Count me among those citizens who yearn for the leadership of a man such as Al Gore. However, as much as this nation desperately needs the next occupant of the White House to be everything that the current occupant is not—i.e., thoughtful, curious, wise, honest, compassionate in deed more than word, respectful of human rights and liberties, more thoroughly principled than political, et al.—we are unlikely to have this need fulfilled. Al Gore, the anti-Bush and newly-crowned Nobel laureate, is unlikely to forsake the freedom that comes to those who steer clear of the mud pit of national politics. Why would anyone, certainly anyone of substance and integrity, want to slog into those filthy depths? Until the citizens of this nation demand that the politicians and their abettors in the media wade out of the muck and clean up their collective act, we will continue to have leaders who lack true Leadership. How sad for us all.
I am not alone in feeling this way. In today’s New York Times, Bob Herbert offers a similar lament:
Yesterday began with the gratifying news that Al Gore, derided by George H.W. Bush as the “Ozone Man,� had won the Nobel Peace Prize.
The first thing media types wanted to know was whether this would prompt Mr. Gore to elbow his way into the presidential campaign. That’s like asking someone who’s recovered from a heart attack if he plans to resume smoking.
Mr. Gore, who won an Academy Award for his documentary on global warming, “An Inconvenient Truth,� and an Emmy for his cable TV network, Current, knows better than anyone else how toxic and downright idiotic presidential politics has become.
He may be one of the most intelligent, thoughtful, talented men in America and remarkably well-equipped to lead the nation, but it’s Mr. Bush’s less-than-curious, less-than-distinguished son, George W., who is president.
There are all kinds of ironies wrapped up in the title of Mr. Gore’s latest book, “The Assault on Reason.�
When I heard that Mr. Gore had won the Nobel, my thoughts wandered to the younger Mr. Bush and to Rudolph Giuliani, who is leading the current field of Republican presidential candidates.
Mr. Bush came to mind because, for all of the obvious vulnerabilities he exhibited in 2000, it was not him but Mr. Gore who was mocked unmercifully by the national media. And the mockery had nothing to do with the former vice president’s positions on important policy issues. He was mocked because of his personality.
In the race for the highest office in the land, we showed the collective maturity of 3-year-olds.
Mr. Gore was taken to task for his taste in clothing and for such grievous offenses as sighing or, allegedly, rolling his eyes. It was a given that at a barbecue everyone would rush to be with his opponent.
We’ve paid a heavy price. The president who got such high marks as a barbecue companion doesn’t seem to know up from down. He’s hurled the nation into a ruinous war that has cost countless lives and spawned a whole new generation of terrorists. He continues to sit idly by as a historic American city, New Orleans, remains wounded and on its knees. He’s blithely steered the nation into a bottomless pit of debt.
I could go on. [full text]
Kmareka.com 
DonaldW:
99% of scientists (the ones not bought and paid for by the Republican party) and the Nobel Academy agree that global warming is a reality. I wouldn’t call that “miserable science.”
And I don’t agree that there’s any debate, either; it’s all just delaying tactics meant to keep real environmental reform from happening. What Republicans mean by “debate” is actually deception and character assassination posed as legitimate counterargument.
The global warming “debate” is another smoke screen by the same science haters who argued that cigarette smoking did not cause cancer, that intelligent design should be taught in science class (and not as a philosophy), that stem cell research should not be supported with federal funds etc.
This is an old tired worn game plan that many folks are able to see through by now, brought to us by the same players who tormented a brain dead woman’s husband with a congressional session and further molested her dignity and who attack a child and his family because they support funding SCHIP.
There is fuzzy logic, silly logic and no logic. Unfortunately 99% of scientists do not buy into the current line, no more than the British courts found Mr. Gore’s ghost written book to contain enough items of fact, as determined by British scientists, to label the book as a political document, not a document with “science.” There is a split between scientists who look at the post-glacial world (the last 10,000 years) and those that look at the rest of time, all 4.6 billion years of Earth history. 8-10,000 years ago, the seas in this world were 300 feet lower than now. All of a sudden, in geological terms, the ice on the continents (more than a kilometer of ice over Manhattan)melted. Sea level rose more than 300 feet to modern sea level. Now that is climate change. The level of greenhouse gasses in the modern atmosphere is miniscule and was, before people and coal plant, and cars, 12 times the present levels. Oh my! That is climate change.
The difficulty is that there is confusion between “weather” and “climate” and there is confusion between “now” history” and the history of the world. For most of the 4.6 billion years of Earth history, climates were warmer that now, there was little or no ice, and sea levels were higher than now. The last 65 million years has seen a general cooling of the planet. The last 5 million years or so has seen a general cooling and the last 2 million major cooling with massive amounts of ice accumulating on the planet. These episodes were interspersed with interglacial periods that were warm. We are now in an interglacial episode that began about 10,000 years ago. It is not unusual and is actually not as warm as some other interglacial episodes. Interglacials are always followed by glacial periods and that is likely to occur again.
None os this is new science–glacial ages have been known for some 150 years of geological inquiry. Anyone interested can go down to their local library and look at a book or two dealing with the history of Earth or its fossils or its ancient environments. Of some interest, and more important than the tiny amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is tracking O2–oxygen. There is evidence that oxygen levels vary widely and may actually be declining. I would be more concerned with oxygen loss than CO2 increase. But for heaven sakes folks, approach these issues with some discretion and not be led herd-like by those with agendas that extend beyond the data, or politicians with a political agenda.