Do you like filet of Gore?   If so, you're in for a treat.   Al Gore's brand of environmentalism will be on trial tomorrow as he is invited to appear before the House Energy and Commerce Committee and the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee.   Of course, the prosecution will have no interest in conviction.   But some of the resident attorneys will at least ask a few tough questions.   Nowhere will you hear the questions I would like answered.   That won't stop me from at least posing them here.   So,without any further commentary, here goes:

Mr. Gore,

• You have said the average person can help out with this problem by replacing standard bulbs with a new kind which, while more expensive, is far more energy efficient.   Why are these bulbs more expensive?   Is the cause the materials or energy required to manufacture them?   How much more energy?   What sorts of materials are involved?   What sort of environmental impact might those materials have when they are thrown away?   How will we, for example, sequester the trace amount of mercury contained in billions of these light bulbs?   What happens if we fail to sequester just ten percent of it?
  
  
• You have suggested that we all change at least some part of our lives in order to combat this impending disaster.   In what ways have you changed your life to set an example for the rest of us?   We know about your personal real estate holdings and we have heard the excuses for them such as your "residence" actually serves as a place of business.   But after you subtract out the amount of office space you claim on your tax returns, just how much space is left over as living space for individuals who occupy the places as residences?   Do you feel that this amount of space per individual is appropriate if it were extrapolated to everyone on the Earth?   What is the right amount of living space for each individual human being upon the Earth?
  
  
• Some have complained that your personal energy use is well above the average.   We know you are currently installing solar power at at least one of your several residences.   We also know you claim to be "offsetting your carbon footprint" by paying money into funds which invest in technology and alternative fuels.   Could you please explain why it is that you have waited until now to convert to solar at your primary personal residence when you have been talking about this impending disaster for decades?   Does this have anything to do with the recent heavy criticism your energy usage has received?   How exactly do these "carbon offsets" you claim neutralize your "footprint" account for the removal of the huge amount of fosil fuel usage which occurs when, for example, you fly all over the globe?   Does any of this money directly benefit you personally or any of your closest associates by way of, for example, salaries which are above the world average wage rate?   How much does your fund payout in terms of compensation to its top ten earners?   How large of a salary have you made since the fund's creation?   Understand, we are not asking how much you have made since this came to light but rather for the years beforehand.
  
  
• Mr. Gore, you claim that much of what you speak about is scientifically sound.   Still, many scientists (those apparently unknown to the Associated Press) complain that much of the "science" cited in your documentary has been debunked.   Specifically, the "hockey stick graph" has come under more than its fair share of criticism.   In fact, the thing had been completely debunked before your film ever saw the light of day.   Why didn't you leave that as well as other debunked science on the cutting room floor?   If your position is completely supported by scientific research, why did you feel the need to use anecdotal representations rather than showing the hard science complete with a list of sources?   Why, for example, would you feel the need to show polar bears when so many species would be at risk under your worst case scenarios.   What is it about the polar bear, one of the few predators which hunt human beings whenever opportunity presents, which makes it an icon of global warming?   Is it because polar bears are one of the more popular exhibits at zoos?   Is it because human beings seem to have an affinity for anything fluffy, furry and white?   Why should we care more about the polar bear than say a species of bacteria, insect, or reptile when these species should be equally at risk?   Why didn't you choose frogs or lizards rather than polar bears?
  
  
• Obviously the notion of a danger associated with any "climate change" implies that somehow the Earth is currently at the perfect temperature for all who inhabit it.   That applies equally for species found only in polar regions and those elsewhere upon the planet.   How did you come to the notion that the earth has magically achieved the precise optimum average temperature for all species of plant and animal wherever located?
  
  
• Finally, if you could completely makeover your documentary, would you change anything about it?   What and why?
  
  

Those are just a few of the questions I would like the honorable Al to answer before I jump on his bandwagon, join the Church of the Condescending Environmentalist.

Labels: Al Gore, global warming