We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
In our past pieces on weather and climate, we have predicted that any bad weather from 2005 until the election will be attributed to Bush. I even heard our Lieut. Gov. of Massachusetts last week attribute a week of heavy rain to global warming. A typical political ignoramus: did global warming give us this past gloriously cool and sunny May week in the Commonwealth, too? If so, give me more of it.
You might almost imagine that bad weather began with Bush. Somebody tell Noah.
From the two reviews (links below) I have seen, Al Gore's movie sounds like a propaganda exercise, filled with distorted, incorrect, and cherry-picked data points. And why ignore the Medieval Warm Spell? But why did he approach the subject in a non-objective way? And to what end? Altruistic? Political? Grandstanding? Playing Chicken Little? Or hoping for a TV weatherman job ("A band of thunderstorms with heavy hail are working their way across Kansas this morning, due to Bush.")? You tell me.
My opinion on climate? Climate changes happen. It is never static for long, regardless of the cause. And even if mankind did cause the current tiny upswing, nothing will be done about it. So enough hysteria, please! And Al Gore is a scold and a crank, like an old lady. What is the cure for the Common Scold?
One critique here, by Dr. Robert Balling, a Prof of Climatology, at TCS
And a letter to Al Gore from Dr. Roy Spencer, also at TCS
Instead of whining about retreating glaciers and rising sea levels, he ought to be promoting the construction of nuclear and natural gas plants, which could cut down dramatically on emissions without a negative economic impact. But what fun would that be compared to blaming Bush for Katrina?