Al Gore jumps twenty-five sharks
Is it "Cap and Trade" or "Cap and Rough Trade"?
Will Al Gore now be the butt of more jokes than anyone who ever lived?
Well, not quite, but it was always easy enough to make fun of Al -- that blowhard who claimed to have helped create the Internet (tell CERN) and that his marriage inspired Love Story. But no one could have anticipated his never-to-be-forgotten June of 2010, a month that would give even the strongest of us a migraine for life. And everything seemed to be going so well for him in May with the announcement of his purchase of a nine-million dollar ocean front home in Montecito.
Well, that place may have had a carbon footprint the size of Indiana, but we're used to the hypocrisy of the supposedly green-minded. It comes with the territory.
But then came June. First the end of the "Love Story-ed" marriage with Tipper, then the putative affair with Laurie David and now this -- sexual assault allegations. (That last appeared in the National Enquirer -- as we know, a newspaper with one of the greatest track records for accuracy of any publication in our country. I'm serious. If not for them, John Edwards might be vice-president right now. Think about that. And, NE is backed up by police reports, etc.)
Whoa ... Forget the migraines. Think seppuku.
But what does this all mean in the real world? Al Gore has already made a mockery of the Academy Awards and the Nobel Peace Prize, not that these organizations' voters didn't make a mockery of themselves and not that the latter wasn't already a self-parody of monumental Orwellian proportions.
But all this emerges at the very moment that our "progressive" (talk about Orwellian constructs!) administration is about to proffer another round of energy legislation predicated on the anthropogenic global warming concepts promulgated by one Al Gore. This legislation will be voted on by several hundred people, few of whom -- other than a handful of doctors -- have any scientific training whatsoever.
You would think, though, that since so many of them are lawyers, they would be aware of that hoariest of Roman legal principles -- Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus (You lie about one thing, you lie about all). That might give them pause that they have relied on propagandistic drivel like An Inconvenient Truth (how ironic that title now!) as a source of scientific knowledge. This is a film -- already discredited in a British court -- now revealed to have been produced by a man who is just a general all around creep or worse.
Would any honest person trust him? Isn't it time to go to different, more credible, sources? Why not, say, invite MIT's Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science, Richard Lindzen, to testify on the subject -- a real scientist, also one who is not currently employed by a government or UN program and therefore not deriving his income from the Global Warming Machine. (As a convenience, they can find plenty of Dr. Lindzen on PJTV.)
I know. Our representatives will have to pay attention. This is difficult stuff. And their lack of background, maybe even inability to understand what Lindzen is saying, may show. But that's a risk they'll have to take if they're the slightest bit interested in the truth (not the supposedly "inconvenient" kind).
This would all be one of the greatest black comedies, surpassing even Dr. Strangelove. Only it's for real. Some people -- notably many in authority -- still do think AGW is "settled science" and they do so, largely, because they were inspired by Al Gore.
Well, until now.