Al Gore passes on the inconvenient truth

Print

Wed, 15 Jul 2009 12:00a.m.

Al Gore

Al Gore

By the time former US vice president Al Gore made the film An Inconvenient Truth, he had already given his climate change slideshow 2000 times.

Earlier this week he gave it again, but this time it wasn't so much to educate the audience but to train them, so that they would learn to present it too.

The trainee presenters came from across Asia-Pacific, and amongst them were 15 New Zealanders, including a farmer and an accountant.

How would these average Kiwis become climate change experts?

"It was kind of a spur of the moment thing really to stick my name forward," says farmer David Musgrave, "so I'm not entirely sure what I'm in for."

Ashburton accountant Leanne Blakelock says the slideshow "is literally my new bible".

Phil Tate, strategy manager for New Zealand Post, says: "I think at the end of the day, this is the biggest issue, this is the biggest issue facing our generation right now."

These are not scientists - they're not even environmentalists - but they were about to get a wake-up call from the most famous face in climate change – Gore.

When he wasn't elected to the White House in 2000, Gore took his campaign to the world instead, and wanting to multiply his message he began training others to deliver it.

Two-thousand lined up from around the Asia-Pacific, 15 Kiwis among the chosen few.

"I think I was chosen because more for the fact that they're not preaching to the converted with me," says Ms Blakecock. "I'm an average everyday person, and I have a lot of networks that I can talk to and get the word across."

They arrived in Melbourne and walked straight into a perfect storm of climate science study.

"I think its going to be three really intense days," says Rachel Brown, chief executive of the Sustainable Business Network.

A day and a half in, and Mr Musgrave is, "getting pretty exhausted. Had Al Gore for the last two hours, and that was fascinating because the science is absolutely unassailable, so if it's a rational decision we had to make, it would be easy - but its an emotional decision."

The timing of this training is critical in light of the UN climate change conference.

It will be a mammoth challenge to get world leaders to agree on a post-Kyoto framework in Copenhagen. Gore is optimistic that with growing public awareness, it can be done.

"The climate crisis has been picking up momentum, building towards a political tipping point," he says. "We're not there yet but we are closer than we have ever been."

After three days of training, Mr Musgrave says he knows what's needed.

"As a Western nation that helped cause this problem, New Zealand has to step up and show the leadership as we have in the past, and pitch for a 40 percent reduction in carbon emissions."

Our new presenters didn't pay for their training, but they'll earn it. They are returning to their day jobs with a new mission - presenting Gore's slideshow to their own communities.
 
If you would like to request one of the new climate change presenters to speak at your next meeting or function click here
 
Become a fan of 3 News on Facebook and on Twitter.

Post a Comment

Before commenting, please take the time to read our moderation guide


(Won't be published)



Comments

23 Sep 2009 12:57p.m.

Solar Mike wrote:

>> The most prevalent greenhouse gas is water vapour and not dreaded 'C02'. WRONG: Water vapor is self regulating, ie it rains and thus self regulates and is a constant that can be ignored. CO2 on the other hand has a 200 or so year cycle thus tends to build up and helps reinforce the green house effect. No one is saying global warming is directly caused by CO2, CO2 however reinforces the feedback mechanisms that are a consequence of global warming. Gee there are some thick people out there...

02 Sep 2009 07:05p.m.

Paul wrote:

The latest paper on the 11 year climate cycle shows that the Sun, clouds, water, heat, drives our climate, who would have guessed that! www.physorg.com/news170601993.html

27 Jul 2009 05:50p.m.

phil wrote:

Dear Albert

Thank you for your humble response and your apology is very much accepted. I fully understand the fervency with which you pursue this topic as it is very frightening when rationality and logic go out the window in favour of wild speculation over our precious climate. I believe one possible way to win people over to the side of sanity would be to ask them if they have seen David Bellamy of late. As I'm sure you know, he lost his position at the BBC for coming the rational, logical and scientifically-backed conclusion that GW was in his words "poppycock". So much for impartiality in the media, but it just goes to show how much money has been put out on the table on the assumption that the science is supposedly 'settled' as most uninformed GW advocates like to say.

I wish you all the best in efforts to win people over to the side of logic and rationality and I will be doing the same over here in Japan where I currently reside.

Best Regards

Phil

25 Jul 2009 01:00a.m.

albert wrote:

Hi Phil,
I'm extremely embarrassed, I jumped to conclusions when I read the part at the end of your post about global baloney claptrap, as I'd earlier been at loggerheads with people who were making non-scientific baseless arguments about GW. I wasn't in the right mindset when I read your post, and assumed your Global baloney was an attack on the political angle I espoused. It wasn't and I apologise, it certainly doesn't do to alienate people who think scientifically and rationally in the current sensitive political climate, and I look forward to any future contributions you make.

24 Jul 2009 02:52a.m.

phil wrote:

Hi Albert

Thanks for taking time to read my post.

However; I am a little confused by your response. You agree with some of what I said while labeling both my science and political views incorrect and contradictory. But hang on a minute there, mate. First you seem to suggest I support the use of computer models, which I clearly do not - I stated that we were lucky if we got a few days out of those. Furthermore, I clearly said that we are more at risk by pursuing emission reduction policies and that we should instead take a step back to survey the agendas behind the GW thrust. Maybe my failure to mention an out of control spiral into centralized global control blurred your vision. Don't get me wrong - I fully agree that there are certain forces shunting the world in that direction, but macro-political views aside, I think we at very least scientifically agree, wouldn't you agree? I mean; my labeling of GW as claptrap baloney at the end of my rant would be a pretty strong pointer to our common ground, right?

Best Regards

Phil

22 Jul 2009 11:24a.m.

albert wrote:

phil, your science and political stance are contradictory and incorrect. Global temperature fluctuations are caused by solar activity as we both agree, therefore there is no risk by not aggressively pursuing the repression of carbon emissions, but there is a risk inherent in not addressing the obvious political motives behind such an agenda. As the science behind global warming is so flawed that any serious scientist would not objectively consider it, there can only be a subjective political motive and combine this fact with the obvious financial and political gain and only a fool or a disinformation agent would not realise the connection. these computer models you speak of were not only limited in their predictive capability but had the wrong variable data. All the evidence points toward a one world government being implemented, global warming is but one tool in the toolbox.

21 Jul 2009 02:15a.m.

phil wrote:

Hi jo

The most prevalent greenhouse gas is water vapour and not dreaded 'C02'. I live near a crowded metropolis where cleanliness of air and temperature are definitely issues, but this is more about localized smog / 'heat-island' phenomena than a global issue. So while I agree some of the anti-AGW pundits can be just as irrational and emotional in presenting facts (e.g. volcano C02 vs. Human C02), for the most part, science does not back what in essence were mere computer model simulations of what could happen to our environment back in the 90s. Most computer models struggle to accurately estimate a few days into the future let alone years and in fact some of the most accurate estimations of the climate have come from people monitoring solar activity. That is, if anything the sun appears to be the most influential factor in determining climate. The greatest sources of C02 are the oceans and decomposition. Solar activity in particular expedites production of C02 from oceans (and more clouds to boot!). Next time you watch one of Al's seminars look very carefully at the little gap between the heat patterns and C02 patterns. C02 clearly comes after heat changes (around 200 years on his graph's scale in fact). In the end a politician is purporting 'factual' knowledge of 'science' based on a speculative theory. While I agree we must look at ways to protect our environment, in terms of well-being we risk far more by oppressing development through emissions reductions than we do by taking a step back and questioning what the agendas behind the hype are. In the end green lobby groups appeal to emotions and emotions = votes, which in turn imparts more lobbying power to the greens. They don't need good science... I just wish good (read: factually faithful) scienstists were tasked with presenting climate issues. Surely then we'd see positive steps toward combating localized climate issues (like my smog) as opposed to non-existent global clap-trap baloney.

Best Regards

Phil

19 Jul 2009 01:47p.m.

Philip wrote:

Jo, There are many "skeptic" websites you could take a look at which have references to journal and other articles questioning AGW. Perhaps the most neutral site to start with is Climate Debate Daily, which lists articles from both sides of the debate. See http://climatedebatedaily.com/. This site has links to many other sites both "for" and "against". Take the time to really inform yourslf about both the science and the politics. All the best! Philip

18 Jul 2009 10:24p.m.

albert wrote:

The world is actually not warming up, global air temperatures come from American weather satellites, and they show wobbles but no overall change since 1999. This matches the more viable scenario that solar activity drives global climate change. The midieval warming period matches solar hyperactivity at the time. Nigel Calder one of the world's top published scientists (amongst others)supports this theory.The ice studies show that a 10 K rise in temperature was accompanied by a 90 ppm rise in CO2 levels. We have seen a 90ppm rise in CO2 levels since 1800, but we have not had a 12 K rise in temperature, simply because a different process is in operation - ie, burning fossil fuels as opposed to natural climate change. CO2 levels do not drive climate change. Climate change drives CO2 levels. Global warming is politically motivated.

16 Jul 2009 01:26p.m.

jo wrote:

Hi Albert,
Can you please post a reference to the theory "that Climate change drives CO2 levels not the other way around", and explain what it is that starts the climate change in the first place, if it not in fact increased greenhouse gases.
I would be most interested to read your sources, as all other science I have read clearly states that increasing global temperature is a result of increased greenhouse gases.
Thanks.