This-yet again, new rumor, is about the same as the ones predicting in September, October, then December,a reprise of January and then again for Super Tuesday, put out by the Obama campaign and it's supporters, hoping to do all possible to get Mr. Gore's followers.

It didn't happen for a reason.

Obama doesn't share Mr. Gore's positions and policy on Global Warming, so I would guess that's why.

Obama pushed for a 2nd time a Lobbyist pushed Liquified Coal Bill, that environmentalists were screaming to pull for over 6 months, 'til it lost support in June 2007, after he revived it in Januar 2007. He supports Nuclear energy. Coal and nukes is not exactly friendly for the environment. He also has the smallest increases on CAFE Standards (mpg). Obama does not share Mr. Gore's position on Carbon Tax and did not join the moratorium for Coal fired plants.

Mr. Gore was very clear if he endorsed, they would have to share his position.

I doubt Mr. Gore would want to burn his bridges at this point, as he has stated, his mission who best will do more for Global Warming and it has nothign to even do with PARTY.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Even though I wanted him to run,early on, I believe now that Gore was right to stay out of the running. He should quietly watch what happens and not jeopardize his standing or his leadership in the movement to save the Earth.

I do not think any personal dislike of Hillary will be a factor--he's not that small.

I'm sure he's read both their policy platforms and can see that they are leaving themselves a loophole to continue the Iraq War by constantly repeating that they'll end the war "responsibly"
while planning to leave residual forces.

Sit tight and stay mum, Al. Don't tarnish your image.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Gore should endorse (or not) Obama for one reason - the environment. Obama has been far more outspoken in this campaign about climate change and about how we can face that struggle, proposing the needed cap and trade system on emissions. Hillary would certainly be a vast improvement over Bush, but Gore's whole environmental movement has been about large scale changes. He should endorse Obama because Obama can put together the type of coalition necessary to pass major climate change legislation.

If Al wants to just hold on to his throne, maybe he should not endorse anyone. But if he actually wants to keep pushing for major responses to climate change, then he should endorse the candidate best able to accomplish that goal.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

And now it's spreading through AlterNet and the Huffington Post. If it turns out to be just a rumor, that is, false, do I blame the author or the publications?

Ooh! Could someone have an agenda here?

What was it that I used to read on all the online places about the differences between the new media and the old media, about the evil ways MSM spread their bias and avoided the facts?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

"it's important to know that this rumor is out there."

Yes, just as it was important for the Swiftboaters to get their story about John Kerry's war service out there. We wouldn't want the facts to get in the way of the right candidate winning.

Yes, I am comparing the author to the Swiftboaters. This post serves only one purpose - to damage the Clinton campaign. If it's true it will happen and the Clinton campaign will suffer from the truth even without this article. If it's not true spreading it makes sure the Clinton campaign suffers anyway.

Obama's followers are looking more and more like Bush's supporters everyday. I won't vote for that under any conditions, primary or election.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

aethr, those are strong words. As an Obama supporter, I agree with you - this is just tattle. But to go from that to there being a campaign of swiftboating? That's completely unsubstantiated. Those rumors are swirling everywhere. It's just a force of nature. You know, like those terrible emails about Obama that go round. They propagate because of their gossip value.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Great damage has been done, but we still have 8 years before natural positive
feedbacks lead to our EXTINCTION. Sea level will continue to rise even if we
disappear right now, but that is "minor" compared to poison gas bubbling out of
the ocean and killing almost everything including all of the people.
See the chart on page 274 of "Six Degrees" by Mark Lynas. We have until 2015
to BEGIN REDUCING our total CO2 output and we have until 2050 to actually
reduce our CO2 output by 90%. The curve has to start down by 2015, not we
have to think about it by then. The peak of our CO2 production has to happen in
the next 8 years. That means stopping the building of coal fired power plants
world wide immediately. It means replacing coal fired power plants with nuclear
power plants world wide with ZERO interference from paranoid protesters.

How are YOU going to do it? Go ahead and invest YOUR money if your answer
is anything other than nuclear power. I don't want to waste my money on pie in
the sky like wind, solar, bio and geothermal. Too much research is still needed.
If we don't follow the schedule in Six Degrees, we will encounter positive
feedbacks which will take the control of the climate out of our hands.
Civilization may fall anyway well before 2050, but we can avoid going extinct by
2100. We have to hold the CO2 level to 400 parts per million to have a 75%
chance of avoiding the positive feedbacks. The natural positive feedbacks are
explained in Six Degrees.

I have zero financial interest in nuclear power, and I never have had a financial
interest in nuclear power. My sole motivation in writing this is to avoid extinction
by H2S gas.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

October 2006 Scientific American

"EARTH SCIENCE
Impact from the Deep
Strangling heat and gases emanating from the earth and sea, not
asteroids, most likely caused several ancient mass extinctions.
Could the same killer-greenhouse conditions build once again?
By Peter D. Ward
downloaded from:
http://www.sciam.com/
article.cfm?articleID=
00037A5D-A938-150E-
A93883414B7F0000&
sc=I100322
....................Most of the article omitted......................
But with atmospheric carbon climbing at an annual rate of 2 ppm
and expected to accelerate to 3 ppm, levels could approach 900
ppm by the end of the next century, and conditions that bring
about the beginnings of ocean anoxia may be in place. How soon
after that could there be a new greenhouse extinction? That is
something our society should never find out."

Press Release
Pennsylvania State University
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Monday, Nov. 3, 2003
downloaded from:
http://www.geosociety.org/meetings/2003/prPennStateKump.htm
"In the end-Permian, as the levels of atmospheric oxygen fell and
the levels of hydrogen sulfide and carbon dioxide rose, the upper
levels of the oceans could have become rich in hydrogen sulfide
catastrophically. This would kill most of the oceanic plants and
animals. The hydrogen sulfide dispersing in the atmosphere would
kill most terrestrial life."

www.astrobio.net is a NASA web zine. See:

http://www.astrobio.net/
news/modules.php?op=
modload&name=News&
file=article&sid=672

http://www.astrobio.net/
news/modules.php?op=
modload&name=News&
file=article&sid=1535

http://www.astrobio.net/
news/article2509.html

http://astrobio.net/news/
modules.php?op=modload
&name=News&file=article
&sid=2429&mode=thread
&order=0&thold=0

These articles agree with the first 2. They all say 6 degrees C or
1000 parts per million CO2 is the extinction point.

The global warming is already 1 degree Farenheit. 11 degrees
Farenheit is about 6 degrees Celsius. The book "Six Degrees" by
Mark Lynas agrees. If the global warming is 6 degrees
centigrade, we humans go extinct. See:
http://www.marklynas.org/
2007/4/23/six-steps-to-hell-
summary-of-six-degrees-as-
published-in-the-guardian

ALL COAL FIRED POWER PLANTS MUST BE
CONVERTED TO NUCLEAR IMMEDIATELY TO AVOID
THE EXTINCTION OF US HUMANS. 32 countries have
nuclear power plants. Only 9 have the bomb. The top 3
producers of CO2 all have nuclear power plants, coal fired power
plants and nuclear bombs. They are the USA, China and India.
Reducing CO2 production by 90% by 2050 requires drastic action
in the USA, China and India.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

1. Yucca Mountain is full of nuclear fuel that needs to be reprocessed. We used
to reprocess spent fuel rods until 1/2 ton of enriched uranium somehow wound up
in Israel.
2. Reference:
OUR NUCLEAR FUTURE:
THE PATH OF SELECTIVE IGNORANCE
by Alex Gabbard
Oak Ridge National Laboratory
Oak Ridge, TN
Selections from the 19th Annual Conference
SOUTHERN FUTURE SOCIETY
March 14,15,16, 1996
Nashville, Tennessee

Published by the
SOUTHERN FUTURE SOCIETY
1996
Edited by Jack D. Arters, Ed.D.
Conference Director
The truth is, all natural rocks contain most natural elements. Coal is a rock.
The average concentration of uranium in coal is 1 or 2 parts per million. Illinois
coal contains up to 103 parts per million uranium. A 1000 million watt coal
fired power plant burns 4 million tons of coal each year. If you multiply 4
million tons by 1 part per million, you get 4 tons of uranium. Most of that is
U238. About .7% is U235. 4 tons = 8000 pounds. 8000 pounds times .7% =
56 pounds of U235. An average 1 billion watt coal fired power plant puts out 56
to 112 pounds of U235 every year. There are only 2 places the uranium can go:
Up the stack or into the cinders.
Since a reactor full fuel load is around 11 tons of 2% U235 and 98% U238, and
one load lasts about 10 years, and what one coal fired power plant puts into the
air and cinders fully fuels a nuclear power plant.
Compare 4 Million tons per year with 1.1 tons per year. 1.1 divided by 4 Million
= 2.75 E -7 = .000000275 =.0000275%. Remember that only 2% of that is
U235. The nuclear power plant needs ~44 pounds of U235 per year. The coal
fired power plant burns coal by the trainload. The nuclear power plant consumes
U235 in such small quantities yearly that you could carry that much weight in a
briefcase.
3. See the rest of Alex Gabbard's article. U238 can be bred into Plutonium and
Thorium can be bred into Uranium. We can fuel our nuclear power plants for
CENTURIES just by extracting uranium and thorium from coal cinders and
smoke.
4. See: http://www.ornl.gov/ORNLReview/rev26-34/text/coalmain.html

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Reference the book: "Break Through" by Ted Nordhaus and Michael
Shellenberger, 2007.

I am on page 245. The message so far is: "Environmentalists have the wrong
STRATEGY." Nordhaus and Shellenberger recommend changing from a
message about limits and separating people from nature to a message about growth
of clean energy and seeing people as part of nature. Clearly humans are part of
nature. We ARE clearly part of our Universe and we cannot be separate from it.
On the good side, we are the only organism capable of spreading earth life to other
planets and defending Mother Earth from giant asteroid impacts. On the bad side,
we are capable of causing our own extinction by means of global warming. A
total global warming of 11 degrees Fahrenheit will cause H2S to bubble out of the
oceans and kill everybody and almost all of the other life forms that we care about.
We have already caused one degree Fahrenheit of global warming and natural
positive feedbacks may kick in soon.

Nordhaus and Shellenberger recommend working WITH human psychology rather
than fighting it. Human psychology is illogical from the previous philosophy of
environmentalism, but can be taken advantage of by changing philosophies. The
old philosophy is getting us nowhere. Suppose we agree with George W. Bush
but with the stipulation that carbon sequestration has to be PROVEN to be safe and
eternal. If they have to prove that ZERO CO2 will leak out, even under terrorist
attack, for 1 Million years, they will never succeed. In other words, use the
strategy that most of you have been using against nuclear, against coal instead.
Reverse your attitude on nuclear power because nuclear power is the only thing
that can be agreed on by both the electric power companies and the
environmentalists who want to reduce CO2. In fact, nuclear is the only realistic
replacement for base load power. Wind, solar, bio and geo energy are pipe
dreams without major investments in research that we don't have time for.

"Between 2007 and 2020, China will invest $128 billion in coal." This is on page
117 of the referenced book. The US has 112 Gigawatts of coal fired power plants
on order. That is 112 standard unit coal fired power plants. The US, China and
India are building nearly 900 coal fired power plants. Nuclear power is clean, safe
energy as coal will never be. Nuclear technology is something that the US can
sell and something that can be a growth industry. Nuclear power can save us from
extinction by global warming and provide good high paying jobs. What is needed
is education on the subject of nuclear power. People who understand nuclear
power are in favor of it. It is ignorance that makes people protest against nuclear
power. "Environmentalists for Nuclear Energy", by B. Comby is a good textbook
for a high school level course in nuclear power, or for a non-science majors'
short course.

I have zero financial interest in nuclear power, and I never have had a financial
interest in nuclear power. My sole motivation in writing this is to avoid extinction
by H2S gas.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The complete list of impurities in coal includes every element in
the periodic table. The important impurities are: URANIUM,
ARSENIC, LEAD, MERCURY, Antimony, Cobalt, Nickel,
Copper, Selenium, Barium, Fluorine, Silver, Beryllium, Iron,
Sulfur, Boron, Titanium, Cadmium, Magnesium, Thorium,
Calcium, Manganese, Vanadium, Chlorine, Aluminum,
Chromium, Molybdenum and Zinc. There is so much of these
elements in coal that cinders and coal smoke are actually valuable
ores. We should be able to get all the uranium and thorium we
need to fuel nuclear power plants for centuries by using cinders
and smoke as ore. Remember that, to get a given amount of
energy, you need about 100 MILLION TIMES as much coal as
uranium. That means the coal mine has to be 100 million times
larger than the uranium mine, not counting the recycling of
nuclear fuel. We can keep our mountains and forests and our
health by switching from coal to nuclear power.

Chinese industrial grade coal is sometimes stolen by
peasants for cooking. The result is that the whole family
dies of arsenic poisoning because Chinese industrial grade
coal contains large amounts of arsenic.

I have zero financial interest in nuclear power, and I never have
had a financial interest in nuclear power. My sole motivation in
writing this is to avoid death by H2S gas.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Anyone consider the idea that this might be a rumor spread by the Clinton campaign?

Send everyone into a tizzy, and then allow a letdown reality to set it in and knock Obama (and his support) back down to earth.

To me, that's the way this rumor would be played in our current political game. Obama's folks have nothing to gain by spreading it. They know that such a tactic would not help earn the support from Gore they are likely working for.

No. This feels like a Clinton 'hit' all the way...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Unless things have changed, delegates are only committed to a candidate for the first ballot. If Billary or Obama do not have it sewn up, I would like to see Al Gore made the nominee at the convention.
With Gore against McCain the Democrats would clean the G.O.P.'s clock come November. He won't even have to say I told you so...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

What's in it for Gore?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

You can alway come up with half a million reasons how this could lead to that, and maybe the best thing is not to vote by your conscience. But regarding AL GOre endorsing Obama, I think that its really something that meant to be and that we as Democrats have to go for what is right, not be paralyzed by fear of multiple outcomes. I think Gore and Obama are two people that will really stand for the change that we all know is need so badly. Their personalities makes them people that can stand for radical movement away from the Republican temperment of late while Hillary will try to have things both ways, and while she says she supports change I think she would be quite a bit more timid and not really have the guts to stand for what is right. And there's going to be hawks that are going to persuade the next President with fear and cold war mentality. Al Gore is not the type of leader that will stop his global warming efforts because of who's in the WHite House . . . any more than he has the last 7 years.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Has a GOOD, or even fair enviromental policey!

Why would he support them, or endorse them??
Edwards, and the Green Party are both right on these issues!!

For the Nuke Guy, above with the long dooms day posts, solar and wind DO work, and are Working! Yes, in other parts of the world!!
Almost every house in Germany has Solar Panels on the roof! The electric companies, by law, have to buy back the excess poower produced at a premimum price (not reduced like here).

Goverment provided low interest loans, to home owners, for solar and wind systems that feed back into the lines, and we'd reduce our need for ANY new power plants!

Heavy surcharges for anyone, registering a large SUV, or any gas guzzler!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

with the caption, "This is the absolutely worst President the United States has ever had - bar none."

Under the Bush photo I have two other photos - one of Al Gore and one of John Kerry - with a joint caption, "And here are the two lousy A-holes that lost to George W. Bush."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]