Last night Fox had to say something nice about Al Gore. Why? Because the Emmys were on Fox and he won for his work to merge internet and TV called Current TV. Gore was also nominated for and won the Spanish Nobel Prize, sometimes viewed as the precursor to the Nobel Prize. Another busy week for someone who is not campaigning for President.

Oh yes. He has stated many times (in response to thousands of questions) that he has no current intention to run. He has also said the candidates are not emphasizing the importance of a real campaign to adapt/adjust/slow down the effects of global warming, and he may have to 'reconsider'. Al Gore has certainly done more than anyone else to throw a spotlight on the scientific facts. It's important to stick to the science and the facts when passing judgment and setting policy. Yes, there's some heavy lifting required in that link but that's why it's important to follow the science. Will Al Gore run? I don't know but using his own reasoning, he should. The President of the United States can make a huge difference in addressing the future. That's what's at stake.

What else happened at the Emmy's. Nothing except censorship. Apparently Sally Field said something like (paraphrase)

"If mothers ran the world, there'd be no damn wars!"

It underscores a real and present danger. Media in this country routinely censors itself in any number of ways. Withholding stories (including the supposed liberal NY Times and WaPo) misquoting sources, using anonymous sources to support administration positions and more. It's why more and more people turn to blogs to find information.

The Kennedy clan has always been a fascinating study to conservatives; we just can't figure how they continue to get elected. Senator Larry Craig is battling for his political life for copping to a misdemeanor charge that is specious at best. Ted Kennedy allowed a woman who was not his wife drown in his mothers vehicle while he slept it off and didn't contact the police. In fact, the first person he contacted was his lawyer and yet he remains in office nearly four decades later.

It's amazing that through the Mary-Jo Kopechne issue, expulsion from Harvard for cheating, sex scandals and various other unsavory issues, the one issue that has turned liberals against Kennedy is an environmental one:

The source of unhappiness is Kennedy's efforts to kill an offshore wind farm on Nantucket Sound. Cape Wind was to be the first such project in the United States and a source of pride to environmentally minded New Englanders. Polls show 84 percent of Massachusetts residents in favor. But now it appears that America's first offshore wind farm will be near Galveston, Texas.

Proposed the month before Sept. 11, 2001, Cape Wind remains in limbo. It's been frustrated at every turn by a handful of yachtsmen, Kennedy included, who don't want to see windmills from their verandas. Many millions have been spent spreading disinformation and smearing the wind farm's supporters.

It says something about liberals that you can be responsible for a death and not be forced to resign but go against the environmentalists and you're despised immediately. Heaven help him if he ever votes against an abortion clinic being built in Hyannisport.

The global warming industry community has used a report data compiled by the ISI Web of Science database beginning in 1993 to push that a "consensus" of scientists agreed with the theory that global warming is caused by man. Many on the left used this as indisputable evidence that if scientists agreed, it must be fact.

That said, they should have no problems believing this data as well being as it the results were arrived at using the exact same procedures:

Medical researcher Dr. Klaus-Martin Schulte recently updated this research. Using the same database and search terms as Oreskes, he examined all papers published from 2004 to February 2007. The results have been submitted to the journal Energy and Environment, of which DailyTech has obtained a pre-publication copy. The figures are surprising.

Of 528 total papers on climate change, only 38 (7%) gave an explicit endorsement of the consensus. If one considers "implicit" endorsement (accepting the consensus without explicit statement), the figure rises to 45%. However, while only 32 papers (6%) reject the consensus outright, the largest category (48%) are neutral papers, refusing to either accept or reject the hypothesis. This is no "consensus."

Read the entire piece, it is eye opening to say the least.

Given that myriad liberal sites used the data compiled by Naomi Oreskes in the original report to push their cause, shouldn't this data now be shown that their is no consensus? It should of course, but will not because it would prove them wrong and no one can change the collective minds of the Cult of Gaia. This is their religion and to question it, even with facts, will never change their minds.

When Howard Dean was named the leader of the DNC, I wrote he was a blogger's dream and would give me material for months. I was right. But old Howard has been surpassed by the man who single-handedly gives more material than anyone could have ever dreamed. John Edwards is the blogger gift that never stops giving.

Our latest installment in the Edwards hypocrisy watch is about John's wish for Americans to give up SUV's for the good of the planet:

Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards told a labor group that he would ask Americans to make a big sacrifice: their sport utility vehicles.

The former North Carolina senator was asked specifically if he would tell them to give up their SUVs, he said, "Yes."

OK John, why don't you be the first. Judging from the picture of your mansion, SUVs are something you seem to like.

To all you environmental do-gooders; please don't preach to me about my "carbon footprint" or my driving an SUV. Also, don't tell me that Edwards buys "carbon credits" or some derivative because it really makes you sound incredibly silly and the entire country knows that they are a scam.

Still, should pigs fly and Edwards find himself in the Oval Office, he will probably push for institution of the Kyoto Protocols and judging by the effect it's had on other countries, that wouldn't be so funny.

Last week, I caught a re-run of Oprah featuring former Vice President Al Gore. The man behind "An Inconvenient Truth" discussed the documentary, and global warming in general.

"Never in our past have we had anything like this," Gore said. "This is new. There are some large polluters who have tried to confuse the issue."

Oprah showed scenes from the movie, noting that it was the third highest-grossing documentary of all time, and let Gore explain the issue of global warming.

"The atmosphere around the earth is very thin," Gore said. "Very, very thin. Just a few miles up to the top of the sky ... We are putting global warming pollution, CO2 mainly, into the earth's atmosphere. It makes the atmosphere thicken."

Despite the disturbing predictions and images – melting ice at the North and South Poles, potentially-flooded urban areas – Gore included encouragement in his message.

"I think fear is paralyzing," he said. "You have to fight through that ... We have to face down the fear and see it as a huge opportunity today."

Would Gore 2008 supporters say the same thing to the former (and, perhaps, future) presidential candidate?

It's been amusing to me to see global warming theory supporters take as gospel anything that supports their argument without questioning the veracity of the data. In other words, they are doing what atheists and non-Creationist's say about religion. Evangelicals, the bane of liberals everywhere, are constantly berated for their non-bending belief creation is true and eschew any scientific data to the contrary. The global warming supporters are doing the exact same thing and by doing so are destroying what science is -- proving negatives instead of proving positives.

In that mindset, check this out:

One of the most cited and used historical surface temperature databases is that of NASA/Goddard's GISS. This is not some weird skeptics site. It is considered one of the premier world temperature data bases, and it is maintained by anthropogenic global warming true believers. It has consistently shown more warming than any other data base, and is thus a favorite source for folks like Al Gore. These GISS readings in the US rely mainly on the US Historical Climate Network (USHCN) which is a network of about 1000 weather stations taking temperatures, a number of which have been in place for over 100 years.

...Anyway, McIntyre suspected that one of these adjustments had a bug, and had had this bug for years. Unfortunately, it was hard to prove. Why? Well, that highlights one of the great travesties of climate science. Government scientists using taxpayer money to develop the GISS temperature data base at taxpayer expense refuse to publicly release their temperature adjustment algorithms or software (In much the same way Michael Mann refused to release the details for scrutiny of his methodology behind the hockey stick). Using the data, though, McIntyre made a compelling case that the GISS data base had systematic discontinuities that bore all the hallmarks of a software bug.

To sum up, the data that was used to back up many global warming arguments was faulty and the data they used is false. The new data shows that three of the top ten hottest years were indeed in the last decade, but most were in the 1930's.

In a rare Saturday session, the House passed an energy bill that will cost the American consumer billions.

The main thrust of the bill was to repeal tax breaks put in place to help the oil companies compete in an increasingly difficult world market. To think that the oil companies will not pass those costs on to the consumer is absurd. At the same time, increased restrictions on exploiting domestic oil and gas resources are to be put in place further hamstringing our production capabilities and increasing our reliance on foreign oil sources.

Another portion of the bill that will cause increased prices is the requirement that 15% of electricity that is produced must be from renewable sources. I think we should begin by renewing the plans for windmills near Hyannis Port, MA, you know, those ones that Teddy Kennedy and his nephew Robert, Jr. shot down for purely aesthetic reasons, but I digress.

This bill represents a major shift in policy as noted by Rep. Ed Markey (D-MA),"This is a historic turn away from a fossil fuel agenda toward renewable energy. It's been a long time in coming," The reason it's been so long in coming Congressman, is that we as a nation are ill-prepared to make the shift and the costs associated with doing so will be enormous. We haven't built a new refinery in this country in 25-years and the technology available to build new nuclear plants is efficient and safe. Why weren't these issues addressed?

The consensus is that the President will veto the bill when he receives it, but Bush will have to be a tough negotiator to make all the bad policies in this bill go away.

So the other day I was in the kitchen when I heard Al Gore's voice on our living-room TV. Curious, I went in to watch. Turns out it was a rerun of a 2006 "12 Days of Giveaways" episode of the Ellen DeGeneres show. Her guests: Kellie Pickler and a certain former vice president.

Were there any revealing signs from that interview that can be applied today? Gore sounded very definite about not running. "I don't think I'll ever do that again," he told Ellen. "I've kind of fallen out of love with politics."

As for Bill and Hillary Clinton, the power duo of the Democratic Party, Al Gore praised his former boss and didn't really address the then-prospect of a Hillary candidacy. "Do you think Hillary will run?" Ellen asked. "Uh, I don't know," Gore said. "I don't know." Ellen quickly made the mood more lighthearted, asking, "What about Tipper? I love her. I played Ping-Pong somewhere with your wife" and the Gores' daughter, Kristin.

Was there any bit of hope for anyone who wants Gore to run in 2008? The brains behind An Inconvenient Truth (the film would later receive an Oscar, at an awards show presided over by Ellen) said his goal is "to try to change people's minds about the climate crisis. Whoever is our next president, we need to make a shift or we're in trouble." So, if Gore finds the current crop of candidates to lack sufficient concern for the environment, perhaps he'll run?

Homer Simpson is perhaps the nation's most visible nuclear plant employee. Will his real-life counterparts find more employment opportunities in this country?

If Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton gets elected, maybe. If John Edwards wins, forget it.

In last Monday's Democratic debate, a questioner said, "I have not heard any of you speak your opinion on nuclear power. I believe that nuclear power is safer, cleaner, and provides a quicker avenue to energy independence than other alternatives."

Edwards opposed it. "We haven't built a nuclear power plant in decades in this country," he said. "The reason is it is extremely costly. It takes an enormous amount of time to get one planned, developed and built. And we still don't have a safe way to dispose of the nuclear waste. It is a huge problem for America over the long term."

Obama said, "I actually think that we should explore nuclear power as part of the energy mix," but didn't elaborate.

I've served in the U.S. Navy, started my own company that keeps a nice income coming to my employees and pays my taxes. I volunteer as a coach for youth baseball and vote in every election. I'm a simple person living the American dream of raising my kids in a nice house and a town with great schools.

In other words, I'm the typical American, proud of our country, our ideals and our military. But alas, according to a member of the dysfunctional family that claims American royalty, I'm a traitor:

...it was nonmusicians at this concert who made the most passionate pleas about demanding action for the environment. "Get rid of all these rotten politicians that we have in Washington, who are nothing more than corporate toadies," said Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the environmentalist author, president of Waterkeeper Alliance and Robert F. Kennedy's son, who grew hoarse from shouting. "This is treason. And we need to start treating them as traitors."

Hmm, what is the penalty for treason? In some cases, it's death. Is that what Kennedy is saying, that those who don't believe him and actually have read the facts and formed their own opinions are as bad as the Rosenbergs, John Lindh and Aldrich Ames? Does Kennedy actually believe that questioning the conventional wisdom is akin to selling state secrets to our enemies or taking up arms against ones nation? Sadly (especially in the case of selling secrets to the commies), I believe he does.

Our country was formed on the U.S. Constitution, not the Kyoto Protocols. The left is always big on saying "dissent is patriotic", except in this case my friends, except in this case. How dare Kennedy, Jr. call me a traitor based on his stunted understanding of junk science. How dare he question me when, given the chance to help the environment, he sided with uncle Teddy and shot down a good idea because it would have personally inconvenienced him to a small degree. No hypocrisy there because he's a Kennedy.

People are skeptical of the entire global warming issue. They made it clear yesterday with three quarters tuning out:

The Live Earth concert promoted by former Vice President Al Gore received plenty of media coverage and hype, but most Americans tuned out. Just 22% said they followed news stories about the concert Somewhat or Very Closely. Seventy-five percent (75%) did not follow coverage of the event.

Considering that 80% were following the immigration debate, that's pretty sorry numbers for Al Gore's dream.

Let's put this global warming issue into perspective, shall we? The planet is getting hotter as many scientists have pointed out, but it has been warming and cooling for millenia. This latest warming trend is a natural occurrence that is not even a blip in the history of our planet. Greenland was once a rain forest for crying out loud. Of course, the scientists who figured that out will soon be seen as outcasts.

Al Gore's dream is about to be realized; tens of today's star musicians, as well as some has-beens and a few unknowns, will play a series of rock concerts to end global warming. He must be proud.

The stars will align and use megawatts of fossil-fuel generated electricity to show us rabble that we must do more to save the environment. I, for one, will listen to Al Gore and not turn on my TV during th entire show. I may miss acts like the Chili Peppers, who I like a lot, but I want to conserve some electricity.

I will also miss Yusuf (formerly Yusuf Islam, formerly Cat Stevens) and that would be a shame. The man is a full-on inspiration with his peaceful lyrics:

"The Jews seem neither to respect God nor his creation. Their own holy books contain the curse of God brought upon them by their prophets on account of their disobedience to Him and mischief in the earth. We have seen the disrespect for religion displayed by those who consider themselves to be 'God's chosen people.'...There will be no justice until all the land is given back to its rightful owners... Only Islam can bring peace back to the Holy Land."

Oops, that wasn't from his lyrics, that was his thoughts on Israel. Old Cat has become a pretty virulent critic of anything he considers un-Islamic.

Our old buddy Al Gore is writing again about the environment and the evil deeds us earthlings are perpetrating upon her:

Without realizing the consequences of our actions, we have begun to put so much carbon dioxide into the thin shell of air surrounding our world that we have literally changed the heat balance between Earth and the Sun. If we don't stop doing this pretty quickly, the average temperature will increase to levels humans have never known and put an end to the favorable climate balance on which our civilization depends.

Listen, I'm no Peggy Noonan or even a hack like Maureen Dowd, but does anyone consider that drivel good writing? Well, it is the NY Times and they are shills for libs like Gore so why even question it?

Anyway, let's continue with these words of wisdom from crazy Al:

In the last 150 years, in an accelerating frenzy, we have been removing increasing quantities of carbon from the ground - mainly in the form of coal and oil - and burning it in ways that dump 70 million tons of CO2 every 24 hours into the Earth's atmosphere.

The concentrations of CO2 - having never risen above 300 parts per million for at least a million years - have been driven from 280 parts per million at the beginning of the coal boom to 383 parts per million this year.

So how does Al expect to help our ailing planet? By hosting a seven continent concert that will involve hundreds of thousands of people to drive to attend and will burn up huge amounts of fossil fuels generating the electricity required to fire up the amps, power the concessions and provide air conditiong for Gaia's spokesboy, "no controlling legal authority" Gore. And what of the need to fly the performers, camera crews and assorted support personnel to all the continents? Will they go in a canoe or will they fly in atmosphere polluting private jets?

I'm sure that Clinton's former lapdog Veep will end global warming within two weeks of the concerts, hell, he usually just shows up and the temperature drops 15 degrees. But I digress.

We all remember how Bob Geldof's Live Aid ended starving in Africa the Concert for Bangladesh ended poverty in that Asian nation. I feel that the Gorapalooza will do the exact same for global warming. I'm positive that China will here the music of the Police and shut down their highly-polluting electrical plants and go right back to the ox and cart because the "Goracle" said so. Maybe if it were a few Buddhist monks, old Al could take them for a few shekels.

This is primarily a blog about the next election but it's also about the "great issues of the day." The Iraq war is going to drive this election. But after the election, and after the war, other issues will remain.

One big one is the environment. Once a week, I'll try exploring the whole notion of "what do we do now?" Today's topic? Two ugly words. Words that have followed and haunted at least me, if not you. Those words? Personal responsibility. The actions we take in our daily lives that help or hinder the planet, the ecology and our own lives. I'm not sure why it is but it often seems the easiest things to do, just don't get done. How hard is it to recycle stuff anyway? What does it really take in terms of time and effort? There's the throwing of the can, bottle, papers, etc. in some kind of bin and taking those bins somewhere, maybe once a month (or to the end of the driveway once a week). Or changing incandescent light bulbs to compact fluorescents. Once one makes the change, there are hardly ever any annoying burnt out bulbs 'cause the compacts hardly ever burn out.

The average American drives 250 miles a week. Can we find a way to make that 200 miles? Replacing just four incandescents with compacts can save thousands of pounds of carbon dioxide. Turning the thermostat down (or up depending on the season) just 3 degrees can save over 1,000 lbs of carbon dioxide annually. For every 1,000 of us who install faucet aerators and high-efficiency showerheads, we can save nearly 8 million gallons of water and prevent over 450,000 pounds of carbon dioxide emissions each year.

More on the flip

Mother's Day is coming up, and undoubtedly a lot of folks will be purchasing last-minute cards and gifts. But is there one mother – Mother Earth – that we've overlooked? Bob and Susannah – and two surprise guests – debate in the latest episode of "Running Gags"!

More Political Cartoons on 'The Stump':

· Tancredo, Chavez: Great Minds Think Alike
· Will Farm Bill Increase Illegal Immigration?
· Virginia Tech and Iraq: A Violent Week
· Opportunism From Obama on Imus?
· McCain's Mideast Mistakes