Please take a moment of silence to remember those who can form an intelligent argument.

Scumbag News: I’m not sure how I missed this yesterday when I was talking about James Cameron’s Avatar. Wow, Cameron is a jackass. After calling the theory of Global Warming the greatest threat to the United States since World War II he challenged deniers to a “debate.” At the very last minute Cameron backed out. You have to love cowards like Cameron. The day he avoids debate he calls climate change skeptics swine.

James Cameron doesn’t mince words when talking about people who are skeptical that humans are causing global warming. “I think they’re swine,” the renowned filmmaker told an audience member Sunday on the final day of the American Renewable Energy Day summit in Aspen.

Just before saying that, Cameron received a standing ovation for a short documentary he screened about a coalition of people he joined who are opposed to a massive hydropower project in Brazil that would displace a large tribal community there. It was during a series of talks Sunday about the strong effect the right-wing punditry — Cameron named the regulars: Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh, who are known for their sharp attacks on environmentalists — has on Americans.

It’s obvious all these brain-dead liberals read from the same playbook. Avoid debate, call the opposition names, and then cite Beck, Hannity and Limbaugh. This might work in the bizzaro world of MSNBCland, but it makes people like James Cameron appear to be out-of-touch wackos. As talk-show host Dennis Prager puts it: “Some of us worry about a resurgent Islam and its attendant complications for a decayed Western civilization; some of us worry about global warming. In twenty years’ time, one of us will be proved right and the other will look like an idiot.”

The Alternative: The Democrats are facing a bloodbath at the polls in November and the strong possibility that the next Speaker of the House will be John Boehner. Boehner gave a speech today demanding that President Obama fire his economic advisers. Yay… that will surely change the direction of the current economy. I’m sorry; this type of purely political drivel doesn’t do anything to reassure me that Republicans have a clue.

What ideas does Boehner have to offer? The short answer is nothing. Supposedly the House Republicans will release some kind of agenda in late September. Instead of Speaker Boehner I like the sound of Speaker Ryan. You know, someone with some good ideas.

Florida Primary: Today is primary day here in the Sunshine State. Governor Crist isn’t on the ballot today, but it appears Democratic Senatorial candidate Kendrick B. Meek is going to win the nomination. This should kill Crist’s chances. Crist can only win the election if he siphons tons of votes from the Democratic candidate. That’s not likely to happen with Meek. I was going to skip this election, but there are a couple of local ballot initiatives that I need to vote against.

What Handouts to Cut: Economist Walter Williams wrote an article a couple of weeks ago that I failed to mention. He offers a sobering look at our current entitlement mess. The only way we can get out from under the enormous debt burden is to change social security.

We can start getting the federal spending under control by ending subsidies to people with high net worth that can be ready turned into cash such as a home or business. While seniors might say that they support reduced government spending, they, like other handout recipients, believe they have a right, through government, to live at the expense of others. What’s more, they have considerable clout — they vote in large numbers. Only 50 percent of young people vote, but up to 70 percent of seniors vote.

Recently I ran into this “entitlement mentality” in my own family. A person who probably votes Republican had no problem telling everyone who would listen, “Obama is going raise my retirement age.” Oh, whoa is me! People just can’t wait to ride the gravy train. Social Security is the biggest ponzi scheme ever perpetrated on the American public. Man it sucks to be on the bottom of the pyramid.

Jill Greenberg takes candy from a baby. Either that or this kid saw a picture of a cross-eyed kid. Or, he's cross-eyed. Then again, it's most likely he's reminiscing about the Bush years. Poor baby!

Radioactive Boars: In the hit video game, Fallout 2, one quest involves clubbing a handful of radioactive boars to death. Well, the number of radioactive boars is on the rise in Germany, so let the clubbing begin! What’s causing this to happen? Well, isn’t it obvious? Climate Change is to blame:

Central Europe is turning into a land of plenty for the animals, as warmer weather causes beech and oak trees to overproduce seeds and farmers to grow more crops the boars like to feast on such as corn… said Torsten Reinwald of the German Hunting Federation.
“The number of boars in Germany has quadrupled or quintupled over the last years, as has the number of boars shot,” Reinwald said, adding that other countries like France and Poland are seeing a similar proliferation of boars.

Where do you begin? I might blame Chernobyl and the lack of proper hunting for this problem; however, there’s nothing Climate Change can’t do, except be beneficial. You know what causes Climate Change? One guess, and it’s not the burning orb in the sky that accounts for most of the mass of the entire solar system.

Being Cross-eyed is Not Good: Swiss researchers have made a breakthrough. Children whose eyes cross are more likely to be rejected than kids who have normal eyes. I hope you were sitting down for that one. I know… I’m as shocked as everyone else. How did they do this study? I’m glad you asked…

They asked 118 children, aged 3 to 12 years, to look at these altered photos as well as the unaltered pictures of the children with normally aligned eyes and select whom they would invite to their birthday party.

This is absolutely brutal stuff. From the mouth of babes and whatnot. This is almost as bad as Jill Greenberg taking candy from small children, making them cry, and then blaming it on the Bush administration. But at least she doesn’t shop at Wal-Mart, where all the cross-eyed people shop.

The Craziest Dumbass in the World: That’s right! Meet Nancy Pelosi! She’s going to get to the bottom of who’s “behind” the opposition to the Ground Zero Mosque, as it’s become known as:

“There is no question there is a concerted effort to make this a political issue by some. And I join those who have called for looking into how is this opposition to the mosque being funded,” she said. “How is this being ginned up… as we go forward to an election about the future of our country and two of the first three questions are about a zoning issue in New York City.”

Thank God Nancy Pelosi is there to make sure that any time there’s opposition to anything there’s no conspiracy behind said opposition. What will she and her entirely scrupulous team of Congressional sleuths find? Is it the Mafia? Anti-Castro Cubans? The military-industrial complex? Elvis? Bigfoot? Aliens?

Okay. Let’s see who’s “behind” Pelosi, ginning up support for her Congressional elections. Oh, surprise! The top three are large law firms. That’s odd. I’ve always wondered why there was no reform in the health-care “reform” bill Pelosi pushed through Congress.

Most Ethical Congress Watch

“The American people voted to restore integrity and honesty in Washington, D.C., and the Democrats intend to lead the most honest, most open and most ethical Congress in history,” Pelosi said. She added, “And nowhere did the American people make it more clear that we need a new direction than in the war in Iraq. ‘Stay the course’ has not made our country safer, has not honored our commitment to our troops and has not made the region more stable. We cannot continue down this catastrophic path.” She called on the Bush administration to work with Democrats “to find a solution to the war in Iraq.”

I remember shortly after the Democrats took over the Congress that we immediately pulled out of Iraq. Well, I guess it didn’t quite turn out like that. The Democrats messed up that whole ethics thing as well. Charles Rangel joins the ranks of politicians caught up in ethics charges. This is hardly newsworthy. Corrupt politicians are a dime a dozen, but when you promise to “lead the most honest, most open and most ethical Congress in history” and fail catastrophically, it has to be pointed out. And what happened to transparency? Everyone loves to hear that we’ll find out what’s in a bill after it’s been passed. That’s comforting! Why would anyone be cynical about politics?

Most Biased Is? Big Journalism has completed the Top Ten Most Left-Biased American Journalists and the winner is Helen Thomas. I don’t know. Helen Thomas hasn’t been relevant since Antoninus Pius was a Roman emperor. Oh yeah, she didn’t like the Jews back then either; however, it was a lot more acceptable back then. What is truth?

Ego Watch: A recent Rasmussen poll shows Charlie “The Ego” Crist trails Marco Rubio in the Senate race. I point this out because I really don’t like Crist. I would rather have Lindsay Lohan as my senator than Charlie Crist. She would be an awesome Senator and far more ethical than most of the yahoos currently sitting in that august body.

Wal-Mart Deserves Nobel Prize: That’s what Mark J. Perry says and who can blame him? Perry links to an article that explains how apparel jobs created by Wal-Mart in Bangladesh appear to bolster school enrollments of girls, especially for young girls. Wal-Mart should be praised for how they’ve reduced poverty worldwide; however, progressives like IKEA and Target better because…. I’m not sure, but I think it has something to do with doing what everyone else is doing. Progressives are very susceptible to peer pressure. Winning the Nobel Prize is no big deal anyway since it’s been reduced to an honorary award given to failed presidents and terrorists.

Climate Bill Dead? Never underestimate the Democrats’ ability to pass unpopular legislation, but it looks like the climate change bill is dead. Score one for the Republic. The bill accomplishes nothing except to make the price of goods increase and make some hippies feel better about themselves, which is really what it’s all about. Imagine all the people, and so on and so forth.

Editorial Note: My annual trip to Priest Lake in my own private Idaho starts on Saturday, so I’ll be gone until August 2. Club Soda is going to be busy as well, so that means no posts for a week, unless Club Soda is struck with divine inspiration. I know… How will you survive? I don’t know. Read a book, play an instrument, or dream of Lindsay Lohan’s first day of freedom. I shall do the latter, but don’t tell my wife.

Hence, anytime you see a headline citing “extreme temperatures” and it’s based on the NOAA just ignore it. I know I will.

Greenhouse gases still warm planets, carbon dioxide is still a greenhouse gas and the amount of it in the Earth’s atmosphere is still shooting up. The temperature rose over the 20th century in a way that follows from these basic truths. Other mechanisms at play in the climate complicate the issue, but none of them offers a remotely satisfactory alternative explanation for the temperature rise.

Really, is this the best they could come up with to defend the theory? Yes, temperatures increased in the twentieth century. There wasn’t a spike, it wasn’t alarming, and history is littered with centuries of increasing and decreasing temperatures. “In a way that follows from these basics truths.” Huh? I think I’m giving up on this issue because the people who choose to believe this hogwash are beyond reasoning with anymore. No matter what happens there will always be a group of people who believe things are getting worse. They’ll always have a group of thick headed scientists to check off on the theory. What concerns me is that The Economist shouldn’t be falling for idiotic apocalyptic scenarios. Didn’t we learn anything from Thomas Malthus?

Here's a panel of leading experts.

Throughout history politicians have fanned the flames of paranoia, moving us on from one imaginary disaster to the next. Every time it’s sold as being done in our best interest and every time it only ends up doing more harm than good. The writers at The Economist should know better, but instead they believe in that age old shallow argument that we have to do “something.”

Waterworld – Quite Possibly the best movie ever…..EVER!!!!!

Like many Floridians and Americans in general, I am intently following the coverage of the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. I have been fishing and diving in these waters for over 20 years, so it is infuriating to watch the mediocre response from BP, our arguably infallible federal government, and the unfortunately non-empowered local governments.

According to an article found on the always unbiased (see sarcasm) NPR website, Lisa Jackson, administrator of the EPA, says that the federal government is doing a great job so far. She goes on to say that we should not criticize their efforts for failure to do so would be “Monday-Morning Quarterbacking.” I hope someone is checking Jackson’s bank statements for a large direct deposit from John Q Taxpayer into her checking account made possible by the Karl Obama Administration.

BP has already dumped 655,000 gallons of a toxic oil dispersant into the gulf called Corexit. Jackson’s EPA gave BP 24 hours to use a less toxic, more effective dispersant, but BP outright refused… with no consequences. Way to stick to your guns, Fed and EPA!! Good thing there aren’t any wealthy oil lobbyists in Washington or I would be suspicious of this lack of consequences (see more sarcasm).

By the way, using a dispersant for an oil spill is the equivalent of someone defecating in your bottle of drinking water, dumping a bunch of toxic chemicals in the water that only make the feces break down into smaller chunks and then yelling, “Drink up!”

However, my anger over the lack of response and obvious corruption was temporarily curtailed by an article about Kevin Costner and his oil/water separating centrifuge. This brought to light a long series of crazy coincidences between Kevin Costner, the oil spill and the must-see 1995 blockbuster movie Waterworld.

1) Both the movie and the oil spill in the Gulf are disasters of epic proportions.

2) Kevin started the company Ocean Therapy Solutions after the Exxon Valdez spill. Coincidentally, the ship full of oil featured in the movie was the Exxon Valdez.

3) The bad guys in the movie were called smokers because all of their engines ran on nothing but oil.

4) Kevin Costner co-starred with Elizabeth Mary Mastrantonio in Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves (another must-see). Mastrantonio later starred in The Abyss, which is completely set under water.

5) The so-called Waterworld is created due to global warming melting the ice caps, which every actor in Hollywood, including Kevin, believes is caused by human influence… or should I say the “ancients”?

6) When Kevin dives down to see the submerged city in the movie, it is clearly the city of Denver because your can see the Norwest Building, which is shaped like a cash register. Club Soda currently resides in Denver, future underwater megapolis now sweltering in dry 60-degree temperatures.

7) Dennis Hopper plays the villain in the movie and his character’s name is Deacon. My name….the Deacon.

Finally, if Kevin’s oil-water separator (I find it hard to believe that it’s really difficult to separate two things that are notorious for not mixing) is embraced by BP or the Fed, he and his company will most likely generate millions in profit. This makes me think that the original explosion of the rig was a conspiracy created by none other than…

"With this arrow I will finally break even on that stupid movie" - KC

President Obama became Head Shark Jumper in January 2009. Congratulations!

Let’s face it. This whole “green” thing has officially jumped the shark and turned into an Urban Legend of mythic proportions. For instance, I have a friend who took issue with one of my posts and compared my indifference to Global Warming (or whatever it is depending on the current weather) to someone who wouldn’t do anything if an asteroid was on a collision course with the earth. The argument was a little more nuanced than that, but that was the crux of it.

This idea that climate change is leading to catastrophe and apocalypse is absurd. Why is it that Global Warmongers can never see the silver linings? Is warming catastrophic? Sure, if you live on Venus. But Venus is a greenhouse gone made because it’s so close to the sun, not because Venusians are drinking coffee from Styrofoam cups.

The truth is that a warmer earth is a friendlier earth. According to “scientists,” or at least those engaged in studying the history of climate change:

By 5000 to 3000 BC average global temperatures reached their maximum level during the Holocene and were 1 to 2 degrees Celsius warmer than they are today. Climatologists call this period the Climatic Optimum. During the Climatic Optimum, many of the Earth’s great ancient civilizations began and flourished. In Africa, the Nile River had three times its present volume, indicating a much larger tropical region.

Hmmmm. Let’s see… So an earth 1 to 2 degrees C warmer than it is today is called an “Optimum” by so-called climatologists. But according to Global Warmongers, an earth that warms will rain destruction on mankind and the various species which he (or she) shares with them. Can we at least wait until the earth reaches its Optimum before we regulate ourselves back to the Stone Age?

When environmentalists predict disaster, gird your loins and hold onto your wallet, because “environmentalism” is a penny-ante version of Liberation Theology (a.ka., Marxism). It is less science and more like religion. It has its holy days (Earth Day), its priesthood (scientists in search of grants) and its Apocalypse (climate change).

Like any religious cult, when they predict doomsday and it doesn’t happen they find an excuse and move on to the next doomsday prediction. In the past few decades we’ve had the Population Bomb (didn’t happen), the DDT scare (wasn’t true) and now Global Warming. But, of course, Global Warming is morphing into Climate Change, because how the hell can you argue against that? The climate changes all the time and always has! So there!

After all these years the environmental cult has found its magic bullet, a bullet so magic and so silver that it will take a million years to absolutely refute. By then, of course, we’ll live in a Utopian society in which most people live in grass huts and use unicycles for transportation.

Most environmental mythology takes just a few years to refute when the data comes in, but climate change is a moving data point that doesn’t end until the sun becomes a red giant and engulfs the earth in a super-heated hydrogen reactor.

In the meantime, American corporations have bought into this nonsense hook, line, bobber, sinker and bait. I have a friend in the sign industry who sent me photos of a large lighted sign, about 10 feet high by 20 feet long, he was servicing for a large corporation. The whole thing was lit with LEDs, many of which had failed. The corporation had specified LEDs because they’re touted as the “environmentally-friendly” solution since they use less power than neon or fluorescent and don’t require mercury.

Instead of actually looking into the technology and finding out what it works best for, some Corporate Schmo pulled the trigger on something about which he (or she) was totally uneducated. Because of the sheer size of the sign, neon would have lit it for about 15 times less in cost and any number of times more in energy efficiency. This Corporate Schmo was so blinded by being “green” that he (or she) did the exact opposite of what would have been best for the environment. Unfortunately, this is not the exception.

I know there's a Starbucks somewhere in Denver, but I don't think they noticed that if it wasn't for the city there wouldn't be any trees. The picture below shows what the Front Range looks like without a city. The Front Range, in case you're wondering, is the area where the Great Plains meet the Rocky Mountains.

Starbucks is my favorite example of corporate malfeasance when it comes to “green” BS. Starbucks not only perpetuates environmental mythology, but head fakes us in the wrong direction. Take, for instance, its recent promotion to save trees by giving a free cup of coffee to anyone who brought in a reusable mug on April 15. “One person can save trees,” says the Starbucks’ promotion, “together we can save forests.”

That’s all well and good, I suppose, but aren’t there more pressing needs than planting trees? As far as I know any problems we have with deforestation have nothing to do with the paper cups we’re using at Starbucks, or any other paper product. Once again, corporate America comes up with easy solutions, puts them in a pretty package, places the “environmental” feather in their cap and shouts it from the rooftops. Effective marketing, yes, but really making a difference for the environment? I don’t think so.

But it really doesn’t matter as long as Corporate Schmo thinks, a) it’s a great PR move, and b) maybe I’m doing my little part, but either way, it’s a great PR move. Let’s face it, Corporate Schmo doesn’t think much beyond A and B, much less all the way to Z. Too much brain damage and not pithy enough to reach Consumer Schmo effectively.

That’s why Corporate Schmo buys into the latest Urban (Forest?) Legends and jumps the shark with the environmentalist. It’s easy and he (or she) really doesn’t have to do much of anything except come up with a clever promotion and tagline.

That’s all positive reinforcement, but C. Schmo is also very aware of the negative reinforcement. If Schmo doesn’t play along, he’s likely to be painted as some kind of nouveau Nazi earth-killing Holocaust denier. The agents of “change” and “environmental awareness” are not content with spirited debate on the science or rationality of their topic.

They play to win and are ready to tar, feather, brand, hog tie, railroad, demonize, emblazon and stamp anyone who disagrees as, at best, an ignorant, heretical buffoon. It’s very much like the Catholic Church, circa 1500, except without the burning at the stake thing. But I’m sure if they could, they would, which is another good reason to make sure we don’t exchange our republic for a 21st Century equivalent of an Inquisition led by a scientist/environmentalist priesthood.

Update: C. Schmo strikes again, this time at Google. Read all about goats, grass and faux greenery at TechCrunch!

Update II: Climate Change! Able to leap tall buildings in a single bound! Able to cause each and every natural disaster, even if the disaster is related to plate tectonics, like the volcano erupting in Iceland! It’s amazing! Get the full scoop on the latest shark jumping news at Watts Up With That?

Despite vocal climate change skeptics in the United States, leading scientific groups have been hoping the United States, the biggest emitter of greenhouse gases after China, would take action.The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reported on Thursday the world’s combined land and ocean surface temperatures in March were the hottest on record.

Who defines “leading scientific groups?” Are they the ones who manipulate data or hide the decline? Richard Cowan has written a lot of articles about climate change and not one article about Climategate. What about the increasing ice in the Arctic? The cold winter in the northern hemisphere? Am I supposed to be concerned that March is supposedly the warmest on record? What about the medieval warming period? How does cap and trade reduce temperatures? Do we want to reduce temperatures? What is the optimal temperature? Are people stupid? I think we know the answer to that question.

The Little Ice Age was great for skiing, but not so great if you were a European farmer.

While the concept of the event is admirable, which is basically to raise awareness about conserving and protecting our natural resources, some of the event’s supporting organizations hold extreme views that bear scrutiny.

The main beneficiary of the event, the High Country Conservation Center, claims that climate change debate is irrelevant. In other words, if you disagree with the so-called scientific “consensus” shut up! This philosophy flies in the face of the scientific method, essentially stifling scientific inquiry.

While the High Country Conservation Center may claim consensus, there is none, unless you call consensus “everyone who agrees with us.” For more on this attitude among climate-change/global warming true believers and how the numbers are skewed to cause a false alarm about warming, go to the Watts Up With That? blog’s section on Climategate.

Yesterday, the University of California at Santa Barbara released the global climate change findings of one of its geologists: “[UCSB geologist Lorraine Lisiecki] concludes that the pattern of climate change over the past million years likely involves complicated interactions between different parts of the climate system, as well as three different orbital systems. The first two orbital systems are the orbit’s eccentricity, and tilt. The third is ‘precession,’ or a change in the orientation of the rotation axis.”

So there is consensus that the earth’s climate changes; it has been for billions of years. The disparity in opinion is about its cause and relative severity. Some believe it’s a complicated interaction of events directly related to the earth’s orbit and the changing intensity of the sun. The sun, by the way, is a medium sized star which accounts for 99.86 percent of the solar system’s entire mass.

However, according to those who hold the human-caused view of climate change/global warming/global cooling or whatever it is based on current weather patterns, the sun is really a non-factor despite its ubiquitous presence here and its impact on the surrounding planets.

On the Climate Change page at its website, the High Country Conservation Center further states: “Even if you disagree with the consensus of the scientific community, there is something called the Precautionary Principle that dictates that action even without 100% certainty is prudent.”

One wonders if the High Country Conservation Center applies the Precautionary Principle equally to all matters of science, including climate change. The Precautionary Principle cuts both ways, and should not be used as an argument unless the person or organization making it is prepared to be 100 percent consistent in applying it.

Another participating group, called Protect Our Winters, goes a step further. It claims that climate change can be reversed! If climate change were reversed wouldn’t that also be climate change? If we had the power to set the earth’s thermostat, so to speak, who gets to decide what the ideal climate is? The ski areas? The beach resorts? Icelanders? At what point in history do we hit reset button? 1980? 1985? 1654? 5 million B.C.?

The fact is that if one were able to create the ideal climate in North America (whatever that is), it would affect the climate negatively somewhere else. The system itself is far too complicated to simply “reverse” it and revel in the successful reversal without having to apologize to someone in Asia or Europe about the extra cold weather they can now expect. Thanks for nothing, those who know what’s best for everyone else in the world!

Protect Our Winters also advocates on behalf of the climate policy bill that passed the U.S. House of Representatives, but was stalled in the Senate. Most Americans are opposed to the bill, also known as Cap and Trade or Cap and Tax to its more vocal opponents, because it regulates individual consumption and will force energy costs through the roof in favor of inefficient and unproven alternative energy sources.

Most fair-minded people are in favor of conservation and want to protect the environment as much as possible. What irks them is the intervention of a massive centralized and uncaring bureaucracy that is increasingly infringing on their individual liberties while funneling a greater portion of their income into pointless programs and governmental agencies.

Ironically, while the ski resorts support such groups, the policies pursued by those groups will ensure that fewer people have the discretionary income available to ski as they pay more for energy and the ski resorts jack up prices to pay for their increased costs. But that’s how it works in socialist societies; the gap between the haves and have-nots increases until all that’s left is a rich and powerful minority.

For more information, please peruse a history book. I also recommend Adam Smith’s The Wealth of Nations, Friedrich von Hayek’s The Road to Serfdom or any of the writings by America’s founders, including The Constitution of the United States of America and The Federalist Papers.

Unfortunately, the reality of the danger we are courting has not been changed by the discovery of at least two mistakes in the thousands of pages of careful scientific work over the last 22 years by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

The careful scientific work by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change? The sheer fact that the IPCC exists is an example of “governmental bias.” Is it really shocking that an entire panel created to study climate change found climate change? When “big oil” funds a scientific study the results are ignored by the alarmists. Alarmists have kindly ignored the big bucks being made thanks to climate change. For the past decade the climage change business has been booming. Al Gore has a financial stake in climate change and the mastermind of the 2007 IPCC report Dr Rajendra Pachauri is making money as well.

It was in this newspaper that we first revealed how Pachauri has earned millions of pounds for his Delhi-based research institute Teri, and further details are still emerging of how he has parlayed his position into a worldwide business empire, including 17 lucrative contracts from the EU alone. But we should not expect the truth to break in too suddenly on this mass of vested interests. Too many people have too much at stake to allow the faith in man-made global warming, which has sustained them so long and which is today making so many of them rich, to be abandoned.

The truth is finally starting to come on this sad tale. Al Gore has always been a political opportunist. Gore’s name on the Nobel Peace Prize disgraced the award long before Obama made it official. Gore’s Oscar for An Inconvenient Truth may go down in history as one of Hollywood’s most ignorant moments of all time (that’s saying something). In a way this is the worst thing that ever could happen to Gore. Losing the election was painful, but Gore has always cared deeply about what others think of him. As the fraud and bad science add up on the theory of man-made global so does the ridicule for Al Gore.

Gore is now remembered for two things he invented. Everyone knows Al Gore didn’t event the internet, but for many Gore is the face of the Global Warming swindle. Maybe I’m wrong. I’ve been wrong about Al Gore before, but something tells me the gig is up.