If you don't do what I want, then the world will end. Even a child would balk at such a silly threat. But some adults are more gullible than children. So the act-now-or-the-world-will-end schtick gets used and reused. It's a sales pitch, not unlike those one sees on late-night 1-800 television advertisements. "Act now and John Basedow will include a bonus Fitness Made Simple DVD that will give you rock-hard abs!" Only the environmentalist sales pitch is more crude and exaggerated: do what I tell you to do, or you, and everyone you know, will die. The promise of losing a pot-belly might not be enough to compel action, but the threat of mankind disappearing--that's enough to make one act. But it shouldn't be. Claiming a differing political path leads to the worst disaster imaginable is the oldest trick in the book.

In a speech in England, Al Gore warned of "planetary emergency" that "could bring the end of civilization." And what might that planetary emergency be? DDT? Acid rain? Nuclear power? The ozone hole? No, global warming. Please move on to the next ecological scare story, Mr. Gore. The sell-by date on this one is about 1998. In 1992, when Al Gore released Earth in the Balance, the Tennessee Senator could be found on the ascendent side of this fad. But it's 2006, and the global warming fad, like all fads, has run its course. Gore's new movie, An Inconvenient Truth, is like a grown man dressed in parachute pants and sporting a flock-of-seagulls haircut: it's out of step with the times. The film's premise is also out of step with reality. The noble lie often disguises itself as an inconvenient truth.

Meteorologists occassionally have trouble telling us what tomorrow's weather will be. How is Al Gore able to accurately predict what ten-years-from-now's weather will be? And how is he able to tell us why ten-years-from-now's weather will be the way it will be?

Scaring someone is fun. Trying to scare someone, and failing, is boring. Global warming is boring. Like Sasquatch, the Loch Ness Monster, and the New Jersey Devil, what we don't believe doesn't scare us.

This is not to say that the Earth isn't getting warmer. It is to say that the notion that humans have much to do with any global temperature increase is unproven, and probably, unprovable. Did humans cause the temperature increase that resulted in alligators and snakes living within the Arctic Circle 55 million years ago? Are humans causing the climate change on Mars and Jupiter? How about the change in temperature that occurs pretty much everyday between 6 a.m. and noon?

And if the ever-changing climate on our living planet, and other planets, is not enough to inject a dose of skepticism into the global-warming claims of Al Gore, the words of Al Gore should be enough to do this.

"In the United States of America, unfortunately we still live in a bubble of unreality," Gore told David Roberts of Grist.org in an interview posted earlier this month. "And the Category 5 denial is an enormous obstacle to any discussion of solutions. Nobody is interested in solutions if they don't think there's a problem. Given that starting point, I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous it [global warming] is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are, and how hopeful it is that we are going to solve this crisis."

Might threats of "the end of civilization" be one of those over-representations Mr. Gore refers to?

Correct me if I'm wrong, Dan, but isn't the whole global warming/ice age thing cyclical? We are in a period of warming THAT WE DID NOT CAUSE, NOR COULD WE HELP which will be followed by an ice age in a millenium or so.

If "Airplane!" were made today, Al Gore would be one of the guys Ted Striker beats up in the airport ("Jehovah's Witness? How 'bout Buddism?"). At least, he would if there were any justice in the world....

The right describes things in civilzation ending terms too. Clash of civilizations in the war on terror? Gay marriage as an assault on the foundation of western civilization?

It could be I’m the one who’s out of touch here but hasn’t the sell-by date on old Al come and gone by now? Do people even take this guy and his cronies seriously anymore?

Does anybody take the Dems in general seriously anymore???

ASDF,
As a registered Democrat myself I think that question bears asking. I also think that question can and should be posed to the GOP as well. What do we need to do to get the parties back in touch with reality?

What we need is a viable third party. One that will scare the entrenched fat cats of both major parties straight and into listening and giving a $hite about what their constituents want.

I don't see there ever being a single third party that would scare both of the two major parties. We have 2 parties, the liberal party and the conservative party. Either conservatives schism off from the Repubs to form a more conservative party, or libs schism off from the Democrats to form a more liberal party. I don't see any issue unifying liberals and conservatives to forming a singular third party. As we saw in 2000, the party that can't stop members from bolting to a 3rd party loses. The Democrats learned their lesson and made sure that Nader would not get on the ballot in 2004. Even in 2000 they made sure he couldn't get in on any debates (he absolutely should have been let in with the general audience for the one at UMass Boston since he had been given a ticket). Third parties are doomed.

Didn't say we'd ever have one. Just that we need one.

The only way to get the attention of these snakes is to threaten to put them out of their cushy phony baloney jobs. Whether that means having the ability to vote for an alternative third party candidate or for a better more philosophically mainstream primary candidate, the end would be the same.

I flipped through the book that accompanies this new Gore movie last week, while I was in a bookstore. It has tons of pretty pictures, including a big section all about Gore's life and background. But, it is basically a picture book and is pretty unsophisticated, let alone convincing in its science.

That led me to suspect that this film, et. al., is simply a stunt by Gore to keep himself rollin in the dough and carve for himself a public niche post-elected office, like Jimmy Carter did.

The two people I have let know I am a global warming skeptic to both accused me of being crazy or on crack. I still haven't been given any convincing scientific literature on the matter though.

Brian,
You touch on my point exactly. I think Mr. Gore is more concerned about staying on the government tit than he is about exposing any "truths". Most that cared to noticed in the 2000 election the Ol' Al was pretty dam good at lecturing high-school students but less than average at debating issues with adults. When someone's point of view can't stand the light of public debate run as fast as you can, you're dealing with a poser.

I've noticed when I disagree with my liberal friends that they accuse me of being crazy or on drugs, too. I think that’s easier than actually studying the evidence. Then again, they're philosophy grads and I'm just a silly engineer.

Hard sciences and mathematics can't hold a candle to philosophy. After all, wasn't it a group of great philosophers that built the pyramids?

Al Gore should focus his attention on something more important: hunting manbearpig!

Gore is making an attempt to play the role of a modern day Paul Ehrlich,the radical Stanford professor who predicted in the 1960's that by 1980 there would be millions starving due to overpopulation. This never happened,however,the media,politicians,as well as select members of academia were more than willing to be the useful idiots and spread the propaganda. Gore is taking a page out of Ehrlich's playbook by using extrapolations(therefore putting the burden of proof on the doubters), ignoring historical trends,and using terms as inevitable and the scientific data is unquestionable. Al Gore and the elites care little about facts,especially when it may interfere with their vision.
The "elites" have to manufacture a crisis,then present a big government solution that will only restrict choices by the individual.
Unfortunately, in the marketplace of ideas, there is usually very little penalty for those who are consistently wrong.

It's a beautiful thing that we live in an age where many of the general public is better educated and at least as smart or smarter than our elites.

Ultimately, we probably have the internet to thank for this as there is more information and educated opinions at our fingertips than ever before.

Bottom line is that it's getting harder for these charlatans to pull the wool over people's eyes.