300 million ad campaign. Why? Carbon credits are in danger of being exposed as a scam. The few that actually lead to trees being planted take around 100 years to recover the co2. "The current Global Warming debate is only the beginning, not the end. Just ask Gore, after all, it's his plan. If you think it isn't critical to push back, or tread carefully around global warming, you may want to think again."
Just considering some of the possible Gore sponsors, as Monckton did. Off the top of my head, likely suspects are the EU that wants world governance, the UN that wants redistribution of wealth, the Sierra Club and the Club of Rome (Bill Gates too) that Al is reported as belonging to, whose agenda is, well, horrifying, SRI as one of his own piggy banks, any of the governments that subscribed to the nonsense wishing to cover their backsides and those that stand to profit from a hobbled western society, such as China and India. There are also huge investors with profit motive such as pension funds, that would lose badly if the baseless foundation of the AGW by trace gases scam became common knowledge in the public consciousness. The nuclear industry stands to gain as do the marginally significant, hugely expensive and detrimental agrofuel industries, also windmill and photo-voltaic cell industries. That is without considering the green industry that has sprung up based on the fallacy. Al could have gone to any and all of these with his collecting tin and they would likely have coughed up. So the skeptics are up against the wall with a metaphorical perhaps political/industry funded knife to their throat. Believe the nonsense and suffer or be ridiculed and advertised into submission or worse. The snowball effect has caused the ballyhoo movement to rise to huge proportions and it seems it may take more than declining temperature to bring it crashing down.
300 million to maintain the momentum. Al must be banking on a big return otherwise investors would not subscribe to his deception. As Bluejohn said in his Telegraph blog, "Now Gore is spending $300 million to push for carbon trading and reductions in carbon footprint by amounts that are impossible to achieve. If the science is agreed and true then why does such a large amount of money need to be spent?"
To recap. Human trace gas GHG emissions are insignificant and can't be distinguished from natural background variation. So there is no proof in the air. Effects on the surface, time after time have been shown to be due to the effect of other than human GHG emissions such as the big Arctic sea ice melt, Kilimanjaro, the Antarctic peninsula and now reformed shelves, (the recent event super-hyped except it has refrozen) drought, floods, Australian weather, ocean temperature and a host of other nonsense like disease, reptile fungus, all down to lies and deception. Models have been proven to be useful only for projecting possible outcomes of various scenarios and useless for predicting reality. The IPCC is slowly backing away from co2 did it too, it features less and less in the reports by the media as now replaced by human emissions and other factors.
52 parts per million increase in co2 in Hawaii from the stats available from ESRL, perhaps as much as a third due to human emissions mainly from deforestation. 16-17 parts per million, that's 1,000,000, folks. Significant? Al is investing 300 million, some of it his own ill-gotten cash, in what is a lie or misconception.
Are we responsible? It is unclear. There are so many variables occurring naturally but one thing is for sure. Co2 is insignificant. Deforestation reduces precipitation and is causing drought in S. America and other regions. The atmospheric water vapor content is diminishing, otherwise we wouldn't be cooling over such an enormous area.
Co2 is irrelevant to temperature in any significant way as a direct actor, it leads, follows and disassociates throughout the ice core record and modern measurement.
It is beneficial in that it is helping offset deforestation to a some degree by boosting tree mass and quantity, boosting biomass by as much as 6% in a decade (NASA), and boosting staple crop returns. Al wants to deprive you and me of this valuable resource. Is Al the criminal for pushing for it or me for pushing against it?
Hasn't he done enough damage? Hasn't the IPCC led us up the garden path far enough?
"There's always enough random success to justify almost anything to someone who wants to believe."
:) Truth always wins in the end.