Remember Al Gore's movie "An Inconvenient Truth?" He's made a second career out of pushing a global warming/climate change alarmist viewpoint lately. And he's made some predictions which, inconveniently, either haven't come true or have been undercut from a scientific basis.
The former Vice President has had to backtrack big time on his prediction that the Arctic had a 75 percent chance of being ice-free during the summer within five years.
Here\'s the link. If the science for climate change is so strong, why lie about (or, if we wish to be charitable, "embellish") the facts and predictions? That's because the science isn't solid. If humans are affecting the world's climate, why isn't the science more definite? Why are there so many reputable scientists opposed to the conclusion that climate change is due to man's interference? And why do the climate change enthusiasts agree than man is the root cause but disagree on just what we're doing to mess up the climate?
I agree that we should all live in harmony with our planet. But I do not agree that we should drastically reduce our standard of living to accomplish that goal. I do not agree that we should shatter our economies in order to meet a goal which may or may not have any impact on climate change (and might very well have a negative impact). And I do not believe that I am a horrible person because I'm not jumping up and down, crying out that the sky is either falling or heating up and we have to do something right now and if you won't help you're the enemy never mind about the facts you planet-hater!
Had to get that off my chest. Thanks for hearing my rant.
