Last night I was part of a conference call/town hall meeting event with Repower America which included remarks by it's Chariman, former Vice President Al Gore.

Reading this article about an appearance he made in Mexico this past week to discuss climate change you get the distinct impression the media there is just so disappointed they didn't get to be a part of his entire discussion because they just care so much about climate change. Hogwash.

Recent events have given Al Gore's detractors a chance to declare open season on not only his reputation but the very science behind global warming. I think they are all in for a rude awakening on both counts.

Nobel Peace Prize recipient and former Vice President of the United States Al Gore has a new book out entitled, Our Choice: A Plan To Solve The Climate Crisis. In reading this book however, it became more to me than just a plan to solve the climate crisis. It is a book to solve the human crisis.

Amid all the discussions about potential paths forward in terms climate legislation, there is basic agreement about the need to 'put a price on carbon' to incentivize reducing carbon intensity (and usage ... or, actually, dumping into the atmosphere) throughout the economy.

Should we pursue a Carbon Cap (or A CAT, a Cap, Auction, and Trade) or some form of Carbon Tax (or fee)?

And, then the debate turns to "what to do with the resources".  For many, the best answer seems to be some form of Cap & Dividend program.  The idea of sending money "back" to people has great appeal, for many reasons but what about looking behind the curtain. Does it continue to make as much sense?

John McCain's speech and policy constructs on Global Warming have gotten a bit of attention from the Energy Smart blogging world. The following are few of the worthwhile discussions to date.

Wonkroom's McCain Wants it Both Ways on Global Warming: Ends up attacking his own plan highlights the contradictions inherent in John McCain's messaging, trying to create an appearance that he represents a middle way between Global Warming deniers and a strawman of those pursuing "crippling regulation".  What is a McCain example of crippling regulation?  Increasing energy efficiency in building codes. Message John:  this is profitable path toward change.  That radically liberal group, the business consulting firm McKinsey and Company, "has found that mandatory energy efficiency standards, far from being crippling, overcome present market failures and policy distortions and can drive massive return on investment. Is McCain calling McKinsey "extreme"?"

The Physicians for Social Responsibility have stepped with a strong statement about the Lieberman-Warner Climate inSecurity Act's inadequacies and requirements for strengthening it.

In June the U.S. Senate will begin debate on legislation to address global warming.  The Climate Security Act, S. 3036, fails to meet the scientific targets that will be necessary to avoid the worst affects of climate change.

Absolutely,the Coal Subsidy Act fails to meet any reasonable definition of scientific targets, despite Barbara Boxer's misleading claim that this follows scientific advice.

I wrote this last year right after Al Gore appeared on Capitol Hill to give testimony about the effects of climate change and how the climate crisis is now and will effect this planet. Today is one year since that testomony wherein he explained that the Arctic ice cap should it all go will not come back in any timeframe relevant to the human species. However, I still don't see the urgency that needs to be seen by enough of US to begin doing what we must to mitigate this.

Just the other day, Mr. Gore not only launched The Climate Project-India to continue the worldwide grassroots education many need to inspire action, he also stated in a videoconference that business was leading politicians on this. That is because he is in the private sector spurring on the change that needs to come from the right sectors in order for political will to have that tipping point. Yet, where is the support for all of the work he is now doing on this? How far have we come in one year's time to really stand up for this planet? It is sad to see that my skepticism regarding Congress was true.

I am writing to report a response from Kalee Kreider (VP Al Gore's communications director and environmental adviser) to a pair of Washington Post articles on British High Court judge Michael Burton's ruling concerning Gore's movie on global warming, An Inconvenient Truth.

Please find the response here: An Inconvenient Truth: Team Gore responds, which links to the preceding posts at the Post which Kalee was responding to.

British Government released the movie, An Inconvenient Truth, to be shown in schools.

One man, Mr. Dimmock, a school Governor, challenged that in court, making of course, outrageous claims of the movie.

Patriots for Al Gore Statement Regarding Al Gore Receiving Nobel Peace Prize

Al Gore is now an Ambassador to the world, and to me that far surpasses anything a president in the military industrial complex can do to motivate a global response to this crisis now. I have always believed that those who serve their conscience serve well. Mr. Gore is now living proof of that  in showing us all that we can and must do it too.

Do you think we could all get on the same page and spell TRANSFORMATION? Democrats and Republicans; conservatives and liberals. There are powerful new tools for consensus building that promise a supercharged democracy capable of agreeing upon innovative solutions to humanity threatening problems.

This groundbreaking invention on the part of Al Gore that could now save this world from the catastrophic affects of the climate crisis still sits in a warehouse in Maryland after being scrubbed in January 2006. As usual, "budget" is the answer for why it sits, but I believe it goes deeper than that.

Is Dennis Avery a legitimate skeptic, or a corporate shill? Well, considering these press releases always specifically target Al Gore and not address the facts he presents that represent an entire scientific community, one can only surmise that it is the latter and not the former.