“There’s a long tradition of people who don’t like a particular message turning to attack the person delivering the message,” he said on NPR’s Talk of the Nation. “I view it as an honor, really. The message is an important one and I will continue doing my best delivering it the best I can.”

The man, who won both a Nobel Peace Prize and an Oscar for standing up for the environment, set off a firestorm of controversy in the conservative blogosphere after he referenced the book “Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming” by Naomi Oreskes and Erik M. Conway, while speaking at the Aspen Institute on Aug. 4. In his interview with NPR, he duplicated the message he delivered in Aspen, sans the swear words.

Gore said “carbon polluters” are “doing exactly the same thing that the tobacco industry did after the Surgeon General’s report came out” linking smoking to cancer.

“They hired actors and dressed them up as doctors and gave them scripts saying that smoking isn’t harmful,” Gore said. “Some of the same people and same organizations who took money from the tobacco companies to lie about the science of cigarette smoking are now taking money from the large carbon polluters and the oil and gas industry to mislead people about climate science.”

The one-time presidential candidate pointed to the extreme drought that has gripped Texas, flooding in Vermont and other states, millions of people displaced in Pakistan, flooding in Australia, and fires and drought in Russia as evidence that the earth’s changing climate is no joke.

“These are the events that scientists have been warning us about,” Gore said. “And now they’re saying if we keep putting all of this global warming pollution up there, these events will become worse and more frequent.”

Acknowledging the vitriol that sometimes surrounds climate change discussions, Gore praised Republican presidential candidate Jon Huntsman’s “willingness to take big risks in the Republican primary” by saying that he believes that the climate scientists are telling the truth.

“The deniers have accused him of all kinds of things,” Gore said. “It’s interesting, you know, 97 to 98 percent of all the climate scientists in the world are in agreement on this. Every national academy of science in every major country in the world is in agreement. So do you believe them or do you believe the Koch brothers and ExxonMobil and Rush Limbaugh? That’s an easy choice for me. For some evidently it’s not. Eventually reality has its day.”

Gore was on the program to promote The Climate Reality Project, which recently began streaming “24 hours of reality” about the earth’s climate crisis and extreme weather. It is being streamed in every time zone, in 13 languages, and features top scientists and other experts.

Earlier this week, Gore appeared on Comedy Central’s The Colbert Report where he also made the case for climate change:

“One of the reasons the economy is in trouble is because we keep going to war in the Middle East in the place where most of the oil is located, and we keep borrowing money from China to buy oil from a market dominated by Saudi Arabia and then burn it in ways that destroy the future of the planet,” Gore said. “All of that has got to change. We can put people to work and strengthen the economy by building solar and wind facilities, refurbishing inefficient buildings, and building smart grids and fast trains and putting people to work instead of continuing this addiction to very expensive dirty oil and coal.”

Meanwhile, extreme skier Chris Davenport of Old Snowmass, Olympic snowboarder Gretchen Bleiler of Aspen, and snowboard star Jeremy Jones of Truckee, Calif., were on Capitol Hill Thursday where they made their view clear: “There is no debate. Climate change is already happening and we’re seeing it every day. … In our work, we’ve witnessed first-hand climate impacts on our mountains, from reduced snowpack and melting glaciers to dying alpine forests and shorter winter seasons,” the group told Congress.

“Congressman Cory Gardner voted to cut taxes for millionaires and end your Medicare,” the ad reads.

The ad is the last in the DCCC’s “Accountability August” campaign. Radio ads hitting on similar themes have aired in Gardner’s district as well as in the state’s Third District, represented by freshman Republican Scott Tipton. A billboard campaign in Tipton’s district carried the same message as the gaspump campaign in Gardner’s district.

In a release touting the campaign Thursday, the DCCC wrote that “House Republicans, including Representative Cory Gardner, voted to end Medicare three times and to raise seniors’ health care costs in order to protect tax breaks for millionaires and Big Oil.”

Gardner defends voting to reform Medicare and turn it partly into a private voucher system in order to “save” the program from financial insolvency without raising taxes. And he defends voting to extend tax cuts for corporations and wealthy Americans because he believes money saved in taxes “creates jobs.” He has said it’s a bad idea to take money out of the private sector during a recession.

Although that line of thinking has become dogma on the right, increasing numbers of wealthy Americans have taken issue with it as a practical matter.

Billionaire CEO Warren Buffet, for example, was one of many vastly wealthy Americans who recently begged Congress to stop “coddling” him. He said he didn’t need Congress’s special help, that he has more than enough money to pay taxes at the same percentage as do less wealthy Americans and that no amount of taxes would prevent Americans like him from continuing to make investments for profit.

In Gardner’s district last week, representatives of Americans for Prosperity, an activist group backed by the oil billionaire Koch brothers, agreed with counter-protesters at their events that government handouts to major corporations have got to end.

The National Institute for Money in State Politics recently reported that, in 2009 five of the top U.S. corporations– Bank of America, Boeing, Chevron, ExxonMobil and General Electric– won $3.7 billion in tax breaks and paid $0 in federal taxes. They enjoyed a combined profit of $77.16 billion in 2010.

“There are some bad votes out there Gardner will have to defend,” a spokesman for the DCCC told the Colorado Independent. “He voted for policies that would make it hard on the middle class while giving away millions in tax breaks to oil companies.”

Got a tip? Story pitch? Send us an e-mail. Follow The Colorado Independent on Twitter.

Senate Democrats are expected to push for a vote this week on the Close Big Oil Tax Loopholes Act of 2011, a bill to cut tax subsidies for Exxon Mobil, BP, ConocoPhillips, Shell and Chevron.

The money saved by closing these loopholes — estimated at $21 billion over 10 years — would be used to pay down the deficit.

“At a time when families are feeling the pain at the pump and our deficit keeps growing at an alarming rate, we simply can’t afford to keep giving away billions in taxpayer handouts to oil companies that are doing nothing to help lower prices,” said bill sponsor Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) “The ‘Close Big Oil Tax Loopholes Act’ is based on a simple premise: we need everyone to do their share to lower the deficit, not just working families and the elderly.”

The bill would eliminate five special oil company exemptions.

In a Senate committee hearing last week, the leaders of Exxon Mobil, BP, ConocoPhillips, Shell and Chevron called the proposal anti-completive and discriminatory and warned that it would threaten American jobs and harm innovation.

But with gas prices over $4 per gallon in much of the country, many Americans are most concerned with high fuel costs.

A report prepared for Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.) by the Congressional Research Service says that eliminating tax breaks for large oil companies is unlikely to have much affect on gasoline prices, because crude oil is the largest factor in the price of gas, and the price of crude oil is set by world market.

The tax changes are unlikely to affect oil output, the price of oil and, consequently, the price of gas, CRS found in an analysis of five breaks targeted by Democrats.

The Domestic Manufacturing Deduction

Oil companies get a 6 percent deduction in net income for domestic production.

Ending this would be equivalent to an increase on the tax on corporate profit, CRS said.

It is widely accepted that a proportional change in taxes on profit affects neither the firm’s incremental costs or revenues, and therefore does not change its behavior with respect to output. Since output does not change, there is little reason to believe that the price of oil, or gasoline, consumers face will increase.

The price of oil is high enough to provide incentive for continued production in the U.S, CRS said.

With current oil prices at, or near, $100 per barrel in the United States, it is unlikely that firms will slow production, or close wells as the result of the loss of the Section 199 deduction.

Intangible Drilling Costs

For nearly a century, oil and gas companies have been allowed to take immediate deductions for costs associated with exploring for oil. This was designed to enhance investment returns for financing risky exploration activities. But with oil prices high, companies don’t need incentives to explore. CRS:

Repeal of the immediate expensing of intangible drilling costs provision and replacement with a form of cost amortization more consistent with depreciation methods common in other industries likely will have no effect on current U.S. oil production, and hence no effect on current gasoline prices.

Dual Capacity Rules

Since the 1950s oil companies have been allowed to deduct the tax payments they make to other countries.

These tax payments are broadly defined, and, according to the Center for American Progress, companies have been allowed to claim credits for payments in countries that have little or no business tax.

CRS said that since elimination of this break amounts to a tax on profit it should have no effect on output or pricing decisions, and therefore no effect on the price of gasoline.

“The incidence of the tax would appear to be on shareholders.”

Oil companies are allowed to deduct a flat percentage of revenues from a well. This break is called “percentage depletion.” CRS says that it has been eliminated for most companies and should not be a factor in investment and pricing decisions by the five major oil companies.

The companies are also allowed to deduct the cost of tertiary injectants used in drilling. CRS found that the cost of ending this tax break would be very small for industry.

“[T]he five major oil companies, to which repeal would apply, earned over $32 billion in net income in the first quarter of 2011. Repeal of the [tertiary injectant] deduction for the industry is estimated by the Obama administration to yield only $6 million in revenue in 2012.”

The tax revenue generated by ending these five exemptions is expected to be 5 percent of the earnings of the largest oil companies, the report found.

In an interview with ABC News’ Jonathan Karl, Boehner had this to say:

It’s certainly something we should be looking at. We’re in a time when the federal government’s short on revenues. They ought to be paying their fair share…Everybody wants to go after the oil companies and frankly, they’ve got some part of this to blame.

A Boehner spokesman quickly characterized his boss’s comments as an attempt to avoid a trap sprung by ABC’s Karl:

The Speaker made clear in the interview that raising taxes was a non-starter, and he’s told the president that. He simply wasn’t going to take the bait and fall into the trap of defending ‘Big Oil’ companies. Boehner believes, as he stated in the interview, that expanding American energy production will help lower gas prices and create more American jobs. We’ll look at any reasonable policy that lowers gas prices. Unfortunately, what the president has suggested so far would simply raise taxes and increase the price at the pump.

The dial-back didn’t stop President Obama from firing off an arch letter to Boehner, writing that he “was heartened that Speaker Boehner yesterday expressed openness to eliminating these tax subsidies for the oil and gas industry.”

Meanwhile, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) has said that, after Boehner’s comments opened a crack in the Republicans’ armor, Democrats will waste no time in pursuing legislation to end the subsidies. In a Wednesday press conference, he said that his party will push consideration of President Obama’s proposal to repeal Big Oil tax breaks as early as next week. “There’s no necessity for these subsidies,” he said. “The companies have broken all records for profits.”

Oil industry insiders have lashed out at the Democrats’ attempt to end oil subsidies as job killers. Reuters reports:

“This is a tired old argument we’ve been hearing for two years now. If the president were serious about job creation, he would be working with us to develop American oil and gas by American workers for American consumers,” the American Petroleum Institute’s chief economist John Felmy said.

And yet, if first quarter trends continue through the rest of the year, Exxon alone stands to net ten times as much in profits as the entire industry receives in subsidies. From January to March, despite skyrocketing gas prices for consumers, Exxon made $10.65 billion in profits. This is the highest quarterly profit Exxon has reported since it made $14.83 billion in the third quarter of 2008.

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee responded to the flare-up by capitalizing on the media hype over the impending British royal wedding, snatching up the domain roilwedding.com (“R-Oil wedding,” an admirably reaching pun on “royal wedding”). The DCCC is using the site as a tongue-in-cheek online petition congratulating the “marriage” of Boehner and other Republicans to oil interests.

But why then has Shell spent an estimated $200 million so far on research, development and demonstration (RD&D) at its Mahogany Research Project in western Colorado? And at what point will gas prices rise so high that the cost of producing shale oil suddenly makes sense?

Jeremy Boak

“All of the major companies are doing oil shale because they think it’s an interesting and high-potential area, but they’re not in a hurry to make it productive,” said Jeremy Boak, director of the Center for Oil Shale Technology and Research (COSTAR) at the Colorado School of Mines in Golden. COSTAR’s research is described on its website as “industry-driven and science-guided.”

“With [oil] prices going back up through the roof again,” Boak said, “[companies have] an awful lot of things to spend their money on and some of them more near-term than oil shale. The big budgets tend to move toward things that are a little closer in.” Still, Boak maintains the state and federal governments should be doing far more to encourage oil shale production than the current administrations.

The OPEC oil embargo during the Yom Kippur War saw gas prices in the United States spike from 38 cents a gallon in 1973 to 55 cents a gallon in 1974, in part prompting an oil shale boom in Colorado that culminated in the “Black Sunday” crash of 1982. Exxon literally pulled up stakes overnight and turned communities like Parachute, Rifle and Battlement Mesa into ghost towns.

Exxon is one of the companies pursuing a more scaled-back RD&D lease being offered by the Obama administration, which announced in February it was taking a “fresh look” at the Bush administration’s so-called “midnight regulations” in 2008 that established a royalty structure and opened up 2 million acres of U.S. Bureau of Land Management land in Colorado, Utah and Wyoming for potential oil shale leasing.

“The previous 2008 regulations made critical decisions such as royalty rate before the RD&D program had a chance to deliver information and answers,” U.S. Interior Secretary and former Colorado Sen. Ken Salazar said in February. “They put the cart before the horse, and in so doing they heightened the risk of speculation and bad decisions and yet another oil shale bust.”

But Exxon officials say they’re keenly aware of past mistakes and determined not to repeat them.

“It sounds to me like there was a lot more hype back then, but it’s always hard to tell where the hype came from,” Boak said. “Was it really the companies that were hyping it or was it the people out there who thought they could buy 5,000 acres and make a killing? Land speculators. Was it the large corporations or was it the Bernie Madoffs of their era that were really trying to cash in on this?”

Ramped up in the late 70s with the embargo fresh in everyone’s minds, oil shale crashed once Middle East oil began flowing freely and the labor-intensive process of surface mining and retorting oil shale was no longer cost-effective. But 30 years later oil prices are skyrocketing again in the wake of ongoing political upheaval in the Middle East and Northern Africa.

The U.S. Energy Information Administration on Monday put the average price for a gallon of regular gasoline at $3.79, closing in on the peak of $4.11 a gallon set on July 17, 2008. In Europe, gasoline broke the $8.60 a gallon barrier this spring as events unfolded in Tunisia, Egypt and Libya.

But even at those prices, commercial oil shale production is of limited interest to Europeans. While still part of the Soviet Union, Estonia developed a commercial oil shale industry, but there have been growing environmental concerns since that nation became part of the European Union.

Boak says companies in Estonia, Brazil and China continue to blaze the oil shale trail, with one Estonian firm “hunting for properties” appropriate for oil shale development in the United States. Still, none of the foreign firms have been able to produce much more than a few thousand barrels of oil a day – a drop in the bucket in terms of global demand. And now the European Union is considering banning oil shale and tar sands development because of studies showing higher greenhouse gas emissions than from conventional fuels.

Meanwhile, Republican members of Colorado’s congressional delegation continue to beat the oil shale drum. Just last month in a guest column in the Grand Junction Daily Sentinel, 3rd Congressional District Rep. Scott Tipton wrote: “The development of [oil shale] resources would lead to tens of thousands of good paying jobs and help stabilize our energy supply – putting an end to spikes in gas prices.”

Juxtapose that statement with what Tom Yelverton of ExxonMobil told the Daily Sentinel late last year: “At best, commercial production is a decade away and most likely more.”

Rep. Doug Lamborn of Colorado’s 4th Congressional District is a big backer of stepping up domestic oil and gas production, including oil shale, on the state’s Western Slope.

“It is all well and good to propose measures that may pay off decades in the future, such as alternative energy research and higher CAFÉ standards for vehicles,” Lamborn states on his website. “The most urgent and immediate solution though is to ramp up domestic production of oil and gas right now.”

Even the companies deeply involved on oil shale research say it’s years from becoming a commercial reality: “In fact, it could take up to 10 to 12 years of additional research, environmental analysis and permitting before a company could develop a federal oil shale lease,” Tracy Boyd of Shell told the Glenwood Post Independent in late 2008.

Editor’s note: This is the second in a two-part series on the future of oil shale in Colorado in the wake of rising gas prices and mounting unrest in the Middle East and North Africa. Click here for part one.

The Environmental Protection Agency informed BP officials late Wednesday that the company has 24 hours to choose a less toxic form of chemical dispersants to break up its oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, according to government sources familiar with the decision, and must apply the new form of dispersants within 72 hours of submitting the list of alternatives.

The move is significant, because it suggests federal officials are now concerned that the unprecedented use of chemical dispersants could pose a significant threat to the Gulf of Mexico’s marine life. BP has been using two forms of dispersants, Corexit 9500A and Corexit 9527A, and so far has applied 600,000 gallons on the surface and 55,000 underwater.

So why is BP using Corexit? Well, BP has argued that it’s simply the most abundant dispersant out there. But there’s another reason that the oil giant might have chosen a more toxic, less effective dispersant: Corexit is manufactured by Nalco, which has board room ties to BP. Greenwire’s Paul Quinlan explains:

Critics say Nalco, which formed a joint venture company with Exxon Chemical in 1994, boasts oil-industry insiders on its board of directors and among its executives, including an 11-year board member at BP and a top Exxon executive who spent 43 years with the oil giant.

Hearing the news, Sen. John McCain accused Sen. Barack Obama of being in the pockets of Big Oil, a charge Obama has repeatedly leveled at McCain in campaign ads. McCain blasted Obama for supporting tax breaks for oil companies in a 2005 energy bill.

The Arizona senator didn’t mention, however, that he and Obama recently voted for a piece of legislation — the energy package tacked onto the $700-billion bailout bill — that gave even more tax breaks to oil companies. Passage of the energy package — whose primary purpose was to bolster clean energy — was continually delayed because Republicans in Congress refused to support a bill that didn’t help fossil-fuel companies.

Neither presidential candidate has talked about how much money his campaign has received from the big, bad oil companies. Here are the numbers: The McCain campaign has received $1.3 million, while the Obama team has gotten $400,000.

Stick that in your barrel and refine it.