Just to be clear on Al Gore, global warming, and Kyoto:

1. I've heard a lot of people refer to Gore as smart, and use his work on global warming as proof. Let me say this simply: Gore's "work on global warming" has involved spreading the message, selling tickets to a movie, and talking to Congress. I don't want to downplay that in any way, but quite simply, Gore is not doing any of the research his speeches are based on. Gore deserves credit for being a communicator, but he doesn't deserve any credit for the science or research he bases his speeches on.


2. Last year we were told that global warming may cause more hurricanes, this year we're told that it may actually cause fewer hurricanes. It's getting hard to keep things straight. But the answer is always the same: drive a smaller car (or go by bus), eat organic food (I have no idea how this helps global warming, but it's a solution to just about any problem), and use windmills or solar power instead of coal (or hydroelectric plants, because the dams destroy pretty valleys; and don't think about nuclear power, even though it doesn't release any carbon dioxide).
   
   People seem to have missed this. The IPCC (the UN's committee of scientists looking at global warming) believes the most likely scenario is that ocean levels will rise between 50 and 80 cm in 100 years due to global warming. That's just over two feet. That's it. The apocalyptic stories are about unlikely worst-case scenarios. Why? Because if the worst case scenarios do pan out, even if they are unlikely, we will need to be prepared. And when is a better time to prepare? And who's going to do the preparation? And where are we going to get the money to prepare? (the UN's answers to those questions: prepare now, let the UN do the preparation, and use US tax money to fund it; my answers are slightly different).


3. Over one hundred countries have signed onto Kyoto, but over one hundred of them don't have to actually do anything. China and India are two of the countries that don't have to do anything, even though all estimates show them as the biggest producers of carbon dioxide for the next 100 years. So, flat out, if Kyoto does exactly what it's designed to do, it won't do anything useful. It's a bad treaty, because it complains about a problem but doesn't actually do anything to fix the problem even if everything goes according to plan.