Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Can He Save the Planet and Win the Presidency?

In his film An Inconvenient Truth, Gore laser-pointed his way to movie stardom. (Eric Lee).

Are the stars aligning for another Al Gore moment in the presidential campaign?

The former-vice-president-turned-climate-change-crusader long has hovered over the campaign despite his professed disinterest in becoming a candidate. Now, with rumors of a possible Nobel Peace Prize swirling, he's once again back in the conversation.

The peace prize announcement is due on Friday, so he doesn't have long to wait to learn if he has pulled off a unique grand slam for 2007: an Oscar, an Emmy, a bestseller and a Nobel. It would vault him once again back into the center of speculation about whether he might jump into the presidential race or, short of that, bestow his blessings on one of the Democratic candidates.

His associates were quick to tamp down again on all the speculation that has been building this week, starting with suggestions that he may be truly in the running to win the Nobel Prize. A great honor, they say, but not something that anyone around him expects to happen.

"As for the Nobel Peace Prize, [there] are 180-plus wonderful nominees and we expect tomorrow to be another day of working on the climate crisis," Gore spokeswoman Kalee Kreider said in an email message.

But say for the sake of argument that they're all wrong, that Gore becomes the first American since Jimmy Carter to win the prize. The hype machine would be in overdrive. Even then, those close to him say, there is little likelihood that it would have any effect on his posture about running in 2008.

"My read is that it will not impact his decision either way," Carter Eskew, a long-time Gore adviser, said in response to an email question. "His mind is trained on solving the global climate crisis; it really is. He's much more likely to view a possible Nobel through that prism than through a campaign for president."

Michael Feldman, another Gore adviser, said a Nobel likely would help advance the cause of dealing with climate change more than it will prompt Gore to look seriously at running. "There's a lot of things swirling around but he is basically in the same place," Feldman said in an email. "He is not planning a campaign and continues to spend as much discretionary time as he can trying to solve the climate crisis."

All of Gore's body language and every answer he has given to questions about running have been to discourage the idea that he would become a candidate. But for whatever reason, he has declined to make a definitive statement taking himself out of the running.

Only he knows the reason for that. Is it just to play with the press and the political community and then revel in the absurdity of all the speculation or is it because he actually believes there might be a set of events that would make is possible for him to run and win?

The logic behind a Gore candidacy has diminished since the movie "An Inconvenient Truth" won the Oscar last spring. Instead of a muddled Democratic race, Hillary Clinton has solidified her status as the party's front-runner. Had she run into stronger resistance within the party, the pressure on Gore to jump in might have genuinely increased. To jump in now would be to risk a direct clash. Gore seems to smart for that.

But what about an endorsement? One line of argument has been that Gore still harbors resentment toward the Clintons and believes that the former president's misdeeds contributed to his failure to win the White House in 2000. And that because she backed the resolution authorizing the Iraq war in 2002 and never renounced the vote, Gore would be inclined to lend his support to someone who either opposed it (Barack Obama) or recanted his vote (John Edwards).

When asked about an endorsement, Gore has said he is not sure what he will do -- once again keeping things deliberately vague and leaving his intentions open to speculation. The adviser to one of the Democratic candidates put the odds at no better than one-third that Gore would endorse someone before the primaries. And given the impact his endorsement of Howard Dean had in late 2003, he no doubt would think twice about putting his prestige on the line for one of Clinton's challengers.

Could he endorse Clinton? Given the belief that there is still a tenuous relationship between Gore and the Clintons, that would seem unlikely. But perhaps the experts are wrong -- perhaps there is mutual respect between Gore and the former first lady. In that case, he might clamber aboard her campaign.

All of this is to say that Gore remains a magnet for speculation, but that a change of course in his life still seems a dubious proposition. Could he have done more to advance the cause of dealing with climate change had he been in the White House? It's possible but not by much.

Still, if the United States awakes to the news Friday that Gore has won the Nobel, he will become the center of the political story once again -- and be forced yet again to demure -- but not to fully close the door -- on running.

--Dan Balz

By Washington Post editors  |  October 11, 2007; 1:15 PM ET
Categories:  A_Blog , Dan Balz's Take  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: In Iowa, the Candidate's Wife
Introduces the 'Real Obamas'

Next: Evangelicals on Choice of Rudy


I get a kick out of members of the mainstream media urinating all over themselves with excitement at the sight of their savior Al Gore waiting in the wings. Wait, what happen to the Media campaigning for Hellary, fickled maybe? Never the less Don Quixote, whoops , Al Gore is standing by.

Posted by: ekim53 | October 12, 2007 2:58 PM | Report abuse

After almost seven years of unending incompetence, corruption, gay sex scandals from those preaching against gay marriage, and general failure, it's going to be great to have a Real President up for Re-Election when President Gore runs.

Now, who for VP? I think the short list is Richardson, Obama, and Clinton. All would do well, all are more competent than any of the evolution-denying global-warming-denying reality-denying Red Bushies ...

Posted by: WillSeattle | October 12, 2007 2:15 PM | Report abuse

Al Gore has one of the largest carbon foot prints of anyone, created a "documentary " about Global Warming that scientists say has at least 9 major errors and wins the "Peace" award. What's wrong with this picture? The Nobel Peace Prize has become the political correct, liberal news media promoted, nonsensical award that heretofore should be called the "NOBEL BOOBY PRIZE" .
Congratulations Al.

Posted by: ekim53 | October 12, 2007 12:42 PM | Report abuse

Even the IPCC is a politically motivated body that alters messages that comes out of scientists research to fit their political agenda. It should be completely repulsive to see if you are a scientist.

Posted by: keesey2003 | October 12, 2007 11:13 AM | Report abuse

Al Gore repeats the word consensus so often that some people think that he and his movie agree with the consensus. That's not so!

If there is a consensus, it is represented by the IPCC. Michael Creighton and Bjorn Lomborg are closer to agreement with the IPCC than Al Gore is.

For example Al Gore predicts rises in sea level of 20 feet or more in this century. The IPCC estimates a 7 to 23 inch rise in that period,(which is half of their previous estimate) their most likely projection is just over a foot. Michael Creighton agrees with that estimate.

Posted by: mgsorens | October 12, 2007 11:08 AM | Report abuse

ricardo4max - You couldn't be more correct. And as expected they have nothing else to refute the facts other than calling us oil backed neo-cons. I would love just once for a die hard left liberal to bring an intellectual argument to the table.

Posted by: keesey2003 | October 12, 2007 10:56 AM | Report abuse

Leftwing Kool Aid drinkers like yourfit prove their lack of intelligence and inability to think for themselves when when their posts repeatedly contain nothing but anti-Bush cliches, lies, and myths. Yes all of us hard working middle class Americans are vicious and evil. It makes it easier for you kooks to hate us.
BTW, Saddam did have WMD's. He used them. Some residual WMD's were found. (Guess you chose not to believe the stories that the MSM tried to bury or not print at all.) As for Schips, why in the world would we want to expand socialized medicine and subsidize "child's" health care for 25 year olds living in households with $60,000 plus in income? I am not interested in making "friends" with nations and peoples that want to kill us or provide aid and comfort to terrorists and our enemies, are you? AS for "approval ratings, Pelosi and Co. get 11% and many conservatives such as I, are not so pleased that President Bush has Molly Coddled the mean and nasty left wing Democrats and signed so much unnecessary spending legislation. For you lie=berals out there, I mean to say that Bush's approval rating is a result of many conservatives that feel he hasn't been conservative enough!

Posted by: ricardo4max | October 12, 2007 10:19 AM | Report abuse

As soon as I heard VP Al Gore won the Nobel Peace prize I knew the evil and vicious right wing nuts would be out in full force. Maybe they think Dubya should have won the prize for getting 4000 Americans killed in Iraq over the WMD's that didn't exist? Or maybe for the 50 billion in tax money per month he is spending to build roads and parks in Iraq? Maybe for the child healthcare bill that he just vetoed? Or the thousands of innocent Iraqis that have been killed so far? Oh maybe Dubya should be awarded for the billions of dollars his friends have made "rebuilding" Iraq? Al Gore may not be perfect but he looks pretty close to it when compared to this administration with it's 29% approval rating.

Posted by: yourfit | October 12, 2007 9:10 AM | Report abuse

Gore doesn't know the difference between science and fiction. That sould obviously DISqualify him as a viable candidate for president, unless, of course, you want an extension of the administration of denial promulgated by the Clintons. Heaven help us! Yet I'm betting Gore throws in his hat, and fantasy seekers will switch from Hillary to the Global Savior. The Democratic sheeple now have a new Shepard.

Posted by: Rockyspoon | October 12, 2007 7:26 AM | Report abuse

keesey2003, You should know better than to challenge the religious dogma of the global warming cult with facts, especially here in one of their temples, the Washington Post!

Posted by: ricardo4max | October 12, 2007 7:04 AM | Report abuse

Nothing brings out the left wing wackos and weirdos like an AlGorejr story!
God help the USA if this hypocritical, Self-inflated socialist gets elected to ANY office!
Consensus and emotions may be OK for politics but I would rather have TRUTH, LOGIC, and REASON when it comes to science.

Posted by: ricardo4max | October 12, 2007 6:59 AM | Report abuse

Could you and the rest of the liberal press be gushing any more over one of your liberal buddies?

Can you honestly tell any of your readers that a conservative would EVER get this kind of treatment from you libs at the Post?

Posted by: ikez78 | October 12, 2007 6:45 AM | Report abuse

"I do , however , wish he had been our president for the past 2 terms as things could not have been much worse ."

I disagree - if you think our energy prices are high now, they would be so much worse had we kept in the Kyoto treaty. And I am almost certain that there would have been at least a second attack on American soil had he been President. What's to stop us from thinking he wouldn't have handled this like the Clinton administration handled Cole, Embassy bombing, the first WTC bombing?

And despite what some may say, the economy has done wonders given the conditions of the past 10 years [tech bubble burst, corporate fraud, 9/11, etc].

Posted by: keesey2003 | October 12, 2007 6:20 AM | Report abuse

Puhlease don't confuse the public . While I salute Al Gore for his work on Global Warming I can't condone his perpetuation of Global Unification and other ill advised policies . This one great accoplishment does not ento\itle him to the presidency . I do , however , wish he had been our president for the past 2 terms as things could not have been much worse . Ron Paul has his heart into the best interests of our great country and many ideas for correction of direction .

Posted by: bobgraham4 | October 12, 2007 6:05 AM | Report abuse

DJMonet - you claim to have 19 years in the climate field but state that CO2 affects temperature. The truth is that CO2 released into the atmosphere lags temperatures by about 800-1000 years. The CO2 in the atmosphere now is directly related to the temperatures from the MWP [approx 1000AD - 1450AD, where it was hotter then than now].

By looking at the temperatures vs. CO2 of the MWP, we can see that there is no correlation between the two. See the link below and you will notice that during the beginning of the Tertiary period of the Cenozoic era [roughly 63M years], temperatures were 4 deg. C greater than now for the first 40m years [relatively stable] with CO2 levels fluctuating from over 2000ppmv down to approx 380ppmv [where we are now]. So, over 64m years, CO2 was all over the place but temperature remained stable.

You would also know that it is solar activity and increase in sun spot activity that more closely resembles temperature movement on Earth.

Most of the warming of the 20th century took place from 1900-1940 and the NOAA that you love to quote recently changed their mind on the hottest year on record was 1934, not 1998.

If you have such a great degree of climate change background, you would also know that scientists don't fully understand almost all of the climate change variables and the current models are built on a linear basis, guaranteed to give you the increases you want based on manipulation of variables.

Undoubtedly, as a climate scientist, you would have also seen that there were over 500 scientists have published evidence refuting at least one element of current man-made global warming theory.,176495.shtml

And without a doubt, as a climate scientist, you would know that it is much more effective to measure temperatures in the atmosphere to test the accuracy of the global warming theory rather than test the surface temperature of the Earth, as most all of the pro-global warming studies have done. In fact, atmospheric temperatures have remained relatively stable, fluctuating both up and down through the years.

My question to you is as a climate scientist, how much of your funding came from pro-global warming establishments where your bias could shine through as bright as the sun [the true cause of the warming]?

The "oil" industry isn't even the oil industry anymore, they're the energy industry and they're going to continue to profit regardless of what product we use.

Getting off of oil dependence is good, as is recycling and conserving but don't wrap it up in a political charade and claim that what you are doing is actually science. We've been taught from the beginning to come up with a hypothesis, conduct the experiment and form a conclusion. You already have your conclusion formed and simply make the stats work back to your hypothsis. You aren't a scientist, you're only a political rat.

Posted by: keesey2003 | October 12, 2007 5:45 AM | Report abuse

Shouldn't you, Americans, be proud now that Al Gore, your fellow citizen, had won the Nobel Prize now?

Posted by: hpp_0 | October 12, 2007 5:22 AM | Report abuse

If you're rich like Al Gore by going around taking millions of dollars in speaking fees because you can speak about "global warming" and everybody wants to listen, then you can pay for "Carbon credits" and you're allowed to pollute as much as you want. Great deal!

Never before in history has somebody's personal self-benefit so coincided with their altruism! Bravo, Nobel Godspeed!

Posted by: nospam3 | October 12, 2007 3:37 AM | Report abuse

"Al Gore is nothing more than another pol scaring folks into supporting him."

Yes jcole, you're onto him. He's been plotting this scare tactic ever since he became interested in this issue in the early 1990s. He even wrote a groundbreaking book about it in 1993 while the rightwingers had their heads in the sand (and other places), but all in preparation to suck you into his web of fear. I'm glad that you're ever vigilant looking out for these plots to gain your support. Paranoia is a prime virtue. Cultivate it as well as you can, whatever the cost. Believe nothing. Especially those voices in your head. They're trying to scare you into voting for them too.

Posted by: B2O2 | October 12, 2007 12:42 AM | Report abuse

The only thing that could restrain Al Gore from enterring the preswidential race upon winning the Nobel Peace Prize could be concern over losing. If he had enterred before Clinton had opened such a large gap and made most Democrats comfortable with her candidacy, the nomination would have been his for the taking. It probably still is. His protestations of indifference toward the presidency are not to be believed. He clearly craves a mission and the greater in scope the more inviting. No podium would empower his quest to combat global warming than the bully pulpit. And, there's no one more qualified to assume the challenges of the presidency in 2009 than the man who rightfully earned that office in 2000.

Posted by: RicDemian1 | October 12, 2007 12:31 AM | Report abuse

Gore will be in good company when he wins this joke of an award...Jimmy Carter and Arafat.
Watch out Hllary...Heeeeeeeeere's Algore!!!!

Posted by: sunshine484848 | October 12, 2007 12:23 AM | Report abuse

Can He Save the Planet and Win the Presidency? he he...he he he....he he he he he....he he he ho ho ho ho HA HA HA HA HA HE HE HE HE HO HO HO HO HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Posted by: ekim53 | October 12, 2007 12:06 AM | Report abuse

At this point it appears that either HRHH or The "Wooden Woodzman" shall be our next President. Can't the Democrats do better at nausiating US citizens. I'm truly hurt. A woman who destroyed the Arkansas education system and a man who would lie about anything to stay in the "lime" light. Well, if we do we're all bobble headsand deserve to be crushed in an impossible accident on our way to socialism.

Posted by: jackolantyrn356 | October 11, 2007 11:48 PM | Report abuse

Hey, the National Enquirer is claiming John Eswards has had an affair with a staffer! Does he get a Nobel 'Piece' Prize?
Maybe he only had sex with her in 'the other America' so it doesn't count....

Posted by: Truscott1 | October 11, 2007 11:35 PM | Report abuse

Wizard of Oz: "Why...why you say you want a Nobel Prize for your global warming work? My son, I come from a place where men fight hot air every day...they're called air conditioning installers...and you know what...they aren't any smarter than you. But they have one thing you haven't got.."

Wizard: " A go stand next to the scarecrow ( not her....that's Hillary) and wait for your brains...."

i say it in song: @

Posted by: Truscott1 | October 11, 2007 11:23 PM | Report abuse

Yes, surely run Al and we can witness once again a pseudo full dress, maybe with a prize around his neck. He won't debate those with opposing views...what a farce.

Posted by: doug | October 11, 2007 11:15 PM | Report abuse

I am for Gore, ALL THE WAY BABY!!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: river845 | October 11, 2007 11:05 PM | Report abuse

carnasca: Bill Clinton desperately wanted a Nobel, and he had to rretract his nomination when it was discovered he had an associate nominate him.

That said, as much as I detest him personally, I like what he did with Tsunami relief. Bush SR as well.

Posted by: Truscott1 | October 11, 2007 10:57 PM | Report abuse

We can only hope the Dem Party would be so fortunate as to have Al "Sweat Act" Gore on the ticket along with Hillary.

The Darling of the Liberal Mainstream Press, Gore is destined to deliver.

Posted by: Texasdav | October 11, 2007 10:55 PM | Report abuse

Two comments. First, how many ex Democratic Presidents and Vice Presidents and how many ex Republican Presidents and Vice Presidents have been nominated for Nobel Prizes? Just curious.

Second. Al cannot run for the Democratic nomination now, it is too late. And he's not dumb enough to run against any Democrat as a third party candidate in the general election, handing the job to the weaker Republican candidate.

By that simple logic, he is not running. So the Republicans should just stop day dreaming.

Posted by: camasca | October 11, 2007 10:53 PM | Report abuse

Jato says we are women haters because we distain Al Gore??? No, he is a man...really. I mean it--he is a man. You don't have to be a woman hater to dislike Hillary. If you weren't raised on Socialism, it just won't work. Let's see...women I would vote for today: Condi ( Liberals say she isn't 'black enough.') Uh, Ann Coulter (Liberals say that she is too mean and don't assert the men are afraid of a strong woman canard with her...)

Let's see, if we don't vote for Hillary we are women haters...HEY!!! That is something I address on track #6 of my CONSERVATIVE music CD 'Blaming America First!' The song: 'Hillaryous' Give it a spin, and 'jato'..stay away, you'll just get more angry...not Ann Coulter angry...Janet Reno angry....check it at:

Posted by: Truscott1 | October 11, 2007 10:45 PM | Report abuse

Thanks for creating the internet Al.

Posted by: Dirtdart1980 | October 11, 2007 10:43 PM | Report abuse

He owes it to those who elected him and to himself to set the record straight.

And ralphie nader, for all of his protestations, garnered something over 75,000 votes in Florida. And this bozo still maintains that it was Gores to lose...What arragance.

Thanks to ralphie we're where we are today. What chuptzah.

Posted by: jato1 | October 11, 2007 10:33 PM | Report abuse

Al said no but nobodies listening. This is the Media's way of keeping Hillary out of the headlines she's getting to much attention. Now as for the voters who yell Gore for President they haven't listen to him. I hope Al wins the Nobel Prize and the joke will be on the GOP as Al will endorse Hillary as Bill made sure of that when he was at Al's daughter's wedding.
Yes we will have the first Woman President and men will have to get use to it. I notice every Mothers day these same woman haters honor their Mothers. Makes you wonder doesn't it.

Posted by: qqbDEyZW | October 11, 2007 10:28 PM | Report abuse

" Get your sun screen, grab your shades,
Cats on tin roofs can't evade,
the heat that in my estimation's new
And Al Gore blamin' me and you!
Broken clock right twice a day,
Hot or cold we're gonna pay,
Cause if its hot then I'm a sage,
and if its cold its 'climate change...."

**from the track 'Hot Air' on Blaming America First--a conservative's answer to predictable America bashing music--self written--self-played @

Posted by: Truscott1 | October 11, 2007 10:26 PM | Report abuse

"...we expect tomorrow to be another day of working on the climate crisis," Gore spokeswoman Kalee Kreider said in an email message"...sure, just like O.J. will be out looking for the "real Killer."

Posted by: dht3510 | October 11, 2007 10:19 PM | Report abuse

A Nobel Laureat has evolved into a 'Nobel Lariet.' honoring anyone who trys to lasso the American economy, culture or identity. Nobel Lariets are phoney cowboys, and that 'chaps my hide.'

I say it in song@

Posted by: Truscott1 | October 11, 2007 10:12 PM | Report abuse

HOW about 'Al in the Balance?' Try track #1 of my politically CONSERVATIVE MUSIC CD. It is called 'Hot Air,' and Mr. Gore is of course the topic. Oh, I deal with the others, too. While you are there--check 'Hillary'ous'--it is! Someone had to do it--I did!

Posted by: Truscott1 | October 11, 2007 10:03 PM | Report abuse

I think the saddest part of Mr. Balz's piece is the assumption that nothing surprising can happen in our political system. The citizens are merely an inconvenience to the power brokers, back room dealers, party machinery and the political class. Our future is already arranged. So please show up and vote for Hillary.

Posted by: elritchey | October 11, 2007 9:44 PM | Report abuse

Now that Edwards is out..."The National Enquirer claims to have enough of the Edwards cheating-on-cancer-stricken-wife story, including "bombshell" e-mails, to run with. ... P.S.: They "met in a bar."

Posted by: computer1 | October 11, 2007 9:19 PM | Report abuse

I sure hope this wind bag doesn't win. He has helped his chances though by bashing President Bush and bad-mouthing America. The best choice is Rush Limbaugh, a true American for Peace.

Posted by: jdyer | October 11, 2007 9:16 PM | Report abuse

algore, the planets BIGGEST phoney and now becoming the WORLDS biggest GOOF. If only he had carried his home state of Tennesee in the 2000 election, he'd have won. What did those citizens know about young Albert that made the m vote for W?

algore is a pathetic footnote in American politics. he should concentrate on spending the rest of his life with his fat wife, Tubby and her dopey phycosis

Posted by: monteman | October 11, 2007 8:42 PM | Report abuse

Look, Big Gay Al, It is a Natural Occurance-


Posted by: rat-the | October 11, 2007 8:19 PM | Report abuse

The earth has warmed and cooled for the last 6 billion years. Hydrocarbons in the atmosphere is a THEORY and virtually no substansive evidence to support it except the earth is warming at this time in its geological history. A systemic approach would validate the theory concept of homeostasis. That is, a system taken from its natural state will tend to return to its natural state. Tell Dr. Chicken Little to STF UP!!!!!!!!

Posted by: virgin12 | October 11, 2007 8:05 PM | Report abuse

bedavid has an excellent point, one that I was half-making via sarcasm.

Combating climate change is going to require massive efforts on everyone's part, not just celebrities and the rich, who can afford to maintain their lavish lifestyles by buying emissions credits and showing up on the red carpet in the newest Prius model, all the time living in huge homes with heated pools and flying to Aspen and the Riviera on private jets. This is enviro-chic, no different from models carrying their Chihuahuas and Louis Vuitton handbags to demonstrate how "with it" they are. All that does is turn people off and turn something serious into a fad like Madonna's red Kabbalah bracelet. In a few years, the fad will pass.

Posted by: WashingtonDame | October 11, 2007 7:38 PM | Report abuse

Re: the very first comment and the "school governor" in England - who just happens to be connected to far-right climate skeptics. Seems the BBC should check their sources better.

Posted by: stevekretzmann | October 11, 2007 7:31 PM | Report abuse

Al Gore is a dewshbag. Nuff said.

Posted by: HankTheCat | October 11, 2007 7:25 PM | Report abuse

Mr. Vice President:

Please run.

Regardless of whether the nobel committee recognizes your effort, you are a more moderate, more experienced voice in the important national debate that defines a presidential race.

Posted by: ardano | October 11, 2007 7:16 PM | Report abuse

Al should run alright, run as fast as he can to Home depot and buy environmental friendly fixtures and solar panels for his other ten homes. Did I mention his carbon footprint the size of Texas left for his last green concert?

Now, why didn't he win the Nobel Peace Prize for inventing the internet??

Posted by: williepete1 | October 11, 2007 7:14 PM | Report abuse

Rush Limbaugh has a better chance of winning...I hear he's been nominated, too...He certainly speaks more truth than Big(ger) Al!

Posted by: russtro | October 11, 2007 7:09 PM | Report abuse

What a misleading headline. Al Gore isn't runing for president. Don't you read your own paper?

Posted by: email6928458 | October 11, 2007 7:05 PM | Report abuse

I applaud Gore for helping to heighten the focus of the nation on the long-term global warming issue, however, i do think it is outrageous that he lives such an extravagant, enormously energy consuming lifestyle. Nobody needs multiple homes, multiple large cars, frequent jet rides etc. Fundamental to solving the global warming crisis is changing people's behaviors and conserving energy, not just increasing regulation and finding new technologies.

The argument that he buys carbon credits to offset his lifestyle is ridiculous in the extreme. is it ok if i dump my trash in the street if i later volunteer to help clean a park? if i steal something, can i just make up for it by giving things away to someone else? we don't teach our children that it's ok to do bad things if you just offset them by doing good things, and consuming 20x the energy of the average human is just bad, period. he doesn't need that much energy and he should practice what he preaches. how many celebrities are out there talking about global warming, then driving home to their 10,000 square foot homes with $2000/month electricity bills. give me a break

Posted by: bedavid | October 11, 2007 6:56 PM | Report abuse

In my opinion, a Gore/Obama ticket in 2008 would be unbeatable--even though Gore is reviled by some on the Right! Conversely, I think Hillary Clinton will have a very tough time, since she is still really quite pro-war and opportunistic in her stands. It is that which turns off Democratic voters to her--not her personal qualities!

Al Gore is wonky and hardly an extrovert. Campaigning will never be a favorite activity. But he has shown himself to be capable of change and growth in a most positive way. I think people sense this and respect him! Barack Obama would be the perfect running mate for Gore, and this would give him the 8 years he needs to gain "credibility" with those who complain about his lack of experience.

Posted by: Thebigkate | October 11, 2007 6:50 PM | Report abuse

AL GORE 2008! AL GORE 2008! AL GORE 2008! AL GORE 2008!AL GORE 2008! AL GORE 2008! AL GORE 2008! AL GORE 2008!AL GORE 2008! AL GORE 2008! AL GORE 2008! AL GORE 2008!AL GORE 2008! AL GORE 2008! AL GORE 2008! AL GORE 2008!AL GORE 2008! AL GORE 2008! AL GORE 2008! AL GORE 2008!AL GORE 2008! AL GORE 2008! AL GORE 2008! AL GORE 2008!AL GORE 2008! AL GORE 2008! AL GORE 2008! AL GORE 2008!AL GORE 2008! AL GORE 2008! AL GORE 2008! AL GORE 2008!AL GORE 2008! AL GORE 2008! AL GORE 2008! AL GORE 2008!AL GORE 2008! AL GORE 2008! AL GORE 2008! AL GORE 2008!AL GORE 2008! AL GORE 2008! AL GORE 2008! AL GORE 2008!AL GORE 2008! AL GORE 2008! AL GORE 2008! AL GORE 2008!AL GORE 2008! AL GORE 2008! AL GORE 2008! AL GORE 2008!AL GORE 2008! AL GORE 2008! AL GORE 2008! AL GORE 2008!AL GORE 2008! AL GORE 2008! AL GORE 2008! AL GORE 2008!AL GORE 2008! AL GORE 2008! AL GORE 2008! AL GORE 2008!AL GORE 2008! AL GORE 2008! AL GORE 2008! AL GORE 2008!AL GORE 2008! AL GORE 2008! AL GORE 2008! AL GORE 2008!AL GORE 2008! AL GORE 2008! AL GORE 2008! AL GORE 2008!AL GORE 2008! AL GORE 2008! AL GORE 2008! AL GORE 2008!


Posted by: nm_ariel | October 11, 2007 6:31 PM | Report abuse

Gore's movie is not science and his thesis is flawed. Read " Unstoppable Global Warming Every 1,500 Years" Singer and Avery. Yes he may very well win the Nobel Prize For Peace.

Posted by: les2 | October 11, 2007 6:17 PM | Report abuse

The master terrorist, Yasser Arafat, won the Nobel in 1994. If Gore is awarded the Nobel he should throw it in the trash.

Posted by: superfriends | October 11, 2007 6:08 PM | Report abuse

"Posted by: dgwall | October 11, 2007 03:49 PM

Al Gore did not win an Oscar for "An Inconvenient Truth." The film's director, Davis Guggenheim, did."

Uhhh no "dgwall!" Gore and Guggenheim SHARED the Oscar as co-producers of the film. In fact, Guggenheim admitted in many post Oscar interviews that "directing" was a misnomor anyway since he was merely documenting a very well-used and entirely Al Gore created presentation . . . a presentation that many of us had seen long before "An Inconvenient Truth" you luddite.

Posted by: goldbear85 | October 11, 2007 6:05 PM | Report abuse

To Balz: Al Gore stands head and shoulders above Hillary Clinton. He is a leader, not a calculating and devious politician like Clinton. I don't know how you can state that Clinton has solidified her lead among Democrats, because I don't know of one democrat who supports her or who will vote for her. The Republicans greatest fear is that Al Gore will run, and they will not have Clinton to bring down.

If Al Gore does not run, he will not endorse Hillary Clinton, because he knows how polarizing she will be. Al Gore had the guts to speak out against Bush's plans to go to war in Iraq, while H. Clinton voted to give Bush a free pass to start a war in Iraq, in order to position herself as a women not afraid to go war. She did not care about the Iraq war consequences and the blood that has been spilled.

Posted by: bringbackimus | October 11, 2007 5:51 PM | Report abuse

Goodness! give him some credit. You can use all the power you want if you buy energy credits (which in reality subsidize clean power generation instead of powering your home that way. Whereas his home may be entirely powered by coal, his energy credits go to pay for solar power for a desert dweller who otherwise couldn't afford solar power) the net effect is the same as if he had a solar plant outside his house and is BETTER than if both people used coal. He is rich, being rich means you have more options. he chooses to buy clean power and thus isn't hurting the environment as much as another mansion person not buying those credits. It IS both a sacrifice to pay for expensive clean power or to curb your power usage.

Posted by: kevins514 | October 11, 2007 5:42 PM | Report abuse

My answer to your headline question is: No. That happens only in the movies...or comics.

Posted by: jmundstuk | October 11, 2007 5:38 PM | Report abuse

I believe Gore wants to be president; he just doesn't want to have to run for president. And that is too bad. As someone who caucused for Gore in '88, I was disappointed that he got lost within the pack of candidates and by Jesse Jackson's notoriety. He wasn't well-known (like Obama today) and he didn't articulate his message very well. And he made some mistakes.

Like other Democrats in '92, I think Gore miscalculated Bush's strengths and weaknesses because of the success of the first Gulf war; hence, in a weakened field, Clinton was able to move past more capable contenders like Cuomo and Gore. Clinton's "Middle Way" was a plan to play small ball with Democratic issues (Remember, Greenspan called Clinton the best Republican president we've had in years.)
Gore let himself get handled by focus groups and his staff in 2000; then he got screwed by Nader and the Supreme Court.

But now the stars have indeed aligned for him. He was right and articulate on the war, on the environment and on Bush's moral corruption. If he ran, his would be a classic redemption story. With his experience and a motivated crowd behind him, Gore could be free to be himself.

But all these doors don't stay open forever.If he doesn't run in 08, I doubt he will get the chance again to be president.

Posted by: Anadromous2 | October 11, 2007 5:32 PM | Report abuse

Oh my my how the Gore-hatters do rant. And they do so without any substance, other than the "talking points" from the Limbaugh-O'Leilly mostly white men rightwing groups.

But let them rant.

Al Gore is a patriot. Certainly he can see the mess that the currenet crop of Democratic Presidential runners are making. I think he'll run for President wheter he gets a Noble prize or not as this country can not afford to have more Republicans in the White House.

Read his book "Assault on Reason" and you'll see that he is acutely aware that the very life of our precious American democracy is at stake. Some say it's too late but I think not, and I hope neither does Al Gore.

The lies, crimes and deceptions of the past 6 years along with the inside the Beltway Democratic response leaves us praing (yes praying) that Al Gore will hear our call.

Run, Al, run.

Posted by: kirby2 | October 11, 2007 5:28 PM | Report abuse

I believe Gore wants to be president; he just doesn't want to have to run for president. And that is too bad. As someone who caucused for Gore in '88, I was disappointed that he got lost within the pack of candidates and by Jesse Jackson's notoriety. He wasn't well-known (like Obama today) and he didn't articulate his message very well. And he made some mistakes.

Like other Democrats in '92, I think Gore miscalculated Bush's strengths and weaknesses because of the success of the first Gulf war; hence, in a weakened field, Clinton was able to move past more capable contenders like Cuomo and Gore. Clinton's "Middle Way" was a plan to play small ball with Democratic issues (Remember, Greenspan called Clinton the best Republican president we've had in years.)
Gore let himself get handled by focus groups and his staff in 2000; then he got screwed by Nader and the Supreme Court.

But now the stars have indeed aligned for him. He was right and articulate on the war, on the environment and on Bush's moral corruption. If he ran, his would be a classic redemption story. With his experience and a motivated crowd behind him, Gore could be free to be himself.

But all these doors don't stay open forever.If he doesn't run in 08, I doubt he will get the chance again to be president.

Posted by: Anadromous2 | October 11, 2007 5:28 PM | Report abuse

Ummm... Manbearpig. half man, half bear, half pig. I'm cereal. Excelsior!!

Posted by: mobileclem | October 11, 2007 5:21 PM | Report abuse

I don't think he'll run, not any more. He would have decided earlier, well before either winning or not winning the Nobel Peace Prize. However, outside the US he is - by far - the most universally admired American politician alive (that's because we foreigners haven't been exposed to all the lies the Republicans and the oil industry have spread about him). And that means he'll be a priceless addition to any new administration.
Bush and Cheney have created an unprecedented distrust of the US in foreign countries, including close allies. Very few people - and none of the presidential candidates - can reclaim the instant respect on the world stage that US presidents traditionally enjoyed. Gore can. I think he probably wants to return to public service, perhaps as head of EPA or as Secretary of State with Kissinger-like powers. I hope the next president is wise enough to ask him.

Posted by: hansbavinck | October 11, 2007 5:16 PM | Report abuse

Al Gore will be doing himself a big favor by sticking to his crusade on global warming and climate change, and not be sidestepped into entertaining proposals for him to throw his hat into the presidential ring.

The whole world is taking careful note of his historic personal crusade and he is reaping heaps of respect and admiration all over.

If Al Gore is now being considered for the Nobel Peace Prize for his herculean efforts to focus attention on global warming and climate change, probably it is because he has claimed for himself something which is so vital and consequential that it involves no less than the safety and lives of millions of people on our planet.

Al Gore has time and time again made it publicy clear that he is not a candidate for the presidential nomination of his party--or any party for that matter. He is serious about what he says and Al Gore is a person who means exactly what he says.

Posted by: MPatalinjug | October 11, 2007 5:11 PM | Report abuse

"if you look at miscreant such as Carter"

WTF? Carter is a "miscreant"?

On the other hand, we do now live in a country under Bush where war is peace, incompetence is expertise, crazy is sane and lies are truth. So if by "miscreant" you mean in Bushspeak, "great man", OK.

Posted by: neon_bunny | October 11, 2007 5:07 PM | Report abuse

"Al Gore may not have claimed "to be the founder of the internet", but he did say this: ... In contrast, when as a House member in the early 1980s I called for creation of a national network of "information superhighways,".... which is essentially the same thing."

No. The first is a deceitful political attack and the second is context-light, but at least accurate quote of a true statement.

Gore was being asked in a tv interview (cnn I beleive) why we should elect him president. In specific at that point in the interview he was being asked about what he did in congress that should make people vote for him. One thing he mentioned was that he was the leader in the house on the issues related to the birth of the internet. He was. He is a minor hero in internet geek circles for his role (on of their groups gave him an award for it). Various republican congressmen said so on tv after the far right media noise machine had turned the positive into a negative through sheer volume and willingness to lie. Without Gore's leadership the internet would have exploded a bit later. I imagine they found it rather disquieting to see how any of the accomplishments of their legislative careers could be so effectively turned upside down by the far right media machine, even if it was on their side at the time.

Al Gore was smart enough to see that the internet could be hugely important when only a tiny minority of the population were even vaguely aware of the concept and worked to bring it to reality sooner than it would have without him. He similarly was a leader in environmental cleanup in congress a decade earlier. Yet again he did the same thing on global warming in the 90's. He is an actual visionary able to look at the world around him and notice big things happening before most other people.

The republicans were running an empty suit (Bush) and needed desperately to negate all of Al Gore's accomplishments and make the campaign all about how great it is that their candidate was a regular dumbass like you (Also partially a lie. Bush was born rich into a new england political dynasty and his biography is that of an archtypical useless aristocrat constantly being bailed out by daddies friends. Nothing regular about him.), and how he would give you $300 after he was elected, and how there would be no more nation building.

So seven years later where are we?

The empty suit has continued to add ever more impressive disasters to his biography, but they are now too big for daddies friends to bail him out.

More and more people are realizing that Al Gore was right again, this time on global warming.

Posted by: jim | October 11, 2007 4:59 PM | Report abuse

Gore should have been the president these last 8 years, had Republican thungs not stolen the election. Think how much better our nation would be now in contrtast to the destruction of the Constitution and everything of value under Bush. I think Gore should run again, and he would get my family's votes again. Apart from him Edwards is the only candidate running with any integrity. If neither of these two run, I'll vote for an independent and kiss our democracy and once-great nation goodbye.

Posted by: bastanow | October 11, 2007 4:56 PM | Report abuse

"Save the Planet?" Please stop this ridiculous pandering. If anything, the Planet needs to be saved from Al Gore.

Posted by: pgr88 | October 11, 2007 4:55 PM | Report abuse

Thanks for the links, Tam.

Posted by: neon_bunny | October 11, 2007 4:52 PM | Report abuse

Actually, if you look at miscreant such as Carter and Arafat who have won the Nobel, you begin to realize what a politicized joke it's become. As for Cosmic Al, he's a complete fraud. Along with global "warming", which is abject nonsense and a sort of cult religion for the lost and angry amongst us.

Posted by: birvin9999 | October 11, 2007 4:51 PM | Report abuse


Gore did not claim to have invented the internet, but he nonetheless contributed greatly to the development. You may want to google the The Gore Bill. You may also want to google Gore and the Webby Lifetime Achievement award for contributions to the Internet.

Vint Cert and Bob Kahn, two Internet pioneers and two "fathers" of the Internet, have stated that Al Gore more than anymore contributed to the development of the Internet that we see today.

Posted by: tam | October 11, 2007 4:48 PM | Report abuse

Gore must never run. He will be once more exposed to the leis, contempt and projections of the media and its under-educated minions who appear on blogs everywhere--like this one--to spout outright falsehoods about a man who would never have lied about taking us to war. That's the bottom line. People voted on who they wanted to have a drink with? Pathetic? And deluded. Everything that's happened under Bush was there in his eyes and his inappropriate smiles--if you bothered to look.

Posted by: LevRaphael | October 11, 2007 4:47 PM | Report abuse


I see this is going a bit political, but can we all agree that at least he has been bringing up concerns about a topic people consider annoying. I am not a treehuger, or a massive waster, but I would like to think that the movie and speeches have given me a "simpler" approach to life. I think he hits a deeper topic that no one wants to talk about, and that is greed and living in gross excess.

Do I think he could run for President, sure anyone could. Do I think he would make a close race, yeah I do. He has a pretty good demeanor concerning foreign relations, and has a popular crowd following. I am not even a Democrat, and I will admit that.

Posted by: dmaillard | October 11, 2007 4:36 PM | Report abuse


Posted by: DJMonet | October 11, 2007 4:35 PM | Report abuse

And to washingtondame, another ice age is coming no matter what we do. This is because every 100,000 years or so the earth's orbit changes. I would direct you to this month's edition of National Geographic. The pull out map is especially enlightening.

Posted by: steven09 | October 11, 2007 4:33 PM | Report abuse

Actually, I need to correct Myself! As stated, the aurgument for the cicumstances is still true-The low amounts of Ice are going to be the cause, MY logic error is the imputus-Bad news is, IT has already occurred, NOT about to!

As Stated, the FORMATION of the ICE, Increases Salinity, This Heavier Water is the product that drops. As has been indicated-The Ice was not CREATED!-Hence, the Charging already has been slowed enough to begin the decline of the system!

HEY! I've been building Pools for the last 15 Years! I'm a little Rusty!-I'm STILL smarter than BGAG!-At least Still Sharp enough to catch my errors-eventually!

Posted by: rat-the | October 11, 2007 4:29 PM | Report abuse

RE-ELECT President Gore. And this time let him serve!!

Run Al run. Run Al run! RUN AL RUN!!


Posted by: Krashkopf | October 11, 2007 4:28 PM | Report abuse

Run Al, run! You have my vote buddy. I'll even contribute some doe. You are far and away the best choice out there. It's not even close.

Posted by: steven09 | October 11, 2007 4:27 PM | Report abuse

I like Gore, but we tried that once. Hard to warm up to Hillary, but I think she can win and probably would make a good president. And, it would be fun to watch the opposition cry how the sky is falling, and to think without the sorry job Bush/Cheney have done, she wouldn't have had a chance. Priceless!

Posted by: burtonminton | October 11, 2007 4:25 PM | Report abuse

Al Gore may not have claimed "to be the founder of the internet", but he did say this: ... In contrast, when as a House member in the early 1980s I called for creation of a national network of "information superhighways,".... which is essentially the same thing.
Gore's claim of using carbon credits is ridiculous. He started a carbon credit company before making his one sided movie and is now reaping the benefits from everyone else who buys carbon credits from him. Good for him, he is a capitalist and understands the system.
The Nobel prize is a joke and lost all credibility when it gave one to Arafat, one of the biggest terrorists of his time. I wouldn't be surprised to see Osama's name considered as well.

Posted by: mobileclem | October 11, 2007 4:22 PM | Report abuse

Interesting article... some would say he carries more baggage than Hillary; others would say less.

Last paragraph: you want "demur." Demure is a totally different word.

Posted by: dchang | October 11, 2007 4:21 PM | Report abuse

I think Gore would run only if he felt it was destiny. Only if he felt there was a calling that he believed he was truly the best person for the humongous responibility that awaits the next president. I think he enjoys his new life and is hesitant to re-enter the back-stabbing world of politics. If he did decide to run again, I think he would be doing it for his country rather than as any type of ego trip. He would be a patriot.

Posted by: kralford | October 11, 2007 4:20 PM | Report abuse

The need 4incestuous longings demands scrutiny from experts.
Gore is having fun with his own or grabbed ideas.His positive influence is felt .He should not be invited to pick up the pieces of the mess after the 'party' he was not invited to.

Posted by: tabita | October 11, 2007 4:17 PM | Report abuse

I don't think this is being overly semantic but, to put things in perspective, this is not about "saving the planet" or "saving the earth", this is about climate protection. The planet will be just fine without us, eh?

So, can Gore save the planet? Well, that depends. When the Vogon Destructor Fleet is due to demolish the Earth to make way for a new interstellar bypass, will Gore's political skills save us?

Posted by: phogieone | October 11, 2007 4:13 PM | Report abuse

Hey Big Gay Al Gore-This is MY way of saying Thanks for destroying the Austin Economy with your sleezy stunt!

Your welcome!--A nobel prize to THAT PUTZ! Sheesh!


Lamont's Broecker Warns Gases Could Alter Climate
Oceans' Circulation Could Collapse


Thermohaline circulation links the Earth's oceans. Cold, dense, salty water from the North Atlantic sinks into the deep and drives the circulation like a giant plunger.

n the eve of the international meeting on global warming that opened Dec. 1 in Kyoto, Japan, one of the world's leading climate experts warned of an underestimated threat posed by the buildup of greenhouse gases--an abrupt collapse of the oceans' prevailing circulation system that could send temperatures across Europe plummeting in a span of 10 years.

If that system shut down today, winter temperatures in the North Atlantic region would fall by 20 or more degrees Fahrenheit within 10 years. Dublin would acquire the climate of Spitsbergen, 600 miles north of the Arctic Circle.

"The consequences could be devastating," said Wallace S. Broecker, Newberry Professor of Earth and Environmental Sciences at Columbia's Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, and author of the new research, which appeared in the Nov. 28 issue of the magazine Science.

A complex of globally interconnected ocean currents, collectively known as the Conveyor, governs our climate by transporting heat and moisture around the planet. But the Conveyor is delicately balanced and vulnerable, and it has shut down or changed direction many times in Earth's history, Broecker reports. Each time the Conveyor has shifted gears, it has caused significant global temperature changes within decades, as well as large-scale wind shifts, dramatic fluctuations in atmospheric dust levels, glacial advances or retreats and other changes over many regions of the Earth, he said.

The Conveyor "is the Achilles heel of the climate system," Broecker wrote in Science. "The record ... indicates that this current has not run steadily, but jumped from one mode of operation to another. The changes in climate associated with these jumps have now been shown to be large, abrupt and global."

The ongoing accumulation of heat-trapping industrial gases blanketing the Earth threatens to raise global temperatures, he said, but such a rise would occur gradually. Far more worrisome is the buildup's potential to stress the climate system past a crucial threshold that would disrupt the Conveyor and set off a rapid reconfiguration of Earth's climate, predicted by existing computer models.

Broecker also offered a new theory: Scientists generally agree that periodic changes in Earth's orbit and the amount of solar radiation it receives have paced fundamental climate changes on the planet over millions of years. But the global climatic flip-flops may have been set in motion by sudden switches in the operation of the Conveyor.

Today, the driving force of the Conveyor is the cold, salty water of the North Atlantic Ocean. Such water is more dense than warm, fresh water and hence sinks to the ocean bottom, pushing water through the world's oceans like a great plunger. The volume of this deep undersea current is 16 times greater than the flow of all the world's rivers combined, Broecker said, and it runs southward all the way to the southern tip of Africa, where it joins a watery raceway that circles Antarctica. Here the Conveyor is recharged by cold, salty water created by the formation of sea ice, which leaves salt behind when it freezes. This renewed sinking shoves water back northward, where it gradually warms again and rises to the surface in the Pacific and Indian oceans.

In the Indian Ocean, surface waters are too warm to sink. Northern Pacific waters are cold, but not salty enough to sink into the deep. This is primarily because prevailing winds that whip around the planet hit the great mountains of the western United States and Canada and drop their moisture. The resulting snow and rain runs into the Pacific, adding a dose of fresh water that dilutes the Pacific's saltiness, said Broecker

Today, the Conveyor comes full circle, eventually propelling warm surface waters, including the Gulf Stream, back into the North Atlantic. In winter, warm water transfers its heat to the frigid overlying air masses that come off ice-covered Canada, Greenland and Iceland. The eastward-moving air masses make northern Europe warmer in winter than comparable latitudes in North America. Without the Gulf Stream, nothing would temper the Arctic air, and Europe would enter a deep freeze.

Posted by: rat-the | October 11, 2007 4:11 PM | Report abuse

Gore's purchasing "credits" to offset his extravagant McMansion and private jets is no different than what rich people used to do during the Civil War: pay poor men to fight the war for them.

The fact remains that he -- unlike corporate CEOs who fly in their corporate jets -- is a hypocrite, because he's telling people to make sacrifices, to use public transportation, to lower their thermostats in winter and raise them in summer, while he makes no sacrifices of his own, since he buys his way out of such sacrifices via credits. The majority of people can't afford to purchase credits. They're the ones making sacrifices, not Al Gore and his family.

As for his Prius, was that the one his drug-addicted son was driving at over 100 miles per hour on some highway in California? So much for driving at energy-efficient speeds!

Posted by: WashingtonDame | October 11, 2007 4:08 PM | Report abuse

TOMH...-Sorry, the Gorelings have removed the full list!

LOL! Bad News Big Gay Al Gore!

The RAT'S A REAL Ocean Studies Scientist!

NOW, RAT'S going to kick some BGA Gore Butt!

Hey BGAG!-Ever hear of the Thermohaline Conveyor Belt? It is what will cause the reversal of the climate, and it's probably about to do it!

See BGAG-And Balz, It needs the Melting Ice off Greenland to Charge itself! After this last El-Nino melted so much Ice, and this La-Nina Cooling off the waters so much, THERE IS NOT GOING TO BE ENOUGH MELTING to CHARGE THE SYSTEM!

Hello ICE AGE! D'oh!


More details are available at: Ocean Currents-Climate!-Google and fill your Noodle!

Posted by: rat-the | October 11, 2007 4:05 PM | Report abuse

Gore makes a terrible leader of a cause.

He is unwilling to make the sacrifices that he requests others to make.

Sure, he buys energy credits, but that simply looks to most people, including myself, like the rich asking the poor to do what they are unwilling to do.

To successfully lead this cause, he needs to make the same sacrifices that he asks, as other great leaders of cause have made like Ghandi and Martin Luther King, Jr.

For my perspective, he just looks like a bored husband of a super wealthy daughter that wants to feel like he's doing good in the world.

Posted by: openletter | October 11, 2007 4:05 PM | Report abuse

The question is, if Gore truly wants to accomplish a "greener" world, can he do it by writing books and appearing in documentaries and make mounds of cash, or can he do it as President of the United States?

Posted by: JackGallagher | October 11, 2007 4:01 PM | Report abuse

"He should run. He is the most qualified Democratic candidate and the only one can beat any Republican candidate in 2008."

You're joking. Obama, Hilary or Gore would beat the crap out of any Repub. Just which of the far-right Republican do you think has a chance? I see none.

Posted by: 2229 | October 11, 2007 4:00 PM | Report abuse

Gore-bashing must be a great relief to those who voted for the idiots running this country into the ground for the past 7 years or so. It lets them take their narrow minds off of the stupidity that let 9/11 happen with one of the hijackers in jail weeks before, reports from 2 separate flight schools of anti-American fanatical "students" interested in learning to fly airliners, but not take off or land them, lies about WMD in Iraq, lies about illegal wiretapping and surveilance of Americans, lies about torture, Guantanimo Bay limbo, flagrant disregard for the US Constitution, and a President who trips over any words with more than two syllables - like most of the Gore bashers commenting here, it appears.

Posted by: ccraigmorris | October 11, 2007 4:00 PM | Report abuse

"Exchange "climate change" for "terrorist threat" and you have Dick Cheney and George Bush."

Not even close.

Though I agree the Bush/Cheney duo have mastered the art of irrational fear for political advantage.

Posted by: neon_bunny | October 11, 2007 3:57 PM | Report abuse

The so called "scientific evidence" flip-flops constantly. Is coffee good or bad? Are tomatoes poisonous? I'd take the scientific evidence or lack of it with a grain of salt and take instead the benefit of the doubt. The question to ask is "would it hurt us to limit the greenhouse gasses?" Some say it'd hurt the economy!? I'd say that's definitely the price we should be willing to pay even if it's true. My intuition, not scientific or other evidence, tells me that reducing the greenhouse gasses will ultimately improve the economy.

Posted by: gorilla128 | October 11, 2007 3:55 PM | Report abuse

Dan, a word police comment (last sentence in article): Shouldn't that be demur, not demure [sic], concerning Gore's decision to run? Yes, this is probably a typo, however.

I do take Gore at his word, that he will not run. Why should he? He is immensely successful in his current endeavors and seems to enjoy them as well.

Posted by: lspellens | October 11, 2007 3:52 PM | Report abuse

Al Gore did not win an Oscar for "An Inconvenient Truth." The film's director, Davis Guggenheim, did.

Posted by: clearerupper | October 11, 2007 3:51 PM | Report abuse

While former Vice President Gore is credited with putting the issue of global climate change in our mindset, I'm lost as to what it is, specifically, he has ever proposed we in the U.S. do (other than support the flawed Kyoto accord).

Beyond condemnation of the corporate interests, when has Mr. Gore asked the average person in this country to sacrifice in the name of the environment. If, in earnest, he did call for some real sacrifice, I'll bet his media-inspired popularity would come crashing down.

Posted by: dgwall | October 11, 2007 3:49 PM | Report abuse

Ad hominin attacks are part of Republican stratagists' MO. It diverts attention from the issue. GEORGE BUSH IS AN IDIOT! You see that does nothing to improve the situation.

Global Warming has a probability, like everthing else, attached to it. If you multiply the probability of the occurrance times the damages you get the costs(or benefits of it not occurring). Then as an economist you look the cost of eliminating it the probability (insurance). This will give you the info for a cost/benefit ratio. This ratio is so small, that if you want to talk about fininacial stupidity, why would you insure your car if you won't bother to assume the cost of reducing global warming and pollution.

The curious irony of this is that Republicans claim to be the party of fiscal responsibility. In reality they are the most fiscally irresponsible lot in the history of the US

Posted by: sarlat | October 11, 2007 3:44 PM | Report abuse

Putting aside the argument of exactly how much the climate is warming, what it means and what human technology can or can't do to "correct" it for a moment ...

Al Gore is nothing more than another pol scaring folks into supporting him. Exchange "climate change" for "terrorist threat" and you have Dick Cheney and George Bush.

Posted by: jcole | October 11, 2007 3:42 PM | Report abuse

I would love it if Gore won just to watch the radical right wingnutz go nuts. The idea that a progressive, articulate, somewhat wonkish intelligent person gets to speak beyond soundbites in anathema to to the shrieking conservatives. Hell! Let's get another, southern-drawlin' good ol-boy who hates intelligent discussion 'cause he just knows in his heart and from praying what's right, in the White House, Sheee-it! If the those lawyer-hating Republicans hadn't called up their lawyers and if the Supreme court hadn't installed the idiot son of the former CIA director as President under the watchful eye of Cheney and Rumsfeld..America wouldn't be in the horrible mess it's in now. Go Al Go!!

Posted by: thebobbob | October 11, 2007 3:38 PM | Report abuse

Certainly Al Gore alone cannot save the planet, but his "Save The Earth" campaign kept his name recognition afloat in the minds of most Americans. Therefore he doesn't need a mountain of millions to re-hash his message
through the media. And a Nobel Prize will be the icing on the cake. But I don't think he needs a Nobel Prize to replace the other mediocre candidates.

And there are other pluses in an
Al Gore candidacy for president.
He has matured nicely the hard way, and no doubt he is much smarter now. He is just what America needs right now because the other Democratic candidates are just pumpkin heads in a Santa Claus garb. But Americans do not need Santa and Gifts [social programs] now. After the Bush/Cheney tenure in the White House that has been "a disaster
for America" [according to Jimmy Carter], America needs a leader now that will restore global respect for the U.S. -as Vladimir Putin restored Russia's status, after the collapse of the Soviet Union.

But if Gore decides to jump in the
race, he must be himself. The second national presidential debate with George Bush probably caused his loss. He looked waxy,
like Richard Nixon when debated John Kennedy, and also looked so
pre-programmed for the debate by his advisers that acted like a marionette. People would like to
see the spontaneous, good hearted
Al Gore - not a bloat faced, robotic acting candidate trying
to guide his answers through the
rehearsed ideas of his advisers and pundits. He must stay open-minded, and above all be 100% himself.

Good luck, Al. I hope to have a chance to vote for you, because
I don't plan to waste my vote on
candidates that have not shown any virtue to deserve it. Nikos
Retsos, retired academic.

Posted by: NikosRetsos | October 11, 2007 3:34 PM | Report abuse

I must admit that Al Gore in 2000 bored the hell out of me. I'm guilty, as are far too many of us, of basing election decision on personality and appearance. Frankly, I wasn't thrilled with GWB either but pulled the lever.

If Al Gore adds the Nobel Peace Price to his growing numer of awards, my congratulations. I ask you why he should forfeit all that goodwill, finacial security that he has after years of public service and personal life to jump into a Presidental race in the 6th inning with no staff in key states, no money and endure all the name calling?

As far as endorsements before the nominee is known, don't count on it. He wants whomever the Democratic nominee is to win and won't alienate the other candidates to back one.

However, throwing that idea out, I'd venture the last candidate he'd back is Clinton due to past history and the 2000 campaign. Her campaign staff and advisors are Bill's. It's Mc Auliffe, Wolfeson, Penn, Burger et al. calling this shots. Of the rest, Obama and Edwards seem to be the only possibles.

In short, kudos Al, good luck and don't screw up the best part of your life by getting involved in this increasing bad joke of a primary season.

Posted by: NoMugwump | October 11, 2007 3:32 PM | Report abuse

Yeah, like the "hoax" suggesting the earth isn't flat or the theory of gravity. I'm still not convinced that gravity exists. It is only a theory, after all.

Posted by: neon_bunny | October 11, 2007 3:29 PM | Report abuse

I think we owe a debt of gratitude to Al Gore for bringing a strong focus on Global warming and climate change. And I hope he wins the Nobel prize.

But to conclude that then he would run for President is to jump to what I think is a mistaken cnclusion. Recently Al Gore said what he has learnt over the years from running for office is that he really isn't a very good politician. I think he may be right.

If he were to run now he would pit himself against the Clinton team and that would make things very difficult for him. He would come down from the status he has now as a world leader and put himself back in the pack as a hungry politician. With the chances being over 50% that at this time he would not win the nomination he risks his hard won status which he wouldn't be able to reclaim.

I would like to actually see Al Gore endorse Hillary Clinton and have Hillary support the work that he is doing in every way possible making sure that he continues to be the leader in the United States for this work. She could even introduce legislation in his name to further the cause he has been working on.

Posted by: peterdc | October 11, 2007 3:29 PM | Report abuse

This panic has been running around all day and is one of the larger, more successful hoaxes on the internet. It was just started to see how much disgust it could elecit. Al Gore got an entertainment award because the socialist Hollywood establishment wanted to put their collective thumbs in President Bush's eye.

This is a follow up joke. Al Gore is not a scientist.. he is an expert on hot air and bovine gasses.

Posted by: jstratt2 | October 11, 2007 3:26 PM | Report abuse

BTW, the Gore family buys carbon credits so their carbon footprint is zero. (In addition to the wind power, solar power, etc. that they buy.)

Posted by: neon_bunny | October 11, 2007 3:26 PM | Report abuse

"Could he have done more to advance the cause of dealing with climate change had he been in the White House? It's possible but not by much."

Upon what basis does Mr. Balz make this conclusion? He's saying the most powerful person in the world has little influence over national priorities?

Posted by: RollaMO | October 11, 2007 3:25 PM | Report abuse

Face it, there are many of you who wouldn't like him even if he was using public transportation. Many of you wouldn't respect him if he was living in a cave, because then he wouldn't have that big house that makes you consider him a person. There is no pleasing people, especially those who are still running around driving yer big 'ole gas guzzlin' 4 X 4's. 'Cause, it's your GOD GIVEN right to NOT CARE about the future of your planet and the home you are leaving for future generations.

I personally love Al Gore and respect his decision to stay out of the white house, no matter how much I would love to see him there. Orson Welles once said, "Only the truly intelligent people stay away from politics, and I am just dumb enough to want to be there."

Posted by: krochetnkat | October 11, 2007 3:23 PM | Report abuse

Balz asks: "Could [Gore] have done more to advance the cause of dealing with climate change had he been in the White House?"

He then answers his own question: "It's possible but not by much."

This is an absurd understatement. Arnold Schwarzenegger, as the Republican governor of California, has arguably done almost as much as Gore over the last few years to "advance the cause of dealing with climate change." This is because Arnold, like Gore but unlike Bush (and unfortunately, also unlike Hillary), seems to understand (a) that climate change is very real, and already happening; (b) that it dwarfs every other problem ever faced by mankind; and (c) that solving it requires using real political muscle to overthrow the entrenched interests of Old Economy, Big Fossil Fuel players.

Schwarzenegger, though not as high-profile as Gore, has been able to turn ideas into action because he sits at the levers of power in the country's most populous state. Public advocacy is nice, but politicians make policy. There is no question but that Gore, or any other president who understands that climate change must be Global Priority #1, could do IMMEASURABLY more to affect actual policy than could any lecturer, writer and filmmaker-- even a Nobel-winning one.

Posted by: sickofspam | October 11, 2007 3:21 PM | Report abuse

He could use public transit like his peons he is preaching to...Oh yea and carbon offsets are BS. 50% of his energy is coming from coal, even if he pays extra money for it.

Posted by: kwijibo950 | October 11, 2007 3:16 PM | Report abuse

Can he save the planet? No, of course not; one person may make a difference but it would take much more than what he is to pull that off.

Can he become president of the USA? Probably not. Why? The Clandestine-Military-Industrial-Congressional-Plutocracy would never allow it. He is out of favor at "court." It would be interesting to see if he could displace her worshipfulness, mrs. Clinton. In fact, it will be interesting to see how the "politics" of the season plays out.

One thing is certain, the USA has it's own definition of "democracy", one which the rest of reality understands all too well.

Posted by: thunderstone.hank | October 11, 2007 3:15 PM | Report abuse

Al Gore will win the Nobel Prize this year for the same reason Jimmy Carter won it in 2002. It had nothing to do with anything he had done recently, but was an easy way for the Nobel committee to tweak George W. Bush's nose.

Posted by: hisroc | October 11, 2007 3:15 PM | Report abuse

Saladin 3, please bother reading the facts about Al Gore before endlessly repeating the Right's blatant lies about him. This month's Vanity Fair has an excellent and well documented piece about this. He has never claimed to invent the internet or any other such nonsense, but it plays well to Republicans so it has been repeated nonstop for years.

What do you people do, run a Google search every morning for "al gore" then race to spread your vitriol? Unbelievable.

Posted by: neon_bunny | October 11, 2007 3:12 PM | Report abuse

He should run. He is the most qualified Democratic candidate and the only one can beat any Republican candidate in 2008.

Posted by: qcc2003_1 | October 11, 2007 3:10 PM | Report abuse

SALADIN3: If you can find Al Gore saying he "created the internet" I will give you $1 million. Why? Because he never said it. You have been the victim of the Republican Puke Funnel-- aka the GOP lie machine. This one's be thoroughly debunked-- years ago.

Posted by: DJMonet | October 11, 2007 3:09 PM | Report abuse

Based on the title I thought this article was going to be about Ron Paul!

I am so confused. Maybe Ron Paul's message would actually unite Jews and Racists, Black and White, his policy may even be the cause for world peace. Yes, Stormfront endorses Ron Paul, but so do Jews in Israel (with meetups) and at the Values Voters forum he came in second! I truely believe that Ron Paul is Thomas Jefferson and MLK jr. rolled into one!

We need Ron Paul!

Posted by: soulmantim | October 11, 2007 3:07 PM | Report abuse

Oh PLEASE call him POPE AL but he's still full of ,,,well you know.
GW is a fraud and he's the High Priest,
I can not stand the endless fawning over the "inventor of the internet",
he should come with a warning label:
"Caution opinions represented by Al Gore may not in fact have any real basis in fact, reality or common sense. Failure to bow and agree with him may subject yourself to flogging, vile tempers, endless rebukes and pointless anger"

Posted by: Saladin3 | October 11, 2007 3:07 PM | Report abuse

TOTO3 (2nd commentor): FYI- Al Gore has his house running on solar power. Sure he flys, but what businessman is free from that carbon sin? Your "amazement" at why people respect Gore is highly flimsy and is not very compelling.

TOMHMACF77 (1st commentor): The link only displays 3 "errors" which are actually opinions issued by the judge- obviously a judged well versed in the scientific reporting on climate change (yeah, right). With my science background and 19 years experience in the climate change field, I identified 2 questionable stats out of the hundreds in the film- and both of these were minimal and don't refute the message of the film. The most important stats- the records of C02 levels in relation to temperatures for the last 400,000 years is probably some of the best data in the film and now is available on NOAA's website.

Posted by: DJMonet | October 11, 2007 3:04 PM | Report abuse

These people that complain about Gore flying on planes and having a mansion are so ridiculous. Gore does his best to conserve and also buys carbon credits. These people think that only people who live in caves can care about global warming. Of course they never talk about how much energy is wasted by regular Repbulicans and oil company CEO's, the ones who are doing their best to make sure that we keep burning oil and heating the planet up. Gore does have to fly in order to speak out. And since he works from home, he needs to have a large house to give work space. This is such a stupid argument for these people to make. We don't need to go back to the stone age to stop global warming. We just need a better energy technology to run our economy than oil and coal.

Posted by: goldie2 | October 11, 2007 3:02 PM | Report abuse

Gribbler maybe he should go in a horse and carriage??

Posted by: swtexas | October 11, 2007 3:02 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: tomhmacf77 | October 11, 2007 3:00 PM | Report abuse

Mr. Balz, did it ever occur to you that he might endorse the person that he actually thinks would make the best president?

Posted by: swtexas | October 11, 2007 2:59 PM | Report abuse

"Mr. Gore flies around in one of the most fuel innefficient private business/corporate jets in the world today. I betcha your not going to see him in a Prius or Insight any time soon. I wonder how much electricity, gas, oil, etc. he uses to heat and cool and light his mansion. "

He has a jet for special ocassions when he needs to fulfill certain appointsments. In the film he made you can see him going through airport security.

He does own a Prius.

He also uses a lot of electricity but (like my own usage) purchases it from renewable sources.

Well here come the Gore haters crawling out from underneath their rocks, where their favorite hobby is having comedian Rush tell them what to think.

Posted by: thegribbler1 | October 11, 2007 2:58 PM | Report abuse

The Nobel committee needs to due its diligience better or hire someone who can. Mr. Gore flies around in one of the most fuel innefficient private business/corporate jets in the world today. I betcha your not going to see him in a Prius or Insight any time soon. I wonder how much electricity, gas, oil, etc. he uses to heat and cool and light his mansion. And they want to give a prize to this individual for his work on global warming. Huh?? The only interest he has in global warming is what he can make on the lecture circuit and commissions off the book(s). The man is a living testament to the phrase "do as I say, not as I do". And yet there are those among us who are still crying about his loss to Bush in 2000 and want to run this man for president yet again ?!?!? It is mind-boggling to me how many people in this country have their ears on the track, can feel the rumble from the oncoming train, can even see the smoke from the engine, and still won't admit there's a train coming! Lord, save us.

Posted by: toto3 | October 11, 2007 2:50 PM | Report abuse

A school governor from Dover, England, has gone to court to win what he describes as "a landmark victory" to ensure that 'An Inconvenient Truth' can be shown in schools provided that the pupils are alerted to the 'fact' that there are 'nine scientific errors' in the film.

The High Court in London upheld the argument that its "one sided" views breached education laws.

Mr Stewart Dimmock - who brought the action - is described as a member of the New Party, which I for one had never heard of before today.

You can read a list of the nine 'errors' on the BBC's website at:

Posted by: tomhmacf77 | October 11, 2007 2:48 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company