Al Gore, Gary Neville or Cheryl Cole: who would you trust on climate change? | Leo Hickman | Environment | guardian.co.uk

Personally, I see this survey as a somewhat rose-tinted view of the power of celebrities. After all, I'm sure we can all see names of that list which would make us instinctively recoil should we ever hear them proselytising on climate change. There is also the not-so-insignificant issue that many celebrities lead jet-setting, luxurious lifestyles which don't exactly chime with their eco-message. For example, despite three decades of speaking up about climate change, Al Gore is still effortlessly struck by his opponents with the "hypocrite" stick because he lives in a big house and travels the world performing his lectures. This survey suggests that this sniping hasn't, in fact, had much of an impact on his authority and influence as a celebrity, and yet he remains a divisive figure. But perhaps this tells us that when you step away from the vitriolic maelstrom that is the climate "debate" and discuss these people with the wider public there is far less cynicism about them?

CFACT debates energy poverty in New York Times | CFACT

Yet no matter how many times we explain in writing, email, or in conversation, Mr. Revkin can't seem to grasp that the same principles of individual freedom and empowerment that light the path from energy poverty to development, are the principles that compel opposition to the global warming scare and the entire industry that has arisen to exploit it. Mr. Revkin apparently suffers from some form of cognitive dissonance which prevents him from seeing that providing a solar oven to a family without fuel is entirely consistent with opposition to policies which would force ratepayers to pay double or triple for electricity from solar or wind, which cannot reliably meet their energy needs.

The solar ovens, or good little solar charged battery system CFACT installed (to power student laptops) in Mexico are energy first aid. They help people mitigate their current challenge, but provide no long-term substitute for abundant, affordable power from the grid. Expecting the energy poor to limit their development to such expediences is no more constructive, nor just, than would be expecting the people of New York, London or Tokyo to do so.