Answers to Questions the Drudge Report poses to Al Gore, including one from Climate Progress (!)

Al Gore is testifying on Capitol Hill twice on Wednesday–before John Dingell’s House Energy and Commerce Committee and Barbara Boxer’s Senate Environment Committee. According to the Drudge Report (link may only be was temporary),

Proposed questions for Gore, which are circulating behind-the-scenes, have been obtained by the DRUDGE REPORT — question that could lead Gore scrambling for answers!

Here are the questions, which would not cause a fifth grader to scramble, but I am flattered to make the list:

Mr. Gore: You have said several times that we have 10 years to act to stave off global warming. Was that 10 years from the first time you said that or 10 years from now? We just wanted to get a firm date from you that we can hold you to.

ANSWER: We have 10 years from NOW to start acting, if we are to avoid catastrophic warming. For two decades I have been saying we need to act, but it is only because we have delayed for so long that we now have only 10 years to start acting.

Mr. Gore: Joseph Romm, the executive director for the Center for Energy and Climate Solutions, has said we must build 700 large nuclear plants to stave off climate change. Where do you stand on the need for nuclear energy?

ANSWER: If you have read Dr. Romm’s book, Hell and High Water, then you know he writes:

“The nation needs to put in place mandatory carbon dioxide controls. If a significant price for carbon makes nuclear attractive to utilities and financiers, and if the plants meet the necessary safety and environmental codes, and if the country can finally agree on a place to put the nuclear waste, then new nuclear plants may well make a significant contribution to reducing greenhouse gas emissions in this country.”

Compared to most Americans, Californians emit under one third the carbon dioxide emissions per kilowatt-hour consumed while paying the same annual bill, and they do so while getting a lower share of their power from nuclear energy. “That’s why federal electricity policy should focus on establishing a price for carbon dioxide, promoting energy-efficiency, cogeneration, and renewable energy, and accelerating coal gasification together with carbon capture and storage. Those strategies can take us as far as we need to go on emissions reductions in the utility sector for the next few decades.”

That view seems entirely reasonable to me.

Mr. Gore: Do you think the earth is significantly overpopulated and that is a major contributor to your view of climate change. (If yes, what do you think is a sustainable population for the planet?)


Mr. Gore: How can you continue to claim that global warming on Earth is primarily caused by mankind when other planets (Mars, Jupiter and Pluto) with no confirmed life forms and certainly no man-made industrial greenhouse gas emissions also show signs of global warming? Wouldn’t it make more sense that the sun is responsible for warming since it is the common denominator?

The question is not factually based.

Mars does appear to be experiencing short-term regional warming, not long-term global warming, as the climate scientists of have explained.

Jupiter is not experiencing global warming, but it is poised to experience regional climate change, “getting warmer near the equator and cooler at the poles,” as a U.C. Berkeley scientist noted last year.

As for Pluto, an MIT article explains “Pluto’s orbit is much more elliptical than that of the other planets, and its rotational axis is tipped by a large angle relative to its orbit. Both factors could contribute to drastic seasonal changes.” One of the scientists involved in the research explained, Pluto’s warming was “likely not connected with that of the Earth. The major way they could be connected is if the warming was caused by a large increase in sunlight. But the solar constant–the amount of sunlight received each second–is carefully monitored by spacecraft, and we know the sun’s output is much too steady to be changing the temperature of Pluto“– or the Earth, for that matter: “the sunspot record and neutron monitor data,” as explains, “show that solar activity has not increased since the 1950s and is therefore unlikely to be able to explain the recent warming.”

Honestly, you’d think Drudge could come up with better questions….

34 Responses to Answers to Questions the Drudge Report poses to Al Gore, including one from Climate Progress (!)

  1. Tom Hughes says:

    Joe, When you have the understanding of how your earth actually works,you would be knowledgeable in the fact that our cymatic grid provides the gases on the planet ,including of course oxygen.While Co2 is out of balance as the oxygen that flows into our planet as frequency is limited and we definitely need to eliminate the coal being burned,we are experiencing an anomaly that is periodical as proven in the ice core and cataclysmic records.Our sun is perturbed by things such as comets and the 11 year normal cycle is locally (Our galaxy) originated.This anomaly will pass in just a few years and will beat up our planet much worse than we have seen so far.You climate folks would be better serving humanity if you worked for the preservation of your fellow human beings by preparation for the anomaly.You dont have to believe my words,but I am a man who could ,if needed show you how our planet actually works with simple lessons. Thanks for your time. Tom

  2. […] scrambling for answers.” Climate Progress’ Joseph Romm takes the Drudge challenge and makes quick work of the […]

  3. lieinveigleobfuscate says:

    Tommy Hughes points to better science than these lame drudge questions, but he’s still a decade behind the science. Solar variation has been accounted for, so has water vapor and cloud formation. Republican science-apologists all hearken back to 90s science for some reason; I guess progress isn’t their forte.

  4. Drudge forgot the ever popular:

    “Is it not true Mr. Gore that only recently, in the 1970s, the scientific community was warning us of a coming Ice Age ?”

    You can never put down a classic.

  5. ckerst says:

    Tom Hughes, “our Sun is perturbed by such things as comets”? I’d love an explanation of that. The relative difference in mass between the sun and a typical comet leads me to believe that there is no measurable effect on the Sun by even the largest comet. Yes the Sun has an 11 year cycle, what does that have to do with the galaxy? You are spouting a bunch of technical crap of which you obviously have no knowledge. Stop listening to Coast to Coast radio and sign up for a basic earth science course at your local junior college.

  6. plum says:

    “the oxygen that flows into our planet as frequency is limited”

    Am I the only person who can’t make head or tail out of that? Tom Hughes — try writing in English. Full stops and commas are normally followed by spaces.

  7. GKAM says:

    Cymatic grid – yeah, like the crop circles! Why didn’t I think of that?

  8. slappymagoo says:

    Here’s what gets my back hair in a bunch…THIS question
    Mr. Gore: You have said several times that we have 10 years to act to stave off global warming. Was that 10 years from the first time you said that or 10 years from now? We just wanted to get a firm date from you that we can hold you to.

    Why exactly would they have to “Hold” him to any such statement? Because as far as this administration is concerned, they’re ready willing and able to do absolutely NOTHING to correct or stave off climate change.

    Think about it. If we were to enact legislation that would correct or stave off climate change, then 10 years from now, the more catastrophic theories will (hopefully) not come to pass. Much like the skeptics who will look at an inch of snow in mid-February and say “Heh, don’t look like no global warming to ME,” so too will people actually complain if things DON’T get worse within 10 years

    If we WEREN’T to enact such legislation, and then things went to Hell in a handbasket pretty damn fast, everyone’s going to be too busy runing further inland to apologize to Gore for having been right.

    Likewise, if we didn’t enact legislation, and things went to Hell sooner than within 10 years, people would be angry at Gore for making them think they had more time.

    So why talk about holding Gore to any timetable, unless you absolutely refuse to believe man is affecting the climate, and for further do not believe man can do anything about it? The question is nothing more than an asinine smokescreen. It doesn’t even deserve an intelligent answer. If anything, Gore should get back at the “Gotcha!” crowd with, “Well, I could be off by a Friedman unit or two. I mean what the Earth is definittely going to do or not do isn’t as precise as, oh, say, predicting that we’d be greeted as liberators by a country that traditionally loathes the West.” The same people asking for more time in Iraq are now asking for a definitive expiration date on the planet, so they can start doing something about it 6 weeks or so before that date, rather than right now.

  9. ron says:

    “Honestly, you’d think Drudge could come up with better questions….”


  10. Utica says:

    You said: “Compared to most Americans, Californians emit under one third the carbon dioxide emissions per kilowatt-hour consumed while paying the same annual bill, and they do so while getting a lower share of their power from nuclear energy.”

    remember california’s electricity crisis? it wasn’t too long ago, and schwarzenegger’s square jaw should be a steady reminder. california’s energy conservation lobbies had successfully stopped the construction of power plants in the state. a new california plant hadn’t been built for more than twenty years (hence low emissions). prices went up, so everybody freaked out and elected an action hero governor.
    i ain’t siding with drudge, but to suggest that the rest of america follow california’s example is very silly. and anyway, nuclear power probably is a good idea — unless, of course, y’all are willing to give up your air conditioners.

  11. Robert Green says:

    wow utica, more misinformation in one comment then i’ve seen in a long time. cali’s problems had exactly nothing to do with a lack of construction of power plants. it did have to do with the gaming of electricity production and delivery by a company called enron. you may have heard of them. they intentionally shut working plants down on high use days in order to make us pay more. then cheney forced the state to negotiate an insanely high locked in rate by not offering federal mediation (unprecedented, by the way) thus helping his party’s number one donor (ken lay as an individual and enron as a corp) to what seemed to be billions in unjustified profits from the blood of my fellow calis (and my children, whose public schools will suffer as a result.)

    ours is the finest example of how to deal with this problem–cut use, make use smarter, and you can make an enormous dent. every single thing in your comment was specious and sad–i feel sorry for people who can’t think beyond talking points handed to them by people with an agenda. so from my kids to you, a hearty F. U.

    california solved the crisis by cutting back substantially on use. also, we are moving towards solar and wind faster than anyone in the US.

  12. M. Malone says:

    I remember Enron agreeing to a 1.5 billion dollar fine from the state of california for illegally conspiring with power producers to shutdown power plants and drive up the price of energy. Is that the electricity crisis that you are referring to?

  13. GKAM says:

    Utica must be from somewhere else, because he knows nothing about California. We haven’t lost our air conditioners, we’ve just learned how to use them wisely. Genuine knowledge and wisdom seem to be missing in “conservative” circles, replaced by Party Line spewed by corporate crooks.

    I was part of the most comprehensive energy management and conservation programs in the world in the 1980’s, when governor Brown made us in the utility business create more energy by reducing waste. My particular program saved customers sixteen dollars for every dollar spent, and made them more efficient – a real advantage in a competitive marketplace.

    He may also be interested in the fact that we cleaned up our air and water in the SF Bay Area in the late 1970’s, and still have an economy.

    Utica must learn that emotions provoked by political prejudice are poor substitutes for education and rational thought. But I’ll be glad to give Utica some intelligence lessons, if they promise to tune out Michael (Weiner) “Savage”, Limbaugh, and the other esteemed scientists of the right wing.

  14. David says:

    Regarding the warning of the ice age from the 1970’s:
    You know the movie “Day After Tomorrow” is based on actual paleoclimatological data. If enough of the polar ice (fresh water) melts and alters the salinity of the ocean, the gulf stream (literally powered by salt water) will redirect or shut down – effectively putting much of North America and Europe into an ice age.
    This is not an entirely unlikely or unbelievable scenario.

  15. RomanX says:

    ” Mr. Gore: Do you think the earth is significantly overpopulated and that is a major contributor to your view of climate change. (If yes, what do you think is a sustainable population for the planet?)

    ANSWER: No. ”

    Now this is a very difficult question to answer. A simple “no” is probably not a proper response, and yes, would invite the cries of eugenics and forced sterilizations. The best answer would most probably deal with humanity’s social and intellectual inability to even deal with the question. The problem being even if the answer were “yes” it is an unwinnable position to hold. Society can’t seem to form a consenus on oil consumption, even though, through rigorous research and empirical
    data, that oil is a finite resource. How do you even approach a potential problem that is magnitudes larger? For those that haven’t I would highly recommend the works of Thomas Malthus, and Daniel Quinn in regards to some the questions posed above.

  16. ND says:

    “Mr. Gore: Do you think the earth is significantly overpopulated and that is a major contributor to your view of climate change. (If yes, what do you think is a sustainable population for the planet?)

    ANSWER: No. ”

    I agree this is a very complex question, but it has a simple answer (and that answer is not “no”).

    The current behavior of humans is not sustainable. How that answer translates into “sustainable populations” – (presumably of humans) depends on what humans do in order to make their population sustainable. There is nothing remotely sustainable about the human population on this planet unless one divorces the human animal from its behavior.

  17. Tom Hughes says:

    It is sad that the science kind of guys that have persuaded everyone that they understand their earth are having meeting after meeting ,effecting economy after economy with their mis-understanding of earth science.Just think of the things we could do with the money that they spend in exotic location after exotic location.They have their hearts in the right place,as they are concerned,but the other odd fellows that have protocoled their brand of science forth that has no basis in reality has driven me to speak up.Since I am an earth scientist who understands how our planet actually works,I can give a simple explanation that has had some action,but guys like the IPCC folks dont like to have their parade rained on by someone saying that the sun is the cause of our climate problems.While the sun is not the actual cause,it is in the process as it provides its processes for our sector of the universe.The sun is a frequency burn,the same cymatic(frequency,at different octaves)with lines of hydrogen and oxygen that feed its process.Those cymatic lines provide our grid,(geometric/cymatic) as there is an old adage as above,so below.Our grid provides the aether(electrical force) that flows into our planet that heats our magma through a cymatic ground system which also provides our gravity on our planet through the differientiation of polarity from a force that is pulled to our core which is a salt(Crystalline)It is really a simple process.The grid power nodes provide the upflows of heating that make our cumulus clouds and rainbows are a short between nodes when the storms excess aetheric energy grounds itself through the atmosphere being the perfect amount of moisture to provide a conduit.Our grid provides the motor on our planet also.And contrary to other than an actual earth scientist(Me)Plants do not provide our oxygen,It comes into the nodes as does the nitrogen and other gases.Its high frequency folks,high frequency.Everytime we have cometary showers and things like our known standard 10.5 year solar cycle,our sun is perturbed by frequency,our weather is concurrently revved and we have anomalous weather.The ice core information of high carbon periods and the evidence of previous cataclysmic cycles on our planet are all connected to the different anomalies that perturb our sector of the galaxy.We are experiencing this now and will for approximately three more years.This is one of the big ones with a 1050 year periodicity and will beat and beat this planet much worse than what we have experienced so far and we should be using our resources to keep ourselves whole.If you think the govt. is capable of saving you,just look at how they have handled the problems of the last few years. We have way too much gaseous emissions on our planet and the work to reduce them is notable,but will not effect the warming.The glacier melt is from below as the magma temp is elevated by the revv of our grid,and that is the only causation.The volcanoes of course are the expansion relief,and are puffing and will of course increase as of course the plates will move with the magma expansion and provide our earthquakes.The grand canyon and the trenches by the way were produced in previous anomalies as the magma release creates a vacuum,so to say and areas of weak crust subduct,replacing the matter lost to the surface,so unfortunately the geology folks are gonna get a couple of clues also hopefully.The super volcanoes like Yellowstone and Mexico city produced enough effluent of magma 28 thousand ago to produce the grand canyon.I could go on and on but,I have provided the gist of my tasking,which is to inform the science kind of guys to stand themselves down until they get up to speed.—-I posted this as I sent this to someone else.Junior College heh,When you ask for an explanation ,instead of just assuming you have the answer,You may do better in your science department,ckerst.Since not many of the science guys dont understand the earth science,i share it as I see fit,I sometimes dont make a complete explanation and one could assume things and take other thoughts out of context.Oh and I dont listen to your Coast to Coast.If a comet is is following one of the hydrogen feed lines to the sun ,it will deplete into it.The sun is a frequency burn and the stars are on node points or else they would not stay their positions.A good example of how the earth grid manifests as in the “Becker-Hagens” grid work, see the google video “Cool Salt” and have your speakers on and you will se.Ta Ta Boys.

  18. Tom Hughes says:

    Ahhh, Mr.Plum,I would use the punctuation you request,but this machine is a little foreign to me as I am not from this system,I am from planet 26,approximately 6 weeks travel away.Have you noticed all of the round ships lately in the reports and the triangles,those are ours and we work on the grid nodes to keep flows proper.

  19. DC says:

    For those of you who don’t recognize Mr. Hughes’ credentials, he is Science Advisor to President Bush.

  20. mario says:

    “I could go on and on ”

    You mean that wasn’t an example of going on and on?

    Run away!!!!!!

  21. Tom Hughes says:

    Ahh,Mr.mario,I would run away but my shipmates have left me here for a time to do my job,I dont get to go tasking until mid-June.So,fortunately or unfortunately you will just have to put up with me.Mr.DC,does that mean bone-crusher,ya know one of those docs that get money from hyperdimension people tasking in their lives,cuz thats the story ,not. Its the terrorism actual.I dont like Senor Bush,as I see its proper these days to use that moniker,and I work for Earth Services.Guess which contingent office.

  22. matt says:

    Thanks Tom, for “informing the science kind of guys to stand themselves down until they get up to speed.”

    It’s also nice to know that plants don’t provide oxygen. That’s a relief!

  23. joey big time says:

    Is that Tom Hughes “Man of Science” or “Nova Express” by William Burroughs?

  24. Bryan says:

    The most unnerving slide in “An Inconvenient Truth” was the slide on population growth. Addressing global climate change is a cake-walk compared to population growth, so I can understand the terse answer of “No” to the question of whether the Earth is overpopulated.

    The answer is a cop-out all the same.

  25. Tom Hughes says:

    You’re welcome Matt,and isnt that interesting that oxygen comes into the planet from the nodes that bring in the gases in a layered effect,just as snowflakes are the result of the gases frequencies that are prevalent at the altitude of formation.Those geometric/cymatic snowflakes are one of your visual proofs of the gases frequencies.Have you ever wondered how we have such oxygen rich air in winter,what with coreolis force protocoling the air flow toward each hemisphere and all.I thrive on sarcasm,I toy with it daily.Mr.joey BIG Time,I have not read the book you spoke to,but may look it up to see if he might have been to the same tasking college as I,or not. Thanks for the reference.

  26. Matt M. says:

    Tom, please don’t use shitty writing to cover up bad science. It’s annoying. Also, what the hell is a “tasking college?”

  27. notjonathon says:

    I want some of that stuff Tom’s smoking (as long as it’s legal, of course)!

  28. Tom Hughes says:

    Matt,I guess you didnt catch the fact that this machine is foreign to me and I have only lived on this earth just so long,and most in my contingent understand my writings just fine.And now ,please inform me where my science is incorrect,as that is the least you could do ,because I know it to be very,very correct and that most science disciplines have been sequestered from actual earth science for a long ,long time and only certain people have been given this science as certain people did not want anyone to do things like Mr. Tesla did.And now suppose some of you folks remember Nickolai’s tower,that when on a node,produced power ,aetheric force or electricity.Mr.Tesla understood the grid and the frequency same and they took his car also that ran on frequency amplification.So please Mr. Matt process my words and tell me very succinctly where my science is un-whole.The Tasking college I attended is a private school just for guys like me,who escaped from a think tank,luckily,I was rescued and sent to that private school.—Mr.Not Jonathon,Ahh,Drugs protocol against your intellect I assume,since you assume I take them,which I assure you,this old man does not as my process precludes me being un-whole in my taskings.Maybe you could explain my science improperness,as you are having some assimilation defeugelties.

  29. Paul in LA says:

    “remember california’s electricity crisis?”

    Which resulted NOT from a lack of power plants, but from GAMING the power grid, by Reliant, ENRON, and other speculators.

    “schwarzenegger’s square jaw should be a steady reminder.”

    Schwarzenegger stole his election in 2003, using a recall bill that had never been used before in its 80 years of existence (from back before statewide media was available).

    “california’s energy conservation lobbies had successfully stopped the construction of power plants in the state”

    That is an oft-repeated lie. Subsequent to that lie’s promulgation, evidence
    came out that power companies decided in the late 80s they would make more profits by having fewer powerplants.

    “a new california plant hadn’t been built for more than twenty years (hence low emissions)”

    Low emissions are not a function of the number of powerplants, but of their efficiency.

    “and anyway, nuclear power probably is a good idea”

    Talk to the people in Toledo, when the Davis-Besse plant was found to have a fist-sized 50 pound chunk of steel missing from the pressure vessel, and the stainless cladding was blowing out the hole like bubblegum (in 2000). Had that cladding failed, the Ohio river valley would be glowing for the next several thousand years. We can do better WITHOUT such dangerous operations and their incompetent operators.

    Finally, I’d like to point out that the high-sulfur coal plants which Bush has allowed to continue (illegally) spewing acidic poisons into the air, were slated to be shutdown by now, and yet are still running.

    Please read this article:

    Oh, and thanks to the clarifications on the Cymatic Grid, I am now successfully transmitting my sacred bodily essences to all other planets in our forty planet system. Do not be alarmed.

  30. Henry Bemis says:

    I would be willing to bet Mr.Hughes would have been one the people saying we could hunt all the buffalo we wanted, that man could have no effect on them. It is useless to argue with a closed mind. Once they have an opinion,something as useless as facts will not change thier view

  31. […] if you go back to my original post, you’ll be hard-pressed to know which three answers she is talking about. I don’t think […]

  32. Bryan says:

    I’ve fallen and I cant get up.

  33. […] First, read Answers to Questions the Drudge Report poses to Al Gore, including one from Climate Progress. […]

  34. Patrick M says:

    “Solar variation has been accounted for, so has water vapor and cloud formation.”

    It has, but in ways that undermine some of the touted models: