“Yes, ok. The more I hear corporations blamed all the time, the more I think it really misses something essential”

Yes it does. It misses the fact that the corporations are only working within the rules that our elected representatives have set out for them. The politicians make some catchy title like “The Save the World Act” which is full of loopholes, exemptions, and grandfathering for their buddies to do the opposite and the public eats it up because they were told that it actually *would* save the world. It all gets hidden in the footnotes and fine print. Honestly, who can actually read the thousands of pages of legalese where up means down and left means right and the lawyers can’t even agree on what some means. We have had it for years.

Just like when they were bailing out the banking industry and the bankers turned around and wrote their own bonuses from it. The rules were specifically written to allow it. Nobody just handed over a blank check and said “Do something with it.” The only thing that stopped part of it was the public outrage when people caught on.

Both parties have been doing it for years and we keep electing the same jerks because they kick back a little to their own districts. Unfortunately, we have been disenfranchised by the ruling parties. If we elect someone that isn’t “one of them” they get blocked from the process by the party leadership. We are not going to make any progress until we get rid of both the Republican Party and the Democratic Party as they operate now.

No, the issue “greens” are scared to talk about are runaway methane release from undersea deposits and melting permafrost, or the notion that even the worst IPCC figures are underestimates, or the very real potential that *nothing* can prevent whatever bad effects are coming, or other things that are, y’know, on point to this topic. It’s only one side that ignores the data–that ignores the issue itself–to fixate on ego-based trivia. “OMG Obama doesn’t like us”? This has been a serious issue for 30 years.

If Gore really wanted to get the right kind of attention, he’d announce he’d go Gandhi. If he sold his mansions and gave away his fortune to live and preach a low carbon lifestyle, then people would pay attention. Otherwise he’s just a rich man calling for the poor to sacrifice.

No, he’s a rich man pointing out basic principles of chemistry and physics, and his wallet does not make chemistry go away. This is the perfect embodiment of the original complaint by Gore, Fallows, our hosts here, and all serious and responsible thinkers: there are some people you simply can’t discuss facts and issues with, because for them it is far more relevant to discuss personalities, preferably in the most emotive and sentimental manner possible. Facts are only true if they come from the guy they want to have a beer with.

As a Denier, I agree, except its the warmists’s side’s phony scientists and propaganda I think the media has not done a good enough job of calling out.

—-

Chris you should be well familiar with the idea that we as humans are more interested when someone says something against their “side” and that we don’t expect.

When Mark Lynas joined those criticizing Greenpeace and the IPCC for co-writing a report together, he was attacked by the climate change hawk community, specifically Bob Ward. Everyone else who said the same thing on the denier side was ignored.

Gore said something against his side. Its like a ballplayer criticizing a teammate vs a commentator.

If Gore really wanted to get the right kind of attention, he’d announce he’d go Gandhi. If he sold his mansions and gave away his fortune to live and preach a low carbon lifestyle, then people would pay attention. Otherwise he’s just a rich man calling for the poor to sacrifice.

The real problem with criticizing Obama is who is your alternative? If the Democrats won’t help the Greens, nobody will.

That’s the issue the greens are scare to talk about. What happens if the Republicans ignore them and Democrats just pay them lip-service?