"Everybody knows that global warming is real," Mr. Clinton said, giving a shout-out to Al Gore's Nobel Peace Prize, "but we cannot solve it alone."

"And maybe America, and Europe, and Japan, and Canada -- the rich counties -- would say, 'OK, we just have to slow down our economy and cut back our greenhouse gas emissions 'cause we have to save the planet for our grandchildren.' We could do that.

"But if we did that, you know as well as I do, China and India and Indonesia and Vietnam and Mexico and Brazil and the Ukraine, and all the other countries will never agree to stay poor to save the planet for our grandchildren. The only way we can do this is if we get back in the world's fight against global warming and prove it is good economics that we will create more jobs to build a sustainable economy that saves the planet for our children and grandchildren. It is the only way it will work.

"And guess what? The only places in the world today in rich countries where you have rising wages and declining inequality are places that have generated more jobs than rich countries because they made a commitment we didn't. They got serious about a clean, efficient, green, independent energy future… If you want that in America, if you want the millions of jobs that will come from it, if you would like to see a new energy trust fund to finance solar energy and wind energy and biomass and responsible bio-fuels and electric hybrid plug-in vehicles that will soon get 100 miles a gallon, if you want every facility in this country to be made maximally energy efficient that will create millions and millions and millions of jobs, vote for her. She'll give it to you. She's got the right energy plan."

4.) Didn't George W. Bush win an Exemplary Service Award when he was in the Coast Guard or National Guard or Boy Scouts?

That award was from his fraternity, and I think it had something to do with balancing empty beer bottles.

Point proven that no one can really be called an expert at something just because they win an award.

It's different if you win fellowships or academic validation, but Al Gore won an Oscar. The Oscars are fine entertainment awards. It was a blatant attempt to validate Gore's work. Don't get me wrong, I'm glad he raised the issue. But the Oscars are Hollywood. Not many politicians or scientists would feel good about being accredited by Hollywood U.

So in the end I don't really think Bill Clinton was seeking to use Al Gore to validate the slowdown of the U.S. economy because I like to believe he's smarter than that.

Is Bill Clinton actually suggesting that "rich" countries slowdown their economies?
I guess it's a gaffe because this reporter thought it a great idea to extrapolate on

And maybe America, and Europe, and Japan, and Canada—the rich counties—would say, 'OK, we just have to slow down our economy and cut back our greenhouse gas emissions 'cause we have to save the planet for our grandchildren.'

Does winning a prize mean your ideas are irrefutable?
No. Winning an Oscar means your movie is compelling/interesting/etc. A movie based on scientific evidence is only as good as how well you present the views of the scientific community and how current those views are.

I dunno Lesly. It's actually sort of difficult to figure out what he's trying to say. One one hand he says we should do this and that other countries might follow when they see that there's an industry behind it. (Before you jump all over me as some kind of Clintonphobe look around - I'm the one correcting people on what they've been saying the past few weeks.)

And maybe America, and Europe, and Japan, and Canada — the rich counties — would say, ‘OK, we just have to slow down our economy and cut back our greenhouse gas emissions ’cause we have to save the planet for our grandchildren.’ We could do that.

But if we did that, you know as well as I do, China and India and Indonesia and Vietnam and Mexico and Brazil and the Ukraine, and all the other countries will never agree to stay poor to save the planet for our grandchildren. The only way we can do this is if we get back in the world’s fight against global warming and prove it is good economics that we will create more jobs to build a sustainable economy that saves the planet for our children and grandchildren. It is the only way it will work.

I dunno Lesly. It's actually sort of difficult to figure out what he's trying to say. [On the] one hand he says we should do this and that other countries might follow when they see that there's an industry behind it.

It seems clear to me - If America can demonstrate (by our actions) that alternative energy, conservation, etc. can be more profitable in the long run than fossil fuels and pollution, then the rest of the world would logically follow. You can't just ask developing countries to cut down on emissions if it is going to cost them badly needed money - but if you could prove that change would be profitable, then they would change.

And on the other hand?

Sorry I thought the other hand was even more obvious... We need to slow down our economies to save the planet.