Mark, according to al gore, if its too hot, its because of global warming. If its too cold, its because of global warming. And if its just right, its because of global warming. Whats pathetic, is that clinton and gore did nothing to help the environment, in fact their environmental record stinks. However, because they had a "D" before their name, they are de facto great environmentalists. President Bush has been pushing for alternative fuels for years, especially ethanol, hydrogen and hybrid cars. Under President Bush, these are becoming a reality. Once you ignore the lib media BS, it turns out that if results are your guage, President Bush may be the greatest environmental president this country has ever had. The only thing clinton/gore had to show was signing that kyoto treaty, which they knew had no chance of passing.

Poor Al. I wish he had run in 2004 and beat Bush for a second time.

The New Yorker ran a great piece on Gore a few weeks back:

"If you are inclined to think that the unjustly awarded election of 2000 led to one of the worst Presidencies of this or any other era, it is not easy to look at Al Gore. He is the living reminder of all that might not have happened in the past six years (and of what might still happen in the coming two). Contrary to Ralph Nader’s credo that there was no real difference between the major parties, it is close to inconceivable that the country and the world would not be in far better shape had Gore been allowed to assume the office that a plurality of voters wished him to have. One can imagine him as an intelligent and decent President, capable of making serious decisions and explaining them in the language of a confident adult."

Re: Global Warming & the Bush Administration:

"The catch, of course, is that the audience-of-one that most urgently needs to see the film and take it to heart—namely, the man who beat Gore in the courts six years ago—does not much believe in science or, for that matter, in any information that disturbs his prejudices, his fantasies, or his sleep. Inconvenient truths are precisely what this White House is structured to avoid and deny...In the 2000 campaign, George W. Bush cracked that Gore “likes electric cars. He just doesn’t like making electricity.” The younger Bush, a classic schoolyard bully with a contempt for intellect, demanded that Gore “explain what he meant by some of the things” in his 1992 book, “Earth in the Balance”—and then unashamedly admitted that he had never read it. A book that the President did eventually read and endorse is a pulp science-fiction novel: “State of Fear,” by Michael Crichton. Bush was so excited by the story, which pictures global warming as a hoax perpetrated by power-mad environmentalists, that he invited the author to the Oval Office. In “Rebel-in-Chief: Inside the Bold and Controversial Presidency of George W. Bush,” Fred Barnes, the Fox News commentator, reveals that the President and Crichton 'talked for an hour and were in near-total agreement.” The visit, Barnes adds, “was not made public for fear of outraging environmentalists all the more.'"

http://www.newyorker.com/talk/content/articles/060424ta_talk_remnick

maf,

Gore, though, is neither intelligent nor decent...for those us who's eyes are open, "no controlling legal authority" will always be what Gore is all about...

James,

More than that - if a donation or vote could have been squeezed out of it, Clinton and Gore would have dumped nuclear waste in the Grand Canyon...two more cynical and corrupt men, I think, have never occupied our executive branch..

Why do you say Gore is corrupt? Is he as corrupt as, say Tom Delay? Or W himself?

"if a donation or vote could have been squeezed out of it, Clinton and Gore would have dumped nuclear waste in the Grand Canyon...two more cynical and corrupt men, I think, have never occupied our executive branch.."

Mark thats a pretty serious and stupid charge. What is your proof? Hey sorry to always rain on your parade, but someone has to call you on all your irresponsible statements.

James,

There is no law against unfairly hating politicians, but do not use illustrations (global warming) about which you are misinformed.

Ash,

Just how old are you? Don't you remember 1996? For crying out loud, the Administration was for sale to the highest foreign bidder...

From what I have read, the Clinton/Gore administration was in Red China's back pocket.

"For crying out loud, the Administration was for sale to the highest foreign bidder..."
...like Dubai Port World.

whoa...what happened to the predicted ice age starting in the 70's?

btw - where's the earth's orifice to take the temp?

damn confusing this is...

Parker,

The Administration was not for sale to this highest bidder. The management rights to major ports was sold without the U.S. Government or any U.S. private enterprise being involved, except for the lack of oversight provided by CIFIUS. There is absolutely no comparison. Nada. Zip. Zilch.

Try again, buffoon.

Since Al Gore has the speaking style somewhere between Howard Dean in a primary, and Adolph Hitler at a rally, I tend to lose whatever message might be contained in his wild-eyed, rabid delivery. He is so clearly bitter and full of rage that - inventor of the Internet or not - he is the wrong person to deliver this message about global warming. He's the son of a segregationist, and played second fiddle to a convicted perjurer and accused serial rapist who occupied the White House for eight long years. Neither he, nor his boss did anything to move this country toward energy independence, toward alternate fuels, or against enemies of this nation despite their having made it clear to they intended to wreak havoc upon us and our interests abroad. Therefore, he has the credibility of a gnat.

While global warming may - and I repeat - MAY be a phenomena worthy of study, it is arguably the biggest straw man argument being put out their by the radical left. The sun and its cycles play a far more direct impact upon the atmosphere and climate of this country than our puny contributions of CO2. This earth has seem massive swings in temperature over the eons. We have scientifically been able to ascertain that. Many of these swings occurred long before we began to crawl out of the primordial ooze into which Al Gore and his ilk seem to want to shove us back by de-industrializing and moving backward in the use of our technologies.

I heard a speech on C-Span a few months ago by a vulcanologist who cited statistics of how many kazillion tons of particulates and a variety of gases were hurled out of Mt. St. Helens and Mt. Pinatubo during their famous last eruptions. According to him, those amounts would take humankind hundreds of years to match by way of our use of fossil fuels and other energy sources.

You can march to the tune of this mad pied piper if you wish. Just don't demand that the rest of us pay homage to a dubious leader and his bizarre vision of human apocalypse.

"You can march to the tune of this mad pied piper if you wish. Just don't demand that the rest of us pay homage to a dubious leader and his bizarre vision of human apocalypse."

Hmm, sounds familiar ...

"The management rights to major ports was sold without the U.S. Government or any U.S. private enterprise being involved"

OK db, then why didn't deal go through? If you could 'enlighten' me without name calling then maybe I could take you seriously.

I do agree, however with the rest of your post in that there's a way too many variables involved to impose potentially crippling regulations based on even a few decades of observations or Al Gore's opinion. We simply don't know enough about long term climate cycles to jeopordize our economy at this point.

- From a previous dbogdan post...

"Here are the most common forms of "debate" from the leftists:
c) Engage in hostile name-calling, often under the guise of witty repartée."

... a bit of a hypocrite, aren't we?

Parker wrote, "then why didn't (DWI Ports) deal go through?"

What does that question have to do with your linking the Administration to foreign interests? You made a non-sequateur from "administration for sale to the highest bidder" to DPW. Let's hear your defense of that absurd contention.

It's not like accepting campaign funds from Buddhist nuns, channeling money from the Chinese government to Clinton-Gore reelection campaign, or making campaign extortion phone calls from the Executive office, then admitting on TV that you broke campaign finance laws with "no controlling legal authority" you know; facts.

"Buffoon" is a far cry from hostile. Sorry if your skin is too thin. I apologize.

The Dubai Ports World deal didn't go through because the American people rose up and demanded that Congress get involved. The CFIUS Group was simply involved in analyzing the impact that the sale of our ports right from a UK-based company to a UAE-based company would have on the US national security interests. They made a bad call, but due to the word getting out, the deal was withdrawn.

Great post dbogdan! Very well written and I heartily agree with your points.

Algore is a moron. Thank God this country had the sense to elect George W. Bush as President in 2000 and again in 2004!

maf53, I had a good laugh when I read your post. Ah, you have revealed yourself at last!! You ARE still bitter that Algore was not able to get away with stealing the election in 2000! You probably believe there were election conspiracies in Ohio in 2004 too!! hahahaha You posted your sad mug on sorryeverybody.com, didn't you? We won, you lost, get over it and move on... and start supporting YOUR president: President George W. Bush. :)

ND - don't really feel like getting into it. Just saying - who got more votes?

That year was the first time I was eligible to vote (there, I revealed something) - and I went with Nader. Still regret it to this day.

But if Gore runs once more in '08 he will win (again). Mark it down.

The "Skeptical Environmentalist" is a book Al Gore needs to read. It will allow him to maintain his "love" for Mother Earth, but give him some other intellegent perspectives in how to solve the problems without throwing the baby out with the bath water.

Who got more votes?
You mean electoral college votes, right? George W. Bush did. That is why he is president.

Gore: 50,996,116 v Bush: 50,456,169

Even a Republican can do the math on that one.

I'm not saying Bush didn't win the election. I'm simply stating that *more people voted for Gore* - that's all.

Come on, ND - you can admit it.

maf53,
Yes, Algore had more popular votes, but that is not how our elections work. You realize that, right? Are you saying you don't believe in the United States' electoral college system? Is it that you don't understand it or you don't think it is fair?

Let me ask you something: if the tables were turned and it was GWB who had a greater popular vote and it was Algore who had the electoral college votes, would you be singing the same sad song? I don't think so. Algore would be president and you would have no problem with that. You wouldn't be saying "Yeah but GWB won the election.."

Thanks for the concession, ND.

But apparently you didn't read carefully enough when I said:

"I'm not saying Bush didn't win the election."

I think the electoral college system is flawed - and, unfortunately, it took the 2000 election to bring this issue forward.

Regardless of who won, do you think our current system is the better of the two? Electoral is better than majority rules? I find that hard to believe.

Yes, electoral is better. The United States is a representative republic, not a pure "mob rules" democracy. I agree with the wisdom of those who instituted the electoral college system for federal elections. The electoral college system ensures that all states have a voice in the election, not just the big five. BTW: Bush won 30 states while Gore won 20 states plus DC. If you look at it from a states point of view, Bush is the clear winner. The electoral college system was designed so that all states have representation. I think it really is a smart system.

NDinformer,

You really don't believe there were enough irregularities in the 2004 election in Ohio to look into it?
Not even look into it?

Yeah, something as minor as irregularities in the underpinnings of our country is something we should NEVER look into.

In fact, anyone who brings it up should be laughed at and dismissed as a conspiracy theorist.

Conspiracies are NEVER true.
A US President NEVER tried to cover-up a break-in to the election committee offices of his enemies.

THE CIA would NEVER be behind the overthrow of a democratically elected President of Chile (on September 11th, no less) so they could put a mass-murderer in office.

A White House Administration would NEVER cherry-pick intelligence to support a war of choice.

Pshaw!!!

You got him (db), Parker. But don't ever expect an apology.

Love it.

pure "mob rules" democracy

By this ND I assume you mean, like, uh, the people?

"Just how old are you? Don't you remember 1996? For crying out loud, the Administration was for sale to the highest foreign bidder"

Truth be told, all administrations are and have to be (for sale) until there is campaign financing reform. Dubai, Abramoff, Halliburton, the Pharma Giants. Please no holier than thou stuff.

My best frien who is an executive vice president of a bank (that should tell you all you need to know about his politics) thinks that national politicians should be forced to work 11 1/2 months a year like the rest of us. They should be housed in a dormitory style barracks. Cut all the perks and you might just get men and women who are serious about what is best for the country. This may be one of the few political issues we agree on.

Robert,
Ohio? Why all the focus on Ohio? Oh, I remember. Ohio was the focus of a liberal fantasy that went like this: "If only 60,000 votes in Ohio went the other way, then John HoChiMinh Kerry would have won the election".

Its funny that you haven't yet realized the stupidity of this. There were several states (such as Pennsylvania for example) that if 60-70 thousand votes (or less) "went the other way", BUSH WOULD HAVE WON THE PRESIDENCY IN A LANDSLIDE!!! But liberal wisdom (oxymoron) believed that Ohio was their best chance to change the results of the election. That is the only reason you kool-aid drinkers are talking about Ohio.

Ash, You don't think the electoral college system is based on like, the uh, people? Only the popular votes is the um... "the people"? It like doesn't sound like you understand the uh electoral college system.

"The electoral college system was designed so that all states have representation." - ND

But the smaller states get a disproportionate amount of votes - in their favor!

Take Wyoming & Texas, for example. Wyoming has a population of about 500,000 people. They get 3 electoral votes. Texas has a population of more than 20 million people. They get 32 electoral votes. So Wyoming has an "elector" for every 166,000 people, while Texas has an elector for every 652,000 people. How is that fair?

"Bush won 30 states while Gore won 20 states plus DC. If you look at it from a states point of view, Bush is the clear winner."

This is exactly my point ... your assertion may be true, but MORE PEOPLE still voted for Gore. That, right there, should explain why majority is a better system than electoral.

What's the point of a Republican voting in New York when they know Democrats will carry that state? Because of the electoral system, their vote means nothing. In a majority system, that wouldn't be the case.

You argue against the electoral college for 2000, but use it to claim Kerry should be President because of a close vote in Ohio? Am I getting this right? Wow talking about having your cake and eating it too.

Small states like North Dakota (where I live) would never matter if it were based on purely majority vote. There are more people in one smallish California city than there are in my state. The electoral college system ensures that states like mine are not ignored. The United States is more than just the republics of California and New York. The big coastal cities need to be balanced with the rural heartland. This is something the founding fathers understood.

Run a google search for "advantage of electoral college". This page is a good start:
http://www.cato.org/dailys/11-10-00.html

Federalism and balance of power are issues that this country has been dealing with since its inception.

"The mode of appointment of the Chief Magistrate of the United States is almost the only part of the system . . . which has escaped without severe censure. . . . I venture somewhat further, and hesitate not to affirm that if the manner of it be not perfect, it is at least excellent."
--Alexander Hamilton

"You got him (db), Parker. But don't ever expect an apology.

Love it.
Posted by: Ash [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 8, 2006 04:25 PM Ash,"

Ash,

Apparently you didn't read my post of 2:44 pm...

""Buffoon" is a far cry from hostile. Sorry if your skin is too thin. I apologize.

The Dubai Ports World deal didn't go through because the American people rose up and demanded that Congress get involved. The CFIUS Group was simply involved in analyzing the impact that the sale of our ports right from a UK-based company to a UAE-based company would have on the US national security interests. They made a bad call, but due to the word getting out, the deal was withdrawn.
Posted by: dbogdan [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 8, 2006 02:44 PM "

maf,
Are you advocating we get rid of the Senate? California and Wyoming have the same number of votes to confirm a Supreme Court Justice, should we open all elections to a national head count?

And speaking of which, when the number of uncounted votes in California was exceeded by the margin of victory for Kerry, the election officials stopped counting. therefore, the margin of popular vote in a Presidential election is, as always open to dispute.

"Small states like North Dakota (where I live) would never matter if it were based on purely majority vote. There are more people in one smallish California city than there are in my state. The electoral college system ensures that states like mine are not ignored." - ND

This simply isn't true. *Every* vote would be counted, *regardless* of what state you are in. I'll repost from earlier:

Take Wyoming & Texas, for example. Wyoming has a population of about 500,000 people. They get 3 electoral votes. Texas has a population of more than 20 million people. They get 32 electoral votes. So Wyoming has an "elector" for every 166,000 people, while Texas has an elector for every 652,000 people. How is that fair?

What's the point of a Republican voting in New York when they know Democrats will carry that state? Because of the electoral system, their vote means nothing. In a majority system, that wouldn't be the case.

Rath -

Hmm, that would seem to be the case - or at least, to modify it.

See this Slate article:

http://www.slate.com/id/1006400/

ND Oh I understand the electoral college just fine. Just couldn't let you use mob rule incorrectly. One man one vote kinda thingie.

maf53, You are right about this: The world is not fair. I should be rich and married to Natalie Imbruglia.

Did you know that Cheney was not the only veep to shoot someone? Vice President Burr offed Hamilton.

The problem with simple majority elections: What if the country is chalk full of idiots? We need the sensible people in the heartland to counterbalance the loony left coast.

I had a long conversation about politics last Christmas with an old girl friend. She's an exceptionally intelligent lady, Phi Beta Kappa, college professor, and an uber-lib. Hates Bush big time. Her comment that really surprised me was the the only person who could have done a worse job than Bush was, you guessed it -- Gore.

She said virtually everyone she knows, mostly from inside academia, voted for Gore in spite of the fact that most of them privately acknowledged that he was an embarrassment and a buffoon (great word, db). She said the ONLY people she knows that admire Al Gore are some of her students.

"She said the ONLY people she knows that admire Al Gore are some of her students."

51 million people voted for him, Spook. She must have a really big class.

"The problem with simple majority elections: What if the country is chalk full of idiots? We need the sensible people in the heartland to counterbalance the loony left coast."

Ha. Looks like at least, right now, about only 31% of this country are idiots.

As for the Red State/Blue State thing. I've posted this before, lifted from Best of Craigs List:

Dear Red States...

We've decided we're leaving. We intend to form our own country, and
we're taking the other Blue States with us.

In case you aren't aware, that includes Hawaii, Oregon,Washington,
Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, Illinois and all the Northeast. We
believe this split will be beneficial to the nation, and especially
to the people of the new country of New California.

To sum up briefly: You get Texas, Oklahoma and all the slave states.
We get stem cell research and the best beaches. We get Elliot
Spitzer. You get Ken Lay.

We get the Statue of Liberty. You get Dollywood.
We get Intel and Microsoft. You get WorldCom.
We get Harvard. You get Ole' Miss.
We get 85 percent of America's venture capital and entrepreneurs. You
get Alabama.
We get two-thirds of the tax revenue, you get to make the red states
pay their fair share.

Since our aggregate divorce rate is 22 percent lower than the
Christian Coalition's, we get a bunch of happy families. You get a
bunch of single moms.

Please be aware that Nuevo California will be pro-choice and
anti-war, and we're going to want all our citizens back from Iraq at
once. If you need people to fight, ask your evangelicals. They have
kids they're apparently willing to send to their deaths for no
purpose, and they don't care if you don't show pictures of their
children's caskets coming home. We do wish you success in Iraq, and
hope that the WMDs turn up, but we're not willing to spend our
resources in Bush's Quagmire.

With the Blue States in hand, we will have firm control of 80 percent
of the country's fresh water, more than 90 percent of the pineapple
and lettuce, 92 percent of the nation's fresh fruit, 95 percent of
America's quality wines (you can serve French wines at state dinners)
90 percent of all cheese, 90 percent of the high tech industry, most
of the U.S. low-sulfur coal, all living redwoods, sequoias and
condors, all the Ivy and Seven Sister schools, plus Harvard, Yale,
Stanford, Cal Tech and MIT.

With the Red States, on the other hand, you will have to cope with 88
percent of all obese Americans (and their projected health care
costs), 92 percent of all U.S. mosquitoes, nearly 100 percent of the
tornadoes, 90 percent of the hurricanes, 99 percent of all Southern
Baptists, virtually 100 percent of all televangelists, Rush Limbaugh,
Bob Jones University, Clemson and the University of Georgia.

We get Hollywood and Yosemite, thank you.

Additionally, 38 percent of those in the Red states believe Jonah was
actually swallowed by a whale, 62 percent believe life is sacred
unless we're discussing the death penalty or gun laws, 44 percent say
that evolution is only a theory, 53 percent that Saddam was involved
in 9/11 and 61 percent of you crazy b*****ds believe you are people
with higher morals then we lefties.

By the way, we're taking the good pot, too. You can have that dirt
weed they grow in Mexico.

Dear Red State: Let's spin the wheel of adjectives:

amazing, astonishing, astounding, bang-up, best, breathtaking, cool*, crack, dilly, doozie*, extravagant, fab*, fantastic, fictitious, first class, gone, greatest, groovy*, immense, in spades, inconceivable, incredible, legendary, marvelous, mind-blowing*, out-of-this-world*, outrageous, peachy*, phenomenal, primo*, prodigious, rad*, remarkable, spectacular, striking, stupendous, super, superb, terrific, top drawer*, tops*, turn-on*, unbelievable, unreal, wicked*, wondrous

hahah, okay... Then we get all the conservatives to leave the blue states and we kick out all the moonbats from our red country. We're going to annex Canada too, and kick all the socialists out of there as well...

You can have the moron Algore as your western leader and HoChiMinh Kerry as your eastern leader. You'll soon see the blue states crumble into disarray and corruption like Mexico or Guatemala. Red state America would still be the strongest country in the world, but the blue states would be a bunch of little Cubas.

Also, you can't fly over our airspace. If you want to get from New York to California, you have to take the long way around. :)

And you don't get any of our oil, wheat, corn or beef either!

ND,
The overwhelming part of our State is Republican; if you eliminate that third world wasteland of Los Angeles, Mexico; and the People's Republic of San Francisco. I say cut those two loose and float them through the Panama Canal, let them dock in New York harbor.

Nor would the blue states get Eastern Washington, Eastern Oregon, Northern and Eastern California, and the rural parts of the East Coast as well as the rural parts of those aforementioned states.

In reality the land mass of Blue America would be SOOO small they simply couldn't feed themselves.

We are ONE nation people. Bottomline, it appears that one group (the blue people) seem to overlook and turn their nose up at the red people as if they are hillbillies and rubes.

And red people point their finger at the blue people in judgment. Perhaps if we realized we were one country with many different voices, stepped back from the political brink we're on, and GET OVER ourselves. Blue people need to F*ckin' get over 2000 and 2004. Bush won TWO Times and will be OUR OUR OUR OUR OUR president until January 2009, no matter how much you b*tch.

Could you imagine if more Democrats actually worked with the Republicans like Lieberman and more Republicans worked with Democrats like McCain does.

I guess Steve is scared of McCain because he's started to attack him too. I am amazed at how both parties are willing to destroy their few people who are still willing to work with the other side.

Al Gore would have been a mediocre president based on his personality and the way he pandered to all sides. This is just my opinion.

Hey look everybody! Ash got a dictionary/thesauraus and learned how to read it!!

"amazing, astonishing, astounding, bang-up, best, breathtaking, cool*, crack, dilly, doozie*, extravagant, fab*, fantastic, fictitious, first class, gone, greatest, groovy*, immense, in spades, inconceivable, incredible, legendary, marvelous, mind-blowing*, out-of-this-world*, outrageous, peachy*, phenomenal, primo*, prodigious, rad*, remarkable, spectacular, striking, stupendous, super, superb, terrific, top drawer*, tops*, turn-on*, unbelievable, unreal, wicked*, wondrous"

Aren't we all proud of him... now maybe he will be promoted to 4th grade...

"You know, I've experienced many great moments and it's hard to name the best," Bush told weekly Bild am Sonntag when asked about his high point since becoming president in January 2001.

"I would say the best moment of all was when I caught a 7.5 pound (3.402 kilos) perch in my lake," he told the newspaper in an interview published on Sunday.

I used to think this website took itself seriously. I'm positive this is a satire site right? Move over SNL, Colbert, you've got B for B. in the house. Rah Rah Rah.

Maroons.

Well for the sake of truth in reporting, the word perch in German is similar to bass. So it is possible Mr. Bush was misquoted. I don't see any possibility he would have lied or made a malapropos.
statement.

Besides perch are a very elusive and smart fish. Smarter than George. He would have never been able to catch one.

maf,

Probably half of Gore's 2000 voters were voting for what they thought was peace (it wasn't) and what they thought was prosperity (wasn't that, either).

Gore is the man who couldn't even win the Democratic primary in 1988 against Michael Dukakis...he's, well, just not that bright a man, not all that honest (mostly, he's not honest with himself) and, God bless him, he's going to be the Democratic nominee in 2008 because he has learned how to tap into leftwing, anti-Bush fanaticism.

Back to the movie...imho, it's a vehicle for a run in 2008 and nothing more. Having said that, you'd think a guy with a credibility problem would have taken more care with the facts in the movie. From everything I've read, the movie is full of half-truths...like blaming global warming for the melting snow on Kilimanjaro. Scientists beleive almost without exception that the melt is due to the cutting of surrounding forests...

"Scientists beleive almost without exception that the melt is due to the cutting of surrounding forests..."

How is this mutually exclusive to global warming? In fact it supports the thesis that mans activities can influence climate.

It may or may not be mutually exclusive but to site a direct correlation to global warming is hyperbole at best and something more nefarious at worst...

I just wanted to point out that cutting down trees has an effect on the climate. Any scientist will tell you that. It can't be used as a smokescreen (oh that's good) to deny our impact.

Cutting down forests is so wrong at so many levels it would deserve a blog site all it's own.

I agree that deforestation has consequences. But then again, so does Al Gore making a movie based on scare tactics to gain momentum for an upcoming campaign.

Ash,

To get it entirely back on topic - just where are the proposals for what we do when NYC and LA flood? As I've said, if the tales of warming are true, then it is a certainty that our coastal cities will flood long before we can halt and reverse the affects of warming...so, we need massive investment in dykes, flood control, etc...

Where are the proposals to do this? If warming is real, there should be a lot of such proposals...no politician will want to be on the hook when Boston floods in (what did Kerry say?), 2030...

I'm not sure there is anything we can do beyond the obvious: increase and enforce pollution standards (and of course there is the rub with you free marketers). Not only of factories but with automobiles. We couldn't even protect New Orleans. You think we could protect the Atlantic coastline? If you live anywhere on the coast, I'd suggest you move. Or build an ark.It's kinda like my religion: I believe in covering all my bases.

If all the drilling for oil in the last 100 years hasn't ruined the earth by now I'm fairly confident opening up the Atlantic coast (or ANWR or anywhere else) isn't going to end civilization as we know it. Despite what Al and the rest say.

There are no proposals for flood control because this isn't about the environment. Sorry to be so cynical, but for politicians in the US it's only about getting elected. For politicians around the world it's about sticking it to the US.

Ash,

What you would do isn't the point - I want to see Al Gore's detailed plan for dealing with the flooding...if its coming in the manner in which he asserts it is, then we simply cannot reverse the process fast enough to prevent our coastal cities from flooding...Gore, and the rest of the warming alarmists, either have detailed plans to deal with this, or they are just putting up a con job...