last year, Carleton University paleoclimatologist Professor Tim Patterson testified, "There is no meaningful correlation between CO2 levels and Earth's temperature over this [geologic] time frame. In fact, when CO2 levels were over ten times higher than they are now, about 450 million years ago, the planet was in the depths of the absolute coldest period in the last half billion years." Patterson asked the committee, "On the basis of this evidence, how could anyone still believe that the recent relatively small increase in CO2 levels would be the major cause of the past century's modest warming?"

Patterson concluded his testimony by explaining what his research and "hundreds of other studies" reveal: on all time scales, there is very good correlation between Earth's temperature and natural celestial phenomena such changes in the brightness of the Sun.

Dr. Boris Winterhalter, former marine researcher at the Geological Survey of Finland and professor in marine geology, University of Helsinki, takes apart Gore's dramatic display of Antarctic glaciers collapsing into the sea. "The breaking glacier wall is a normally occurring phenomenon which is due to the normal advance of a glacier," says Winterhalter. "In Antarctica the temperature is low enough to prohibit melting of the ice front, so if the ice is grounded, it has to break off in beautiful ice cascades. If the water is deep enough icebergs will form."

Dr. Wibjörn Karlén, emeritus professor, Dept. of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology, Stockholm University, Sweden, admits, "Some small areas in the Antarctic Peninsula have broken up recently, just like it has done back in time. The temperature in this part of Antarctica has increased recently, probably because of a small change in the position of the low pressure systems."

But Karlén clarifies that the 'mass balance' of Antarctica is positive - more snow is accumulating than melting off. As a result, Ball explains, there is an increase in the 'calving' of icebergs as the ice dome of Antarctica is growing and flowing to the oceans. When Greenland and Antarctica are assessed together, "their mass balance is considered to possibly increase the sea level by 0.03 mm/year - not much of an effect," Karlén concludes.

The Antarctica has survived warm and cold events over millions of years. A meltdown is simply not a realistic scenario in the foreseeable future.

Gore tells us in the film, "Starting in 1970, there was a precipitous drop-off in the amount and extent and thickness of the Arctic ice cap." This is misleading, according to Ball: "The survey that Gore cites was a single transect across one part of the Arctic basin in the month of October during the 1960s when we were in the middle of the cooling period. The 1990 runs were done in the warmer month of September, using a wholly different technology."

Karlén explains that a paper published in 2003 by University of Alaska professor Igor Polyakov shows that, the region of the Arctic where rising temperature is supposedly endangering polar bears showed fluctuations since 1940 but no overall temperature rise. "For several published records it is a decrease for the last 50 years," says Karlén

Dr. Dick Morgan, former advisor to the World Meteorological Organization and climatology researcher at University of Exeter, U.K. gives the details, "There has been some decrease in ice thickness in the Canadian Arctic over the past 30 years but no melt down. The Canadian Ice Service records show that from 1971-1981 there was average, to above average, ice thickness. From 1981-1982 there was a sharp decrease of 15% but there was a quick recovery to average, to slightly above average, values from 1983-1995. A sharp drop of 30% occurred again 1996-1998 and since then there has been a steady increase to reach near normal conditions since 2001."

Concerning Gore's beliefs about worldwide warming, Morgan points out that, in addition to the cooling in the NW Atlantic, massive areas of cooling are found in the North and South Pacific Ocean; the whole of the Amazon Valley; the north coast of South America and the Caribbean; the eastern Mediterranean, Black Sea, Caucasus and Red Sea; New Zealand and even the Ganges Valley in India. Morgan explains, "Had the IPCC used the standard parameter for climate change (the 30 year average) and used an equal area projection, instead of the Mercator (which doubled the area of warming in Alaska, Siberia and the Antarctic Ocean) warming and cooling would have been almost in balance."

Gore's point that 200 cities and towns in the American West set all time high temperature records is also misleading according to Dr. Roy Spencer, Principal Research Scientist at The University of Alabama in Huntsville. "It is not unusual for some locations, out of the thousands of cities and towns in the U.S., to set all-time records," he says. "The actual data shows that overall, recent temperatures in the U.S. were not unusual."

Carter does not pull his punches about Gore's activism, "The man is an embarrassment to US science and its many fine practitioners, a lot of whom know (but feel unable to state publicly) that his propaganda crusade is mostly based on junk science."

In April sixty of the world's leading experts in the field asked Prime Minister Harper to order a thorough public review of the science of climate change, something that has never happened in Canada. Considering what's at stake - either the end of civilization, if you believe Gore, or a waste of billions of dollars, if you believe his opponents - it seems like a reasonable request.

Tom Harris is mechanical engineer and Ottawa Director of High Park Group, a public affairs and public policy company. He can be reached at letters@canadafreepress.com

Posted by: terrafirma at June 14, 2006 04:34 PM

terrafirm, your argument would hold more water if any of these nay-sayers had published their findings in any one of the peer-reviewed scientific journals. It is in those forums where the scientific discussion is taking place and as such, in order to truly discredit global warming, you will need to find articles and scientists that have had their work published there. Too bad that in the past 5 years there have been no peer reviewed papers that conform to the beliefs those in your article cite.

If you really want to understand global warming, you should spend some time at this site where you might find just a few experts in climate science that cover this subject.

Posted by: Mary at June 14, 2006 10:59 PM

I just read that Tom Harris's Dr. Carter received some $95,000 from a major oil company for work, consultation it seems, he did for that company regarding 'global warming'!!
Interesting...for a supposedly 'neutral' viewpoint as suggested by Tom Harris.
And, Tom harris's Policy Group for which he works is also reported to be a conservative group. So his comments, when put in perspective, give the same old tired conclusions...which, I submit, are not shared by most 'legitimate' scientists world wide.


Posted by: Chuck at June 21, 2006 01:30 PM

My work on this article (ond on this one as well: http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/story.html?id=d0235a70-33f1-45b3-803b-829b1b3542ef&p=1 was funded by an Order of Canada recipient who has nothing to do with oil and gas but funds scientists to do climate change work as part of his philanthropic work - here is one of the papers he gave much of the money to have done:


and here is a layperson's interpretation of the paper:


There are hundreds of papers put out in main stream literature in recent years that cast very serious doubt on politically correct climate change theories.

Regarding Professor Carter, here is what he says to those who accuse him of being in the pay of big oil (he gave me permission to send this about):

Sent: June 17, 2006 2:21 AM
To: Tom Harris
Subject: RE: "The gods must be laughing" getting good publicity south of the border

Dear Tom,

As you probably know, as soon as any scientist writes an anti-green opinion piece on any subject, the greens scour the world for evidence - however weak - to link them with industry interests. In my case, the fact that I have written for Tech Central Station is the source of claims that I am "paid by Exxon" (which, of course, I am not). This then merits a listing on the two "character assassination" websites:

which get endlessly listed on blog sites as evidence that I am paid by Exxon.

In answer to any queries, I suggest that you point people to my website biography, at:

There, inter alia, they will find the following statement:

"Bob's research has been supported by grants from competitive public research agencies, especially the Australian Research Council (ARC). He receives no research funding from special interest organisations such as environmental groups, energy companies or government departments. Bob strives to provide critical and dispassionate analysis based upon scientific principles, demonstrated facts and a knowledge of the scientific literature."

On top of which, the very idea that I (or any other established scientist of merit) would accept money from a vested interest group in return for giving a public opinion in their favour is simply risible. You can only laugh at it, for those who assert it will not have their minds changed by denial, evidence or logic.

All the best.


Professor R.M. Carter
Marine Geophysical Laboratory
James Cook University
Townsville, Qld. 4811

Phone: +61-7-4781-4397
Fax: +61-7-4781-4334
Home: +61-7-4775-1268
Mobile: 0419-701-139

Web home page: http://members.iinet.net.au/~glrmc/

---- Original message ----
>Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2006 00:58:21 -0400
>From: "Tom Harris"
>Subject: RE: "The gods must be laughing" getting good publicity south of the border
>To: "'Bob Carter'"
>What would you suggest should I say to people who bring up that Bob
>Carter - Exxon issue (besides, "So what? I don't know where his funding
>comes from and don't really care. Look at what he is saying and the
>important research he has done and judge the science issue for yourself)."

Posted by: Tom Harris at June 25, 2006 04:36 PM