My Day as Al

As most of my readers know by now, I like to participate in the Mystery Topic Challenge put on by Blog Ninjas. If you are a regular blogger, or just enjoy reading blogs, I can't recommend these two sites enough. The latest challenge is a pretty interesting one:

Blogs, for the most part, tend to be personal and egocentric. For this challenge, choose someone, real or imagined, in the news, a world leader, or a bum on the street. Write a post as if you were in their shoes for one day. You can write on any subject you'd like, but it MUST be from someone else's point of view.

I was working pretty hard on this topic. I thought it was a very interesting one. I decided to burn the midnight oil so to speak, and I stocked up on fast food so I wouldn't have to leave the computer. I had been furiously writing an interesting article on the Supreme Court from the perspective of Justice Thomas when I must have dozed off…

I awoke in a private jet somewhere over the Pacific (or was it the Atlantic? I never can remember where I am in these silly private jets). I had been working on my Power Point presentation again when I must have fallen asleep. Luckily, my trusty Mac notebook was sitting on the desk next to me waiting for me to add the next image. I hate it when I mess up my presentation. It bothers me so much, I had a new computer (complete with three monitors) installed at my home in Tennessee with a backup of my work. If I spill a Diet Coke or Taco on this notebook, I can always get the backup.

My plane was landing. I looked out to see the familiar scenery of the United States. The Country isn't perfect, but one day it will be. I was starting to remember. I had just given a presentation overseas, and was due for another one in California in a few hours. I was pretty tired, but this was important stuff!

As the plane touched down, I climbed into my waiting SUV. The driver had the air conditioning running so I wouldn't have to suffer in the heat while the car warmed up. It was a little bit irresponsible, but I had made sacrifices. The last time I came into this airport, I had three SUV's waiting for me and my staff. This time, it was the one SUV, and two smaller cars. Off course my staff sacrificed by not starting the other cars until they were in them. This was all the more reason for my A/C to be running, I had to wait on them!

Tonight's dinner was an expensive one. This would help me raise more global awareness, and provide me with more money to buy carbon credits. I had encouraged attendees to drive to the function in car pools, use public transportation, or better yet ride a bike. Too bad I would need these three cars to get there.

Sooner or later the U.S. would realize it had to lead the world to stop Global Warming. Sure it would require sacrifices, but the things that are most important (like the glaciers and the polar bears) usually require a little sacrifice. It would mean slowing the U.S. economy down a little, and maybe curbing the birth rate, but we have a few too many people and a little too much money in the U.S. anyways. Who do we think we are? Shouldn't China or India have a chance at being the worlds' lone Super Power?

On the way to the dinner, I was able to insert a new picture from my Hollywood friends. It was a great image from the movie Day After Tomorrow, and it showed the damage we were doing to the Earth. Of course it was computer generated, but I hadn't been able to find any real pictures that looked as good. It's OK to tell a little white lie to help the environment. My staffers had left a news paper article for me. It seems the United States had just put the polar bears on the "Threatened Species List". I was proud. Sure there were more polar bears around today than at any point in recent history, but with global warming right around the corner, who knows what could happen 50 or 100 years from now. And besides, this opens the way to sue those Oil companies because of the damage they are doing through Global Warming to the "threatened" Polar Bears. It was looking like a good day (as good as it can look with Global Warming breathing down on our necks).

My assistant called from the front seat. "Mr. Gore, Senator Obama is on the line and would really like to speak with you," she had just said…

I awoke in a cold sweat. Wow, a few eco friendly miles in Al Gore's shows (or SUV). That really wasn't what I was expecting. Now, go enjoy the other entries to this challenge while I take a steel wool shower…


Now go enjoy these other entires. Remember to vote for your favorite!

Hiro Gets Game by Mr. President

In Someone Else's Shoes by Stella

My Day As Al by Andy D

Coming of Age in the Shoes of Another by MooPig

I Am A Woman Damned by Jayne d'Arcy - feel free to appreciate, but she's not eligible for the favorite vote.

To vote: Go to the MTC Blog

Gore-Obama ’08 ?

Every now and then I come across an article that wipes everything else I wanted to write about off the table. In this case, it was an article from Time Magazine on Wednesday. Is Al Gore the Answer? by Joe Klein was too good to pass up. In his article, Mr. Klein makes the argument that with Obama and Clinton going at each other "with chainsaws" the Democratic Party may need a new hope. In his words, "…I'm rather embarrassed to admit that I'm slouching toward, well, a theory: if this race continues to slide downhill, the answer to the Democratic Party's dilemma may turn out to be Al Gore."

In the remainder of the article, Mr. Klein outlines a scenario where Al Gore could be offered the nomination at the convention if the super delegates don't give it to Obama or Clinton on the first run. Mr. Klein accepts how improbable this scenario is. For example, Obama would have to go along with it, and bring his delegates with him. With the bad blood between the Clintons and the Gores, I think a Gore – Clinton ticket is even further off in fairy land than a Gore – Obama ticket. Mr. Klein says this dream ticket may be the only way for the DNC to salvage what should have been an easy victory this year.

Before I point out the problems with this scenario, I want to say that Gore getting the nomination is my dream as well. I think any ticket with the ex-VP as a Presidential candidate is easier to defeat than one with Obama or Clinton. First, there is no question that race has now been injected into this campaign. The Democratic party has long claimed it is more in touch with minorities than the Republican party. What happens if the elders of the DNC decide the only way to salvage a win is to knock the first serious female candidate and the first serious black candidate out so they can put a white male in the race? There are already threats of rioting if Obama doesn't get the nomination. If Obama and Clinton were both cast aside for Gore, I think there would be real hell to pay.

Second, I believe most people misunderstand the nature of Mr. Gore's popularity. Sure there are plenty of environmentalists that think he is the second coming. However, most Democratic politicians like Gore right now because he isn't a threat. If he suddenly looks like he could be given the nomination, I think many high ranking Democrats would turn against him. The Clintons would surely attack him, and I feel confident Rev. Wright and his supporters would be very unhappy.

Finally, I would love a Gore nomination for one more reason. If Gore was to run, McCain and many Republicans (and possibly Hillary Clinton) would start pointing to Gore's inconsistencies on Global Warming over the years. Many of the little white lies he told in An Inconvenient Truth would be pointed out. He may continue to claim they were exaggerations used to make a point, but after Mrs. Clintons troubles with her memory and Kosovo, I don't think she would allow that to go unchallenged.

Let Gore get the nomination, I have popcorn and beer ready to watch the fireworks.

Worried about Global Warming? See an Eco-therapist

I have become more and more reluctant to write about global warming on this site. It isn't because I think I am wrong. Every day more evidence comes to light that seems to indicate that I am write. What worries me is the attitude of some of my readers who believe in "man-made global warming". These readers seem to be getting more and more upset at anything that contradicts Mr. Gore's movie. I have always assumed these people simply can stand being wrong. However, I have found there is another reason: Eco-anxiety.

I wish I could take credit for discovering this. In the interest of full disclosure, I heard about it on today's Michael Medved show. He was interviewing an Eco-therapist named Melissa Pickett. Could this be the answer to the stress some of my readers have been feeling? I did a search on Google for both Eco-therapist and Eco-anxiety. Unfortunately, this field seems to be so new that it is hard to find anything on it. However, I did find one article from Columbia University written by Justin Nobel. With a name like Nobel… [insert Nobel Prize joke of choice here].

According to Mr. Nobel, "…a growing number of people have literally worried themselves sick over various environmental doomsday scenarios." This worry is apparently called "eco-anxiety." The "therapist" Medved interviewed today is also quoted in the article as seeing anywhere from, "…40 to 80 eco-anxious patients a month." Some of the symptoms of her eco-anxious patients include panic attacks, irritability, sleeplessness, and an "…eerie feeling that their cells are twitching."

If this sounds like you (and I know this does describe a few of you), there is hope. First, neither I, nor Political Friends, are licensed to practice Eco-therapy in this state, the state you are in, or the country you are reading this from (unless you are currently in Florin). Having said that, and if you think you might have eco-anxiety, I would recommend trying some of the remedies the eco-therapist recommend in this article. Some of them include: carry natural objects with you (they recommend certain minerals, I recommend grass or kudzu), or make environmentally friendly lifestyle changes. Personally, I would also recommend drinking. Again, I am not actually an eco-therapist.

I hope this has proven helpful to those of you who think we might destroy the planet in the next ten years due to those evil fossil fuels. If the environment should suddenly turn cooler, instead of warmer, then obviously any eco-therapy you have been going through should be continued.

Hurricane Forecaster Disputes Man Made Global Warming

Today is “blog action day”. The website sponsoring this event is trying to encourage as many bloggers to post about the environment today as possible. I hadn’t planned on posting today, but the combination of this historic event and one particular news story that has been bouncing around my head lately simply won’t let me pass it up.

By now, everyone has heard that Al Gore and the IPCC are co-winners of the Nobel Peace Prize. While they join such humanitarians as Yasser Arafat and Anwar Sadat, I am guessing many of my colleagues will be posting about Al Gore and the Nobel Prize, so I can skip it. Besides, every major news agency in the world covered this, so you probably have heard all the details anyway.

What you may not have heard is the lecture that one Dr. William Gray gave at the University of North Carolina. Dr. Gray freely admits (as do I) that humans, “…might have caused a very slight amount of [global warming].” However, Dr. Gray also says, “…this warming trend is not going to keep on going. My belief is that three, four years from now, the globe will start to cool again, as it did from the middle ‘40s to the middle ‘70’s.” At the lecture in North Carolina, Dr. Gray said, “We’ll look back on all of this in 10 or 15 years and realize how foolish it was…”

This isn’t good news if you are a believer in man-made global warming. I am often challenged on this site to find someone in a local college that agrees with my viewpoint. Here is an academic who does. It turns out Dr. Gray is called “one of the worlds foremost meteorologists” (The Sydney Morning Herald) or “a pioneer in the science of forecasting hurricanes” (Wikipedia). Dr. Gray’s hurricane forecast are used by insurance companies when figuring how likely hurricanes are to hit a particular area. If that isn’t a good enough resume to make you take note of his comments, how about his diplomas. Dr. Gray received a BS in Geography from George Washington University. He received a MS in Meteorology and a PhD in Geophysical Sciences at the University of Chicago. If that resume doesn’t qualify him to comment on global warming, I don’t believe there is anyone alive capable of talking about global warming.

If this sounds vastly different from what you believe academics should be saying, Dr. Gray has an answer for that too. Dr. Gray has charged that many of his colleagues are intentionally lying about global warming because they need the grant money. If man-made global warming isn’t really an issue, then how does a scientist get funding to study it? Dr. Gray believes that humans simply have too small of an impact on the earth to cause a significant change in the global temperature of the planet.

There are those in the community who disagree with Dr. Gray. As I have said before, I don’t believe science fully understands how our planet works, so debate is necessary. However, the next time you hear about “consensus” in global warming, remember hurricane forecaster Dr. William Gray.

An Inconvient Day in Court for Gore

If An Inconvenient Truth is scientific consensus at its best, then it should stand up to debate. If the science is settled beyond any reasonable shadow of a doubt, then Mr. Gore's documentary should have no trouble standing up in court. Unfortunately for those who worship at the alter of An Inconvenient Truth, that hasn't happened.


Recently the British government decided to all secondary schools in England. The Government was impressed by the message of Mr. Gore's movie. Unfortunately, its against the law in England to show a film in school that contains partisan politics without informing students that it is a political film. A school governor and a parent a student went to court to get the film banned from schools in England.


The court didn't ban the film. However, a judge ruled that there were nine errors or omissions that must be explained to students before it can be shown. First, students must be warned that An Inconvenient Truth is a political film and doesn't explain all sides of the arguments. Second, if the film is presented without addressing the nine omissions, teachers will be breaking the law. Third, the omissions pointed to by the judge must be specifically drawn out to the students.


Here is the list of errors and the judges finding:

1. An Inconvenient Truth claims that a sea-level rise of up to 20 feet would be caused by melting ice sheets. The Judge said, "This is distinctly alarmist," and would only occur after 1,000 years.
2. An Inconvenient Truth claims that Pacific Islands have, "...already been evacuated." There is no evidence that this has happened.
3. Mr. Gore claims that coral reefs are dying and bleaching because of Global Warming. The Judge in England stated that there are many factors that can destroy coral and separating out individual factors is very difficult.
4. Mr. Gore claims that polar bears were found that had drown swimming from melting ice bergs. Unfortunately for Mr. Gore's film, only four polar bears were found drown, and those drown due to a storm.
5. An Inconvenient Truth claims that the disappearance of snow on Mount Kilimanjaro (as shown by two photos in the movie) is due to Man-Made Global Warming. The judge ruled that it can't be shown that the recession of snows is related to Global Warming.
   
6. Similarly, An Inconvenient Truth claims Hurricane Katrina was caused by global warming. The judge stated that there wasn't enough evidence to prove Katrina was caused by Global Warming.
7. Like Kilimanjaro and Hurricane Katrina, An Inconvenient Truth claims that Lake Chad is drying up due to Global Warming. Again, there isn't enough evidence to establish Lake Chad is drying up because of Global Warming.
   
8. In a spectacular portion of the movie, Mr. Gore warns that the Gulf Stream will shut down. The judge stated this was "very unlikely".
9. Mr. Gore shows in his movie that a graph of CO2 rise and temperature rise over the same period are an exact fit. The judge ruled that while there was a connection between the two, the film is misleading. The judge noted that in some cases, the CO2 rises lagged by 800 to 2000 years.

By itself, this doesn't mean man-made global warming isn't happening. It does mean that man-made global warming is still a theory. Man still hasn't been able to prove it. Two individuals in England fought to keep this film out of British schools. They failed at that. However, the film will only be shown with disclaimers explaining what it truly is: A political propaganda movie.

Movie Review: An Inconvenient Truth (Part II)

An Inconvenient Truth was released in 2006 and shows Vice President Al Gore giving a slide show to an audience. The slide show is about global warming. Mr. Gore argues that global warming is the most important challenge we face today. The movie is split between Mr. Gore’s presentation and scenes of Mr. Gore working on his slide show on a Mac computer (displayed prominently many times) with a voice over of Mr. Gore.

Mr. Gore opens his presentation with the joke, “I use to be the next President of the United States.” While this line probably works great in a live presentation, it is a little confusing as an opening for his movie. This line, among other things, contributes to a bit of identity crisis for An Inconvenient Truth. The movie is part documentary, part biography of Mr. Gore, and part political commentary on President George Bush’s administration. Unfortunately, the movie doesn’t really pull off any of these plots.

There are numerous examples of a kind of “split personality” within the movie. For example, there is a “Simpsons” type cartoon early in the movie that tries to explain man-made global warming. While it is entertaining, and I enjoy Bart Simpson et al, the cartoon feels a little odd as part of a documentary. The constant breaks that stop talking about global warming and start recapping Mr. Gore’s life are also a little out of place in the overall context of the movie. There are a few shots at President Bush and his administration beginning very early in the movie. Since these shots seem to be attacks for the sake of attack, I don’t understand why a movie maker would include them in a documentary that claims to be scientific in nature.

During the “biography” portions of the movie, Mr. Gore’s career as a college student and senator are discussed, and his active role combating global warming since he left politics is covered. However, his actions as a Vice President for eight years are covered in one sentence about Kyoto. And that one sentence doesn’t discuss why Clinton and Gore didn’t get Kyoto ratified by the United States. I have always wondered why Mr. Gore didn’t do more about global warming as Vice President, and his movie doesn’t answer that question. About three quarters of the way through the movie, there is a quiet montage of events surrounding the 2000 Presidential race. Since Mr. Gore’s time as Vice President is barely discussed, why is this montage even in the movie?

While An Inconvenient Truth heavily covers the belief in man-made global warming, it only refers to the other side of the debate as the “So-called Deniers”. It fails as a documentary because it fails to spend any real time covering the other side of the debate. Much of the “science” in this movie has been questioned elsewhere. The only comment I will add to that is that many of the evidence presented in the movie is anecdotal at best. Showing a photo of a location and then another of the location years later doesn’t prove anything or disprove anything.

Overall An Inconvenient Truth is quite painful to watch. I was eager to see why this movie deserved the accolades it got and simply couldn’t discover a legitimate reason for them. I would rate this movie as a “D” at best. I would recommend this movie to someone who was convinced beyond a shadow of a doubt that there was man-made global warming and that it was the biggest threat of our time. Then I would only recommend the movie if that individual had two hours with nothing better to do.

There are many, many positive reviews of An Inconvenient Truth available on the net and the print news. Feel free to read them, but if you want my opinion, stay away from this movie; it just isn’t worth your time.

Movie Review: An Inconvenient Truth (Part I)

I was challenged a few months ago by a reader on here. At the time, I was discussing some of the articles that had come out critical of An Inconvenient Truth. Familyman, one of the regular readers on here, challenged me to see the movie and make my own decisions. I took him up on his challenge.

I want to lay out my thought process before I review Mr. Gore’s movie. It was very important for me to be as fair to this movie as I could be. If I saw An Inconvenient Truth, and thought it was a good movie, I wanted to say that here. If I saw it and didn’t like it, I wanted to be able to explain why. Because I want to take some time and explain my thoughts before I saw the movie and how I hoped to be as impartial as I could be in reviewing it.

For a full discussion of my thoughts on man-made global warming, refer to my article under the same name from a few days ago. In a nut-shell, I don’t believe man-made global warming is the greatest catastrophe facing us. I also question whether it is even an issue. I think much more research still needs to be done before this is placed in the hands of policy makers. I also question Al Gore’s motives in pushing this issue. If man-made global warming is such a crisis, why didn’t Mr. Gore do more about it while he was Vice President? Why didn’t the United States ratify Kyoto under Clinton / Gore? I hoped the movie would address this.

Based on what I had heard about An Inconvenient Truth I was expecting a documentary explaining the science and theory of global warming. I expected the movie to explain both sides of the global warming argument, but to be tilted towards one side. My understanding going into the movie is that it was suppose to make us more concerned about global warming.

In order to keep as much bias as possible out of my review, I watched it the first time without taking any notes, and simply watched the movie. I gave the movie a few days to settle in my mind, and then watched it again. The second time through, I paused the movie and made notes as I went.

When I finally got a copy of An Inconvenient Truth, I also happened to be reading the Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming and Environmentalism. There is a chapter in that book that discusses the movie. I waited to read that chapter until I had seen the movie. I didn’t want it coloring my opinion any more than it already was.

Because I have done a lot of discussion on here about the science and “consensus” with global warming, I wanted to keep my criticism of the science behind the movie to a minimum. For an in depth discussion of some of the science, and the comments that has lead too, click on my global warming tag.

I will post the review itself next, but I wanted my regular readers to know how the review was developed.

Book Review: The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming and Environmentalism

I just finished The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming (and Environmentalism)and wished to share my thoughts on this book. I also thought this would serve as a good counter to my movie review of Mr. Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth. I bought this book from the Conservative Book Club, and I continue to be pleased with the books I have bought from them.

This is the second book in the P.I.G. series I have read and have thoroughly enjoyed both books. This book is very well written and very easy to read. The author, Mr. Christopher C. Horner, is a Senior Fellow of the Competitive Enterprise Institute. He has testified in front of the U.S. Senate regarding man-made global warming. He has given numerous addresses to various European governments and agencies. He has appeared on numerous TV news shows and has been a guest on an assortment of talk radio shows. Mr. Horner is a lawyer. However, don’t let that scare you away, and don't let that make you think any less of his arguments. His scientific discussions are clearly footnoted to an assortment of scientific works that the reader can easily find.

I really liked the way the book is laid out. There is a discussion on the political nature of the “man-made global warming movement”. There is also a scientific discussion against man-made global warming. There is an entire chapter devoted to An Inconvenient Truth as well as one devoted to the Kyoto Protocols. The book has numerous footnotes for each chapter, and a good index. This book can serve as a reference for many of the topics brought up in the typical global warming discussion.

I thought the chapters on An Inconvenient Truth and on the Kyoto Protocols were the most interesting. I waited to read the chapter on Mr. Gore’s movie until I had watched it for myself. I felt that watching the movie and then reading this chapter was a very good point-counterpoint and served to highlight both sides of the argument. The chapter on the Kyoto Protocols provided some very useful information I hadn’t seen before. For example, the chapter discusses how the United States is doing in relation to Kyoto and how the European signatories are doing. Mr. Horner also discusses the actual cost to implement Kyoto in the United States, and what the most adamant supporters of Kyoto say it will do for us. One question I have always had about Kyoto is this: If the treaty is so important to us, why didn’t the United States ratify it when Bill Clinton and Al Gore were in office? Mr. Horner covers that as well as Senate Resolution 98 which was introduced by Senators Robert Byrd (D) and Chuck Hagel (R). This senate resolution forbids the United States from being a signatory to any protocol or agreement that,”…would result in serious harm to the economy of the United States.”

I would encourage anyone who is interested in the man-made global warming debate to read this book. If you enjoyed Al Gore’s movie, you should spend some time simply reading Mr. Horner’s chapter on An Inconvenient Truth. Most importantly, anyone who believes that there is a scientific consensus about man-made global warming should read this book. Regardless of your position on the debate, after reading this book you will be left with a feeling that there are a lot of unsettled questions.

Mr. Gore....in his own words.

This clip comes from Rush Limbaugh. I was listening to his show today when he discussed this clip. It is from Al Gore on the campaign trail when he and Clinton were running for their first term. If you have read this blog, you can probably guess my feelings towards Mr. Gore. Even if you don’t agree with me, or Rush for that matter, you should listen to the Mr. Gore in his own words.

As Rush said, this leads us with some very “inconvenient” conclusions. Was Mr. Gore being less than honest with the American Public? Did he change his mind when the next Bush came along and did what he and Clinton didn’t do? Should we remember this clip when we watch “An Inconvenient Truth”?

Megga Dittos to Rush for getting this out.