Are you suggesting that not only did Al Gore lose the presidential election where the popular vote indicated otherwise, thanks to the Supreme Court, hanging chads, the State of Florida; and he won a Nobel Peace Prize for something that doesn't exist or that we don't believe exists? I wonder if he plays the lottery?
Actually, some recent statistics have shown that the global climate has been relatively stable over the last ten years, this year actually relecting some cooling trends. That is why we hear less about global warming, the new accepted and politically correct term being "climate change". I remember being scared to death in the '70s about global cooling and the impending ice age, the that we would never survive the '80s due to running out of oil and the population explosion (I actually attended one of Dr. Paul Erlich's classes on "Population, Resources and Environment"- scared the hell out of me back then). These are real problems that we still have to contend with on a global basis, but they were grossly overstated, based on flawed data and proved to be founded more on politically than scientifically driven agendas. The scare mongers have wised up some, in that they now project our man-made doom out farther than they used to. In the good old days, we were going to destroy ourselves in 5-10 years, easy now to look back on and see how flawed the analysis and assumptions were. Today, the pundits of doom give themselves 50-100 years in their predictions, which gives them a lot more "wiggle room" to change their predicitons and conclusions, depending on which way the climate goes. We can't predict the weather accurately a week out, and these guys know what the climate is going to do in a century! The earth's climate has never been static- it's been warmer, it's been colder, CO2 has been higher and lower, who is to say what change is benficial or harmful? Would another ice age be preferable to warmer temperatures? I just don't like one sided debates on any issue, and it seems we are only supposed to hear one point of view on the climate, and shut out any opposing debate.
And yeah, I guess we should retroactively scrap the Electoral College- then Nixon might have won in '60, Chicago shenanagans notwithstanding- what a joy that would have been! I think the founding fathers knew what they were doing, and as far as Bush being "given" the election by the Supreme Court, no matter how many times the hand picked, Democrat controlled counties were recounted, the result was always the same. It had to stop somewhere, otherwise we could still be recounting results from every county and precinct in the country, ad nauseum. I think the fact that Gore kept the results in limbo for so long and the countries leadership undecided was a poor reflection on his character. I also think the media should bear a lot of blame for the premature announcement of Gore's victory in Florida, and the bitterness and divisiveness that has existed in our country ever since. 2000 is way behind us, so let's get on with it, and vote our concious this year and try to come together as a nation and solve our very real problems, energy and Middle East policies being key.
As far as Gore winning the Nobel prize, a look at the Nobel committee and recipients of the awards in recent years causes one to wonder about their objectivity- they seem to be more political, especially with the Peace Prize awards. Giving the award to Carter and Arafat comes to mind- what great statesmen and peacemakers they represent! A close examination of Gore's grand personal lifestyle, the stake he has in selling "carbon credits" to us little people, which stands to reap him billions of dollars personally makes me doubt his high moral footing in all this. I think we should do everything we can to develop energy independence, but we seem to be our own worst enemy here most of the time. Oh, well, enough ranting from me- I guess none of this will matter if the earth is going to end in 2012 as the Mayans predicted, anyway!