...and the only prescription is more dumbbell.
Gore Implores Congress to Save Planet
Al Gore, who has reversed his political fortunes to become a potential contender in the 2008 presidential race, made an emotional return to Congress Wednesday in an appeal for an even more dramatic rescue--saving the planet.
Gore--who is one of voters' top choices for the Democratic presidential nomination even though he says he's not running--implored lawmakers to adopt a list of policy prescriptions to stop global warming. ...
... "The planet has a fever," Gore said. "If your baby has a fever, you go to the doctor. If the doctor says you need to intervene here, you don't say, 'Well, I read a science fiction novel that told me it's not a problem.' If the crib's on fire, you don't speculate that the baby is flame retardant. You take action."
*Snore* Bore us no more, Gore.
2 comments:
Eh...I'm going to be a contrarian and say I don't mind Gore in this role (comparatively). He's found an issue that he can devote himself to without going back into elective politics again. I don't think he's a serious presidential contender anymore, regardless of what people say in polls. As for the issue he's pressing, it's virtually impossible to measure what proportion of climactic warming is taking place due to natural cyclical patterns vs. man-made carbon emissions, when there are no readily provable historical baselines. Therefore, when the science is not conclusive, a person's take on the issue is likely to favor their politics. But, I think "proportion" has got to be the key word; it's not all one way or the other, and man-made emissions can't not be some part of the problem, however small. Unfortunately, some conservatives are making Gore seem like the voice of reason on the debate, when they say that nothing at all worthy of concern is happening to the world climate. Something is happening, and coastal cities are going to have pretty much the same problems with rising sea levels and tropical storm strengths, regardless of the cause. The only real question is can and should we do anything about it (besides moving to higher ground). If it's mostly a natural cycle, than maybe we can't and shouldn't bother trying. But, the crux of the debate needs to be met head-on by the conservative side. Gore may be politically motivated and ideologically misdirected, but he's going to win the debate so long as he's got thermometers on his side, and so long as the opposition comes to the debate with nothing in their notes but mockery, flat-earth-society naysaying, and political motivations of their own.
As for myself, I'm just going to keep enjoying the milder midwestern winters, and avoid California and gulf coast real estate investments!
I'm glad Gore isn't going back into elective politics, but I'm still sick of the guy. What bothers me about this whole debate is that it's meant to scare rather than inform. There's absolutely no question that the motivation for people like Gore is political in nature. Of course, those on the more "conservative" side who disagree tend to suggest that we should just sit back and not do anything.
I think we need to bring environmental debates to the local level. Man-made pollutants can and do affect local ecological systems (lakes, wildlife, drinking water, farmland, forests, etc.), and that is all part of being good stewards of creation. But I don't buy that we are making the entire planet warmer. Even if that were true, I wouldn't be looking to the government for a solution. Remember, just 30 years ago scientists were warning about the dangers of imminent global cooling. Any warming trend can only be part of a natural cycle, mostly corresponding to increases in solar activity. And there isn't a whole lot we can do about that (though I do recall a Simpsons episode in which Mr. Burns tried to block out the sun).
So, yes, I will certainly keep enjoying the milder midwestern winters. The less shoveling I have to do, the better!
Post a Comment