Mq, kindly peer review this:
1.Al Gore is a joke;
2.His movie was a comedy;
3.The Nobel will rank alongside Arafat's in the inappropriate category; the Oscar will rank in the same cabinet of politically inappropriate actions taken by Hollywood as the banning of allegedly 'communist' types during the McCarthy era.
4. The science of anthrogenic global warming is more a religion than a science, one in which the believers ardently believe the proponents because the religion is 'green', intuitively 'correct' but objectively baseless, and politically correct. The latter point is not inconsequential as political correctness serves as a nice substitute for those whose scientific advancement has stopped at the 'social' science level [btw, I marveled at the 'social' science moniker as a student; the oxymorons, irony, etc., were too rich to ignore].
Now, Mq, without wholeheartedly endorsing your particular view because it is as unproven as the currently preferred embodiment, I will opine that it has at least as good a chance at being correct as the views expressed in High Holy Church of PseudoScientific Anthrogenic Global Warming, Pope Al the First presiding. Intuitively, a worthless consideration, I'll admit, it seems to have a lot of possibility.
From a scientific standpoint, weather and climate are the single most complex systems [next to an adequate description of consciousness], on which science can expound. Water vapor and methane [mostly produced by bovines and other large animals] are far more effective global warmers than CO2, so much so that I believe that I will start a campaign against cows.
The film will be shown in '09. I'll invite you to the post-Oscar party.
Down with cows!! |
