Her til morgen har jeg læst: Climate Fears Turn to Doubts Among Britons.
En god gennemgang af det bekymrende skift i den offentlige holdning til videnskaben om klimaforandringer:

A survey in February by the BBC found that only 26 percent of Britons believed that “climate change is happening and is now established as largely manmade,” down from 41 percent in November 2009. A poll conducted for the German magazine Der Spiegel found that 42 percent of Germans feared global warming, down from 62 percent four years earlier.

og et citat mere:

Scientists have meanwhile awakened to the public’s misgivings and are increasingly fighting back. An editorial in the prestigious journal Nature said climate deniers were using “every means at their disposal to undermine science and scientists” and urged scientists to counterattack. Scientists in France, the Netherlands and the United States have signed open letters affirming their trust in climate change evidence, including one published on May 7 in the journal Science.

In March, Simon L. Lewis, an expert on rain forests at the University of Leeds in Britain, filed a 30-page complaint with the nation’s Press Complaints Commission against The Times of London, accusing it of publishing “inaccurate, misleading or distorted information” about climate change, his own research and remarks he had made to a reporter.

“I was most annoyed that there seemed to be a pattern of pushing the idea that there were a number of serious mistakes in the I.P.C.C. report, when most were fairly innocuous, or not mistakes at all,” said Dr. Lewis, referring to the report by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

National Research Council i USA – en institution under det amerikanske videnskabernes selskab, udgav igår tre rapporter, hvori det fastslås (endnu en gang), at menneskehedens massive deponering af CO2 i atmosfæren fører til en generel opvarmning af jordsystemet.

Her er links til alle enkeltdelene af gårsdagens offentliggørelse, og her er direkte pdf-links til “briefs” af de tre rapporter:
Advancing the Science of Climate Change
Limiting the Magnitude of Future Climate Change
Adapting to the Impacts of Climate Change.

Så mangler vi bare, at Jyllands-Posten bringer dokumentationen lige så stort slået op, som dagbladet har for vane at gøre med historier, der har skeptiker-vinkel.

Related posts:

1. Dokumentation: Klimamodeller har ret
2. FN’s klimapanel: Mere regn, mere tørke

Jeg har mange gange skrevet om det nærmest grotesk underdrevne havniveaustignings-scenarie, FNs klimapanel opererer med (værst tænkelige scenarie: 59 centimeters stigning i år 2100).

Midt i konsternationen over de opdagede fejl i IPCCs tal sætter de gode folk på Realclimate-bloggen tingene i perspektiv:

Imagine this. In its latest report, the IPCC has predicted up to 3 meters of sea level rise by the end of this century. But “climate sceptics” websites were quick to reveal a few problems (or “tricks”, as they called it).

First, although the temperature scenarios of IPCC project a maximum warming of 6.4 ºC (Table SPM3), the upper limit of sea level rise has been computed assuming a warming of 7.6 ºC. Second, the IPCC chose to compute sea level rise up to the year 2105 rather than 2100 – just to add that extra bit of alarmism. Worse, the IPCC report shows that over the past 40 years, sea level has in fact risen 50% less than predicted by its models – yet these same models are used uncorrected to predict the future! And finally, the future projections assume a massive ice sheet decay which is rather at odds with past ice sheet behaviour.

Some scientists within IPCC warned early that all this could lead to a credibility problem, but the IPCC decided to go ahead anyway.

Now, the blogosphere and their great media amplifiers are up in arms. Heads must roll!

Unthinkable? Indeed. I am convinced that IPCC would never have done this.

The North Sea (see Stefan’s photostream on Flickr)
But here is what actually did happen.

In its latest report, the IPCC has predicted up to 59 cm of sea level rise by the end of this century. But realclimate soon revealed a few problems.

First, although the temperature scenarios of IPCC project a maximum warming of 6.4 ºC (Table SPM3), the upper limit of sea level rise has been computed for a warming of only 5.2 ºC – which reduced the estimate by about 15 cm. Second, the IPCC chose to compute sea level rise up to the year 2095 rather than 2100 – just to cut off another 5 cm. Worse, the IPCC report shows that over the past 40 years, sea level has in fact risen 50% more than predicted by its models – yet these same models are used uncorrected to predict the future! And finally, the future projections assume that the Antarctic ice sheet gains mass, thus lowering sea level, rather at odds with past ice sheet behaviour.**

Some scientists within IPCC warned early that all this could lead to a credibility problem, but the IPCC decided to go ahead anyway.

Nobody cared about this.

I mention this because there is a lesson in it. IPCC would never have published an implausibly high 3 meter upper limit like this, but it did not hesitate with the implausibly low 59 cm. That is because within the IPCC culture, being “alarmist” is bad and being “conservative” (i.e. underestimating the potential severity of things) is good.

Læs hele indlægget “Sealevelgate” her.

Related posts:

1. Klimapanelet undervurderer havniveaustigninger
2. År 2100: Havniveau kan stige 2 meter

1. marts 2010 udkom Howard Friels bog The Lomborg Deception, der er ét langt fact-tjek af Lomborgs globale succes fra 2007, bogen Køl af. Howard Friels dom over Lomborgs omgang med facts og dokumentation er hård: Lomborg is “a performance artist disguised as an academic.”

Jeg har endnu ikke læst Friels angreb på Lomborgs bog, men kun Lomborgs egen 27 sider lange gendrivelse (pdf-link) samt Newsweeks fyldige omtale af Howard Friels nye bog.

Newsweek-journalisten Sharon Begley er sig meget bevidst om, at det er et minefyldt farvand at bevæge sig ud i, så hun fact-tjekker både Howard Friel og Lomborg i sin artikel, og hun kritiserer blandt andet Friel for kamme over med sine fact-tjek og bruge for meget plads på voldsom kritik af mere eller mindre ligegyldige detaljer.

Men hun fremhæver og støtter en af Friels konklusioner, nemlig at Lomborg får mange af sine kontroversielle påstande til at fremstå som veldokumenterede ved at henvise til seriøse kilder i sit noteapparat – kilder som i flere tilfælde, viser det sig, slet ikke understøtter Lomborgs argumentation. Det slipper i det store hele igennem upåtalt, fordi ingen (bortset fra Howard Friel og enkelte ihærdige bloggere) gider ulejlige sig med at læse det kildemateriale, noterne refererer til.

Resultatet er at Lomborg nyder en position i medierne, hvor han får det bedste af alle verdener – enorm fylde på grund af sine kontroversielle synspunkter og fred fra kritiske spørgsmål fra journalister, fordi det han siger virker velunderbygget og svært at modsige.

Nu er det så endnu en gang påvist, at en del af Lomborgs skyts udgøres af halve sandheder (læs om en af hans mest benyttede af slagsen).

Lomborgs gendrivelse halter

Det er nok de færreste, der gennemstår den drøje læsning af Lomborgs gendrivelser af den nye facttjekker-bog. Jeg synes ikke, han kommer godt ud af det. Meget behændigt indleder han med at skrive, at en total gendrivelse af alle Howard Friels påstande ville fylde lige så meget som bogen Køl af selv, og at han derfor vil koncentrere sig om de vigtigste emner. Han kridter med andre ord selv banen op for, hvad debatten om hans egen figur skal handle om.

Inden for de rammer gendriver Lomborg Friels kritik på flere områder. For eksempel hvad angår diskussionen om fremskrivningerne af afrikansk landbrugsproduktion i en fremtid med øget global opvarmning. Det er et område, hvor man med rette kan kritisere klimapanelets konklusioner, og hvor man hurtigt kommer til kort, hvis man ikke anerkender berettigelsen af skepsis overfor de officielle tal og påstande fra IPCC, FAO og andre.

Men samtidig slipper Lomborg med sin selektive gendrivelse for at forholde sig til elementer i Howard Friels bog som virkelig må svide. For eksempel afsløringen af stuntnummeret med de glade isbjørne. Lomborg har et skarpt øje for, hvad der kan skabe overskrifter, og hvad der varmer hjerterne hos alle dem, der kalder tidens miljø-fokus for bekymringsindustrien.

Derfor vakte det kommentator- og anmelderjubel, da Lomborg i Køl af forsøgte at slå fast, den globale opvarmnings ikon nummer 1, den lidende isbjørn i det smeltende arktis, faktisk aldrig har haft det bedre, end nu hvor temperaturerne i dens habitat bliver lidt mere menneskelige. En besnærende påstand – der ikke holder. Her er, hvad Sharon Begley skriver i Newsweek:

Lomborg opens Cool It with a long discussion on polar bears, arguing that no more than two (of 20) groups are declining in population, that their numbers are not falling overall, and, in places where they are, that it is not a result of global (or Arctic) warming. In fact, polar-bear populations in warming regions are rising, he argues, suggesting that a warmer world will be beneficial to the bears. As Friel shows, Lomborg sourced that to a blog post and to a study that never mentioned polar bears. But he ignored the clear message of the most authoritative assessment of the bears’ population trends, namely, research by the International Union for Conservation of Nature. It found that bear populations are indeed declining where the Arctic is warming. In fact, concluded the IUCN, polar-bear populations “have declined significantly” where spring temperatures have risen dramatically. It also offered an explanation for Lomborg’s claim that numbers are falling most where temps are getting colder: that area happens to be where there is unregulated hunting.

For his claim that the polar-bear population “has soared,” Lomborg cited a 1999 study (scroll down to the paper by Ian Stirling). But that study described declining birthrates and other threats to the bears, blaming warmer spring temperatures that cause the sea ice to break up. Overall, since the mid-1980s polar-bear numbers have fallen, which experts attribute to global warming. The source is thus not exactly the solid endorsement of Lomborg’s claim about thriving polar bears that one might assume.

…

Lomborg responded to several specific charges of Friel’s that I sent him. On polar bears, he doesn’t dispute using the sources Friel finds dodgy. He acknowledges that the IUCN report “says that the reduction in ice affects polar-bear reproduction,” but says “it does not specify how.” That seems a bit disingenuous, however, since it is clear that loss of sea ice hurts bear reproduction. Lomborg also told me that he “did not ignore the drowning of polar bears,” but says the drownings were the result of a storm. Bears, however, have a better chance of surviving storms if they can take refuge on a large expanse of sea ice rather than face open water. As the final arbiter, let’s go to Ian Stirling, one of the world’s foremost experts on polar bears. Lomborg, Stirling says, used “inaccurate and utterly inadequate arguments” to “erroneously suggest climate warming will have little negative effect on” the bears.

Den nye kritik af Lomborg i danske medier

Der har ikke været meget omtale i DK af Lomborgs tur i fact-tjekker maskinen. Jeg synes, det er væsentligt at fremhæve dækningen, så jeg tillader mig at bringe et par tekster fra papirudgaver:

Politiken bragte en note under overskriften Den vil jeg ikke læse:

Selv om klimadebatten er et af tidens vigtigste emner, får jeg næppe læst Lomborg Deception. Her gennemgår forfatteren Howard Friel minutiøst og kritisk Bjørn Lomborgs bog ‘Cool It’ fra 2007 for at vise, at den danske klimadebattørs konklusioner om den globale opvarmning bygger på fejl. Bogen, som udkommer på Yale University Press i næste måned, får en pæn anmeldelse i seneste nummer af Newsweek.
Anmelderen mener ikke, at den skal læses i et hug, men hun anbefaler læsere af ‘ Cool It’ at have modværket ved hånden. For mig bliver det lidt for meget mudderkastning. Lomborg har allerede skrevet et forsvar på 25 sider, hvor han tilbageviser Friels påstande. martin.aagaard@pol.dk

.
Så er den ged barberet.

Jyllands-Posten bragte som det eneste dagblad en grundig omtale under overskriften Lomborg hudflettes i ny bog:

En amerikansk forfatter har kigget Bjørn Lomborg efter i kortene. Hans konklusion er, at den indflydelsesrige klimaskeptikers teorier bygger på varm luft. Af Jørgen Ullerup, Jyllands-Postens korrespondent. WASHINGTON.
Bjørn Lomborg er af avisen The Guardian blevet udråbt som en af 50 personer, der kan redde planeten, og i Foreign Policy har han indtaget 14. pladsen på top 100-listen over offentlige intellektuelle.
Nu udråbes han til en svindler i et tredje magtfuldt medie, det amerikanske Newsweek.
Nyhedsmagasinet bringer en lang anmeldelse af en ny bog “The Lomborg Deception” (Lomborg-skuffelsen), hvori forfatteren Howard Friel har tjekket oplysningerne i den danske klimadebattørs bog “Cool it” fra 2007. Konklusionen lyder, at Lomborgs argumentation er et korthus, der vil falde for selv den mindst klimaskabte brise.
»Som et eksperiment undersøgte jeg en af Lomborgs fodnoter og fandt ud af, at den ikke støttede det, som han hævdede. Så fortsatte jeg og fandt det samme mønster,« siger Howard Friel til Newsweek og kalder Lomborg for en performancekunstner forklædt som en akademiker.
Ved at anfægte, at der er videnskabeligt belæg for at hævde, at konsekvenserne af den globale opvarmning bliver så katastrofale som frygtet, vandt Lomborg stor ind-flydelse blandt modstanderne af at reducere udledningen af CO2.
Newsweeks anmelder, videnskabsredaktør Sharon Begley, anklager Friels bog for ikke at være læservenlig og for detaljeret, men konkluderer, at kritikken er overbevisende.
Lomborg imødegår kritikken i et 25 sider langt svar til Friels forlag, Yale University Press, der udgiver bogen i næste måned.
Anmeldelsen i Newsweek opfordrer klimastuderende til at have Lomborgs “Cool it” og “The Lomborg Deception” liggende side om side for selv at afgøre, om danskerens teorier bygger på kendsgerninger eller varm luft. jorgen.ullerup@jp.dk

Konklusion (min): Kun de færreste gider sætte sig ind i substansen, når det gælder klimastoffet. Det afspejles også i medierne. Taberne i det spil er alle de, der tror, at videnskaben dybest set ikke ved, om den globale opvarmning kommer til at skabe problemer, og at det hele bare er gang trættende mudderkastning. Det er en dyr fejltagelse.

Related posts:

1. Spag, marginaliseret Lomborg
2. Obama til Lomborg og Jyllands-Posten: Nu er det nok

Der er rigtig mange mennesker og medier, der hopper på den med, at når det nu er så koldt her i den danske vinter, så kan det heller ikke passe, at der foregår global opvarmning (for eksempel 22 Nyhederne for nogle uger siden, øv jeg kan ikke finde link til indslaget – nogen der kan hjælpe?).

Jeg faldt over denne video på Huffington Post – en instruktion i hvad man gør, hvis man har kolleger på arbejdspladsen, der fremturer med, at den globale opvarmning er død i vinterkulden :-)Apropos: Se hvordan et fornuftigt svar på et indsendt spørgsmål fra nogle skoleelever kan blive til 33 kilometers debat på Ing.dk …

Nogle af klimaskeptikerne er ved at koge over. NASAs James Hansen fortæller, at NASA i den seneste uge har modtaget over 2500 forespørgsler om muligt fusk med de data, som NASA bruger til at udregne klodens middel (luft)temperatur med.

Han fortæller samtidig, at han her i december måtte have politiets beskyttelse, da han skulle tale ved et arrangement i Houston, Texas. Kort før mødet modtag han konkrete trusler på sit liv. Så ophedede er nogle klimaskeptikere i deres vrede over, hvad de opfatter som en global opvarmningssammensværgelse – og for dem er James Hansen jo hovedarkitekten bag “klima-tsunamien”.

James Hansen reflekterer over situationen i sit seneste nyhedsbrev – og giver samtidig et autoritativt overblik over udviklingen i den globale (luft)middeltemperatur – og de data der ligger bag.

Her er udpluk fra hans brev:

… Fast forward to December 2009, when I gave a talk at the Progressive Forum in Houston Texas. The organizers there felt it necessary that I have a police escort between my hotel and the forum where I spoke.

Days earlier bloggers reported that I was probably the hacker who broke into East Anglia computers and stole e-mails. Their rationale: I was not implicated in any of the pirated e-mails, so I must have eliminated incriminating messages before releasing the hacked emails.

The next day another popular blog concluded that I deserved capital punishment. Web chatter on this topic, including indignation that I was coming to Texas, led to a police escort.

How did we devolve to this state? Any useful lessons? Is there still interesting science in analyses of surface temperature change? Why spend time on it, if other groups are also doing it?

First I describe the current monthly updates of global surface temperature at the Goddard Institute for Space Studies. Then I show graphs illustrating scientific inferences and issues. Finally I respond to questions in the above paragraph.

Læs hele artiklen her: The Temperature of Science (direkte link til pdf-fil).

Klimakampen.org er et rimeligt sejt setup etableret på kort tid af fire studerende på Journalisthøjskolens grunduddannelse. Sitet dækker topmødet i København med en online-friskhed, som man ikke finder så mange andre steder.

Sagen om de stjålne emails fra klimaforskere er til at få hovedpine af at læse om.

I DK og i resten af verden hopper og danser klimaskeptikere og popularistiske politikere i fællesskab af begejstring over, at mainstream klimaforskning i deres øjne har afsløret sig selv som miljøpolitisk propaganda.

Pressen har generelt svært ved at finde sin ben i omtalen af affæren, og kun meget få medier skærer igennem sagens politiske lag og fortæller lige ud sine læsere/seere/lyttere, at affæren ikke rokker en tøddel ved hverken 100 års klimaforskning eller det usædvanligt lune vintervejr.

To af de bedste baggrundsartikler, jeg har kunne finde om sagen, ligger her:

• New Scientists baggrundsartikel  “Why there’s no sign of a climate conspiracy in hacked emails” af reporter Michael Le Page.
• Utrættelige Christoffer Bugge Harders gennemgang “Indbruddet i CRU”.

Begge artikler er værd at bruge 10 minutter på.

Det britiske dagblad The Guardian har organiseret et sensationelt internationalt dagbladsinitiativ: 56 aviser i 45 lande bringer idag samme leder om klimaet.

Det sker 20 forskellige sprog, og for mange avisers vedkommende er teksten placeret på forsiden. Lederen er publiceret under Creative Commons licens, og den lyder sådan her:

Copenhagen climate change conference: Fourteen days to seal history’s judgment on this generation

Today 56 newspapers in 45 countries take the unprecedented step of speaking with one voice through a common editorial. We do so because humanity faces a profound emergency.

Unless we combine to take decisive action, climate change will ravage our planet, and with it our prosperity and security. The dangers have been becoming apparent for a generation. Now the facts have started to speak: 11 of the past 14 years have been the warmest on record, the Arctic ice-cap is melting and last year’s inflamed oil and food prices provide a foretaste of future havoc. In scientific journals the question is no longer whether humans are to blame, but how little time we have got left to limit the damage. Yet so far the world’s response has been feeble and half-hearted.

Historien om historien. Læs om initiativet og se hvem der deltog.

Climate change has been caused over centuries, has consequences that will endure for all time and our prospects of taming it will be determined in the next 14 days. We call on the representatives of the 192 countries gathered in Copenhagen not to hesitate, not to fall into dispute, not to blame each other but to seize opportunity from the greatest modern failure of politics. This should not be a fight between the rich world and the poor world, or between east and west. Climate change affects everyone, and must be solved by everyone.

The science is complex but the facts are clear. The world needs to take steps to limit temperature rises to 2C, an aim that will require global emissions to peak and begin falling within the next 5-10 years. A bigger rise of 3-4C — the smallest increase we can prudently expect to follow inaction — would parch continents, turning farmland into desert. Half of all species could become extinct, untold millions of people would be displaced, whole nations drowned by the sea. The controversy over emails by British researchers that suggest they tried to suppress inconvenient data has muddied the waters but failed to dent the mass of evidence on which these predictions are based.

Few believe that Copenhagen can any longer produce a fully polished treaty; real progress towards one could only begin with the arrival of President Obama in the White House and the reversal of years of US obstructionism. Even now the world finds itself at the mercy of American domestic politics, for the president cannot fully commit to the action required until the US Congress has done so.

But the politicians in Copenhagen can and must agree the essential elements of a fair and effective deal and, crucially, a firm timetable for turning it into a treaty. Next June’s UN climate meeting in Bonn should be their deadline. As one negotiator put it: “We can go into extra time but we can’t afford a replay.”

At the deal’s heart must be a settlement between the rich world and the developing world covering how the burden of fighting climate change will be divided — and how we will share a newly precious resource: the trillion or so tonnes of carbon that we can emit before the mercury rises to dangerous levels.

Rich nations like to point to the arithmetic truth that there can be no solution until developing giants such as China take more radical steps than they have so far. But the rich world is responsible for most of the accumulated carbon in the atmosphere – three-quarters of all carbon dioxide emitted since 1850. It must now take a lead, and every developed country must commit to deep cuts which will reduce their emissions within a decade to very substantially less than their 1990 level.

Developing countries can point out they did not cause the bulk of the problem, and also that the poorest regions of the world will be hardest hit. But they will increasingly contribute to warming, and must thus pledge meaningful and quantifiable action of their own. Though both fell short of what some had hoped for, the recent commitments to emissions targets by the world’s biggest polluters, the United States and China, were important steps in the right direction.

Social justice demands that the industrialised world digs deep into its pockets and pledges cash to help poorer countries adapt to climate change, and clean technologies to enable them to grow economically without growing their emissions. The architecture of a future treaty must also be pinned down – with rigorous multilateral monitoring, fair rewards for protecting forests, and the credible assessment of “exported emissions” so that the burden can eventually be more equitably shared between those who produce polluting products and those who consume them. And fairness requires that the burden placed on individual developed countries should take into account their ability to bear it; for instance newer EU members, often much poorer than “old Europe”, must not suffer more than their richer partners.

The transformation will be costly, but many times less than the bill for bailing out global finance — and far less costly than the consequences of doing nothing.

Many of us, particularly in the developed world, will have to change our lifestyles. The era of flights that cost less than the taxi ride to the airport is drawing to a close. We will have to shop, eat and travel more intelligently. We will have to pay more for our energy, and use less of it.

But the shift to a low-carbon society holds out the prospect of more opportunity than sacrifice. Already some countries have recognized that embracing the transformation can bring growth, jobs and better quality lives. The flow of capital tells its own story: last year for the first time more was invested in renewable forms of energy than producing electricity from fossil fuels.

Kicking our carbon habit within a few short decades will require a feat of engineering and innovation to match anything in our history. But whereas putting a man on the moon or splitting the atom were born of conflict and competition, the coming carbon race must be driven by a collaborative effort to achieve collective salvation.

Overcoming climate change will take a triumph of optimism over pessimism, of vision over short-sightedness, of what Abraham Lincoln called “the better angels of our nature”.

It is in that spirit that 56 newspapers from around the world have united behind this editorial. If we, with such different national and political perspectives, can agree on what must be done then surely our leaders can too.

The politicians in Copenhagen have the power to shape history’s judgment on this generation: one that saw a challenge and rose to it, or one so stupid that we saw calamity coming but did nothing to avert it. We implore them to make the right choice.

Al Gores bog er et kompendie af klimaløsninger og en opdateret indsigt i energiteknologi. Foto: Center For American Progress/Flickr.

Newsweek har besøgt Al Gore i privaten i Nashville for at lave dette interview i anledning af udgivelsen af Al Gores nye bog Our Choice – A Plan To Solve The Climate Crisis.

Al Gore skriver også selv i samme nummer af Newsweek – der er tale om et udpluk fra bogen.

Revolutionerende viden om drivhuseffekten i CO2
Jeg bed mærke i, at bogen indeholder et afsnit om den allernyeste forskning i drivhusgasser og deres virkning. Al Gore har tilsyneladende inden sin bogdeadline fået adgang til de data, der ligger til grund for denne helt dugfriske videnskabelige artikel fra Science: Improved Attribution of Climate Forcing to Emissions.

Heri dokumenterer forskere fra NASA, at CO2 står for en mindre andel af den globale opvarmning, end hidtil antaget. Se hvad Newsweek skriver om det:
… methane accounts for about 27 percent of the man-made warming so far, largely because of how it interacts with atmospheric aerosols. Halocarbons have caused 8 percent of the warming; black carbon (sooty emissions from burning wood, dung, and diesel), 12 percent; carbon monoxide and volatile organics, 7 percent—and carbon dioxide, 43 percent.

Depending on your bent, you can append an “only” to that last number. On the one hand, the NASA calculations provide a glimmer of hope. Reducing CO2 emissions strikes at the lifeblood of the global economy—namely fossil fuels, which provide 86.5 percent of the world’s energy. But targeting other greenhouse gases is “likely to be much more cost-effective than CO2-only strategies,” the NASA team writes in Science. For example, methane emissions could be cut by changing farm practices and by capturing the huge quantities that are flared at oil wells.

Sitet Physorg.com har en god gennemgang af betydningen af ovenstående her : Interactions with Aerosols Boost Warming Potential of Some Gases, October 29, 2009 by Adam Voiland.

Related posts:

1. Fra Al Gore til Obama: Her er en klimaplan
2. Al Gore i 60 Minutes, CBS