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.

This is funny. First, Kyoto isn't about smog, haze, or pollution per se, it's about carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide is a colorless gas. Why photoshop an image to add a brown haze to a picture if the story is about a treaty that regulates a colorless gas? Does your definition of "colorless" include "creates a brown haze"? (UPDATE Ha ha ha, I should have known this one).

Second, the rest of the story's even better:

1. the same magazine has used the non-doctored picture in other articles


2. the smokestacks have been destroyed


3. the smokestacks weren't being used the few years before they were demolished

My understanding of "journalism" doesn't include manipulation like this.

Just a few, quick, thoughts on the Virginia Tech shootings:

• You will never see a shooting spree like this at, say, West Point, VMI, the Citadel, or anywhere else the students are likely to know hand-to-hand combat and the faculty are likely to carry firearms (UPDATE case in point).


• Current estimates are more than thirty people dead and over twenty injured. Even without an armed presence, something doesn't smell right about those numbers. Assuming the shooter(s) shot each of those injured and dead people with a single bullet, we are talking about over 60 bullets being fired. That's an incredible number, and I believe we'll learn some very interesting details in the next few days.


• The dorm shooting, by itself, would have easily looked like a random act of violence, so I can understand why classes weren't canceled for the day (UPDATE I say this because a university just down the street from the one I attend recently had a shooting in their dorms, and I don't remember classes being canceled because of it). From now on, though, universities will be very likely to cancel classes over any kind of fight, regardless of what kind of weapons are used.

I really love Massbackwards.

UPDATE I forgot to mention Triticale's earlier post on the matter.

Wow, I didn't realize it's been almost a month since my last post. There really hasn't been much to write about, though. Aside from the obvious things. Oh, and a big non-event of Pelosi visiting Syria. But aside from that, the two big stories recently -- apparently the biggest stories in the world by the play they are getting -- are what Don Imus said at 6-something-ungodly-in-the-morning and the self-destruction of the Duke rape case.

Taking those in reverse order, I understand the Duke rape case being a state-wide or even regional story. I do not understand why it's a nationwide story. Not even with the race issue involved.

As for Don Imus, I'm not about to suggest that I know the solution to race relations in this country. I have laughed at the number of black callers I've heard on various radio shows sarcastically calling Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton "my representative."

What I find interesting is that the people most vocally offended by Imus's radio show (1) did not listen to the show, and (2) made fun of millions of Americans who found a certain Superbowl halftime show offensive. Remember when a "wardrobe malfunction" was supposedly covered by the First Amendment, even if it happened in front of millions of people? And most recently we've learned that Media Matters actually assigned somebody to listen to Imus in order to be offended so that he could then complain to the FCC.

Years ago I saw the comment that "I may not agree with what you have to say, but I will fight to the death to defend your right to say it." I didn't believe the Left agreed with that comment then, and I don't believe it agrees with that comment now.