Gore's 2006 'An Inconvenient Truth' served 'as a catalyst in the polarization of American public opinion on climate change.'
'Republicans may have taken an oppositional stance on climate change, at least partly, in response to signals from Democratic elites.'
The original Gore film 'likely played a role in turning Republicans against that message, since to them, Gore was simply a Democratic politician they disliked.'
'It’s highly unlikely that the release of Al Gore’s sequel to An Inconvenient Truth will have an impact similar to the original. The movie is generating significantly less traction in the box office and in the media. Furthermore, climate change has already become one of the most polarized issues of the day. Sadly, there is likely no way to turn back the clock. But it should serve as a warning for the future. It is not only important to pick a salient and informative message, but also an effective messenger to deliver it.'
Climate skeptic Steven Hayward comments on the new study: 'I had occasion to ask a straight-shooting 'mainstream' climate scientist I know slightly what he thought of Gore’s  film: 'I wish he’d made the film with John McCain.' In other words, Gore should have tried to make it a bipartisan effort.'
'GORE: THE GIFT THAT KEEPS ON GIVING' - 'This study suggests is that Al Gore is the best friend climate skeptics ever had.'
'The best way to stop climate action is to give Gore more air time. And memo to Hillary Clinton: please please please make a movie about climate change. It would probably kill off the issue once and for all.'
Richard Muller: "When Trump announced our withdrawal from the Paris Accords, I felt that he had done the right thing...the Paris accords did almost nothing to stop the increase. Alas, most of that increase will come from China, India, and the developing world, not from the US or Western Europe. To be effective, anything we rich nations do must set an example that the developing world can follow. That means it must not be expensive; if it isn’t profitable, it isn’t sustainable. There are three things we need to do to slow and stop global warming: More extensive energy conservation. Encourage nuclear power. Shale gas as an alternative to coal. A gas plant emits ½ to ⅓ the CO2 of coal. Everything else is just frosting. We tend to do fashionable things without caring if it makes sense for the developing world."
Earlier this month, the biologist Paul Ehrlich used a similar defense after co-authoring a study that warned of a coming “annihilation” of vertebrates. “I am an alarmist,” Ehrlich told the Washington Post. “My colleagues are alarmists. We’re alarmed, and we’re frightened. And there’s no other way to put it.”
Flashback WaPo: Earth is on its way to the biggest mass extinction since the dinosaurs, scientists warn - Ehrlich said the point of the research is exactly that — to cause alarm. “I am an alarmist. My colleagues are alarmists. We're alarmed, and we're frightened. And there's no other way to put it,” he said. “It's largely a political and economic problem. We have a government that's doing everything they can to push these things in the wrong direction. We have economists who think they can actually grow forever in a finite planet.”
"America's beloved dogs and cats play a significant role in causing global warming, according to a new study by UCLA. "Publised in peer-revieweed journal PLOS ONE (which touts itself as for its "Rigorous Peer Review")
"Pet ownership in the United States creates about 64 million tons of carbon dioxide a year, UCLA researchers found. That's the equivalent of driving 13.6 million cars for a year. The problem lies with the meat-filled diets of kitties and pooches, according to the study by UCLA geography professor Gregory Okin."
Professor Roger Pielke Jr. of the University of Colorado Boulder: "The world is presently in an era of unusually low weather disasters. This holds for the weather phenomena that have historically caused the most damage: tropical cyclones, floods, tornadoes and drought. Given how weather events have become politicized in debates over climate change, some find this hard to believe...The US has seen a decrease of about 20% in both hurricane frequency and intensity at landfall since 1900...Data on floods, drought and tornadoes are similar in that they show little to no indication of becoming more severe or frequent...Thus, it is fair to conclude that the costs of disasters worldwide is depressed because, as the global economy has grown, disaster costs have not grown at the same rate. Thus, disaster costs as a proportion of GDP have decreased. One important reason for this is a lack of increase in the weather events that cause disasters, most notably, tropical cyclones worldwide and especially hurricanes in the United States."
Climatoloigst Dr. Roy Spencer: "The bottom dropped out of Atlantic hurricane activity after 2005. The “drought” of landfalling U.S. major hurricanes continues, and as seen in this graphic from WeatherStreet.com, no hurricanes have yet formed anywhere in the Atlantic basin in 2017, despite the forecast for an above-normal hurricane season."
As his peer-reviewed study puts it, “Pharmacologically induced altruism and empathy could increase the likelihood that we adopt the necessary behavioral and market solutions for curbing climate change.” He emphasises there would be no coercion. The drugs would merely help those who want to be climate-friendly behaviour but lack the willpower.
Lomborg: Gore’s prescriptions—for New York and the globe—won’t work. He claims the answer to warming lies in agreements to cut carbon that would cost trillions of dollars. That would not have stopped Sandy. What New York really needs is better infrastructure: sea walls, storm doors for the subway, porous pavement. These fixes could cost around $100 million a year, a bargain compared with the price of international climate treaties. Mr. Gore helped negotiate the first major global agreement on climate, the Kyoto Protocol. It did nothing to reduce emissions (and therefore to rein in temperatures), according to a March 2017 article in the Journal of Environmental Economics and Management...By 2030 the Paris climate accord will cost the world up to $2 trillion a year, mostly in lost economic growth, according to the best peer-reviewed energy-economic models. It will remain that expensive for the rest of the century. This would make it the most expensive treaty in history.
'The global economy is far from ready to replace fossil fuels with solar and wind. The International Energy Agency, in its 2016 World Energy Outlook, found that 0.6% of the world’s energy is supplied by solar and wind. Even with the Paris accord fully implemented, that number would rise only to 3% in a quarter-century. In part because of activists like Mr. Gore, the world remains focused on subsidizing inefficient, unreliable technology, rather than investing in research to push down the price of green energy.'