The Goracle – also known in Washington these days as “Al Gore: rock star” –
clears his throat and starts singing the lines from a Bob Dylan song quietly
and unselfconsciously: “ ‘I was so much older then, I’m younger than that
now’ . . . it’s a lovely lyric. He’s written so many great ones . . . like
‘He not busy being born is busy dying’.” The former Vice-President of the
United States may be joining the likes of Madonna and the Pussy-cat Dolls on
stage at Wembley’s Live Earth concert tomorrow but his vocalising – as far
as I know – will be restricted to challenging each and every member of the
audience to make a pledge right now to do his or her bit to save the
planet.
The rock-star epithet – awarded by The Washington Post – is partly a
reference to his involvement in the Live Earth concerts: a massive event
spanning seven continents and involving 150 acts, with a global reach of two
billion people. But it’s also an acknowledgment of Al Gore’s new charisma
(not a word that would ever have been applied to him when he was in
mainstream politics), where his name – as a leading, Oscar-winning
environmental campaigner – is now a big draw and standing ovations are the
norm.
Why, he even looks a bit like a rock star, all in black from his sharply
tailored jacket, nipping in his barrel chest, to his cowboy boots: a far cry
from the bland Ivy League uniform of chinos and loafers.
The singing came after one of several concerted attempts on my part to
establish the definitive response to the question that we all want answered:
will Al Gore run for the presidency in 2008? Last week’s poll, conducted in
the key state of New Hampshire, showed that Democrats would prefer Gore to
any of the declared contenders (Hillary Clinton, the forerunner, would be
forced into second place by 6 percentage points) even though he has yet to
enter the race.
If you really want to make the crucial difference to affect climate change,
isn’t it imperative that you run for the presidency? “Hmmm.” Because even if
you don’t care to, and you like your life more now than you did before . . .
“Hmmm.” For every person you reach with these concerts and your slideshow
lectures and film ( An Inconvenient Truth), the one individual who really
has the power to make dramatic changes is the President of the United States
... “Hmmm.” And now is your time! And anyway, didn’t you make a sort of
promise to your father on his deathbed that you would “always do right”?
“Hahahaha.”
This is a hollow, slightly embarrassed, laugh but as the interview progresses
the laughter becomes increasingly genuine, until by the end of our brief
encounter any trace of the old “wooden” Gore has been replaced by an
appealing combination of cool, wry humour and bursts of passion.
Much has been made of the Goracle’s increased heft – and not just politically
– in these so-called “wilderness years”, but while he may be fleshier (much
continues to be made of the loss of his movie-star jawline), he also
radiates the sense of being comfortable in his skin, and that is undeniably
attractive.
“It’s a fair point that no position in the world has as much potential for
bringing about change as that of President of the US. But I ran for
president twice, and [‘eee-arnd’, he says with a southern twang] I have now
launched a different kind of campaign” – his delivery slow and measured –
“aimed at raising awareness and giving knowledge of the solutions to the
climate crisis all round the world. While it’s true that I haven’t ruled out
the possibility of running at some point in the future, the reason I don’t
expect to is that I’ve fallen out of love with politics.”
What an arresting phrase, spoken with all the disenchantment of a disappointed
lover – “fallen out of love with politics”, from a man who was groomed from
birth by his Democrat senator father, Al Sr, for the highest office in the
land. He knows that there is still anger, and not just among the Democrats,
that he didn’t somehow fight harder to prevent the final outcome of that
messy election in 2000 which resulted in the Bush Administration, the
non-signing of the Kyoto treaty and the war in Iraq.
“I’ve seen the limitations of politics when public opinion will not support
the kind of dramatic change that’s really necessary,” Gore continues. “I’ve
seen that at first hand. And focusing on changing public opinion at the
grassroots level feels like the right thing for me to be doing.”
For someone who is pushing 60 you’re talking very much like a young person, if
I may say so. We are always hearing that the young are disaffected with the
main political parties but are much more likely to respond to single issues
– do you agree?
After his mini-warble, Gore says: “I feel,” (it is striking how often he uses
“feel” rather than “think”) that this climate crisis is far and away the
most serious challenge we’ve ever faced, and it’s a challenge first and
foremost to the moral imagination. We have never in the past confronted
anything like this; never had this radically new relationship to the planet.
“We’ve quadrupled population in less than 100 years. We’re using routinely
technologies that are a thousandfold more powerful than those our
grandparents had available to them, and we’re now the bull in the china
shop. And becoming conscious of what we’re doing worldwide about how to stop
putting all this global-warming pollution into the air is really the most
urgent challenge we have to face.”
I watched An Inconvenient Truth with my family the evening before meeting
Gore, and was struck by what an impact it made on us all, regardless of our
generation. It’s a film that forces viewers, whatever their experiences, to
join the dots together.
As Gore says, while we watch diagrams of the edges of continent after
continent submerged in water – the sure result of all this catastrophic
melting – it is hard not to shift straight from denial to despair. But
optimism is crucial, and not misplaced: “We have everything we need [to
tackle this] save political will,” he says, “and in America political will
is a renewable energy.”
Gore was a lone voice in American politics to speak out against the Iraq
invasion, which he opposed from the outset (Hillary Clinton voted for the
war in the Senate, although she now says that she was misled by the Bush
Administration). “There’s no longer any dispute about the fact that the Iraq
war was a horrible mistake,” he says.
Unlike, famously, Bush or Clinton, Gore has first-hand knowledge of the
horrors of war because he volunteered for Vietnam out of a sense of duty,
despite his public opposition to it. He didn’t serve his full two years but
saw and recorded enough as a military reporter to feel the need to enrol in
divinity school for a year on his return: “It was a way of – ahhh –
searching in an organised way for answers to some of the questions that I
confronted when I faced what seemed to a young man to be a moral dilemma
about going to Vietnam. But in any case,” he clears his throat again, “I’ve
always been a person of faith.”
He calls himself a Christian but he also meditates in times of stress: “I
don’t often talk about this,” he says hesitantly, “but I believe in a very
personal definition of what I think the Creator of the Universe is – that
God is a moving force in the world – but I don’t think everything is
predetermined in any way, and I think that what we do matters and the
choices we make matter, and I think it’s up to us to try our best to make
better choices.”
He sees no signs of Bush making better choices, but surely we can’t afford to
dismiss the possibility that he might. “Well, it’s true and I have to admit
to you – however – that I have recently begun to fear that I am – ah –
losing my objectivity where Bush is concerned.” This is said with an
hilarious deadpan expression. “Yaiiirs, and Cheney, too, I must say.” But on
the positive side: “Congress has already acted. I have gone to Capitol Hill
and testified before the House and the Senate, and they are now moving. So
we can have some new laws even before Bush leaves office.”
Can I draw an analogy between you and Gordon Brown? “Of course,” Gore says in
his amiable way: he might just be the politest person I’ve ever interviewed.
“You mean, Number Twos who become Number One?” he asks mock-archly. Oh, are
you hinting . . . “Well, he made it and I didn’t.” There’s still time.
“Hahahahaha, yes, I’m a young man – 59 is the new 49!”
The point I want to make is that with both Brown and Gore (when he was in
office) there is an unhelpful schism between their private (witty, charming,
relaxed) and public (dour: Brown; wooden: Gore) selves. Does Gore agree? “I
used to be described that way but I haven’t been in a long time,” he says.
“I think that people see [Brown] very differently now that he is Prime
Minister.” Even so soon? “Yes, I do. I think you’ve seen an almost instant
change in the way that people perceive him. Perhaps it’s influenced by his
excellent handling of this terror threat, but there is some evidence that he
is experiencing a surge in the polls. Part of that comes from people seeing
him as Prime Minister and not as Number Two. I think that does colour
people’s perceptions.”
Do you think it’s true that you seem far more engaged and passionate as
an environmental campaigner than when you were running for President? “The
perceptions of candidates are affected by the lens that we all use when we
look at candidates – and when one is not a candidate there is a different
lens,” he says. “But it’s true as well. Even though I was inspired when I
was holding political office to address the climate crisis [he has
campaigned on this issue for 30 years], there is a kind of luxury in being
able to focus single-mindedly on one issue out of the entire panoply, and
the opportunity to focus on it intensely might not be as possible for
someone holding office.”
Dick Morris, Bill Clinton’s campaign manager, made an arresting comparison
between Gore and Clinton’s respective personalities: “In private Gore is
what Clinton is like in public. And in public he’s like Clinton in private.
When he’s not in front of a microphone, Gore is witty, urbane, informal,
empathetic and often subtle, displaying attributes that Clinton reserves for
the stage.”
It may sound cheeky, but do you think that Clinton is so charismatic that your
lustre was eclipsed by his? “Hmmm, hmmm – well, I never saw it that way. I
thought we were an excellent team. I think he’s uncommonly talented as a
politician, much as Tony Blair was uncommonly talented, and I think that
both Gordon Brown and I have a different set of talents – and someone who is
Number Two and in waiting, if you will, is inevitably seen in a different
way.”
America, soon to be overtaken by China, is the largest source of
global-warming pollution in the world. What will it take to make Americans
wake up and believe that global warming is real before it’s too late?
“Well, Sir Winston Churchill said – I’m sure you know the quote – ‘The
American people generally do the right thing . . . after first exhausting
every available alternative’. And I think we have exhausted the alternatives
and we’re now just about ready to do the right thing on climate.”
Lest we feel smug about “those dumb Americans” – and in answer to Bob Geldof’s
complaint that tomorrow’s event is just another enormous pop concert and
“we’re all f*****g concious of global warming” – it turns out that we’re not
as smart as we think we are. Gore points out: “Did you see this morning’s
major new MORI poll which shows that in the UK, 56 per cent of the people
are notaware that there is a scientific concensus that global warming is
caused by human actitivities?” We know from the smoking ban that the
unthinkable can become the thinkable overnight. But: “The first
establishment of the national consensus on smoking was in 1964,” Gore points
out, “and it’s taken that long to convince enough people, one by one, of the
need for the new laws on smoking. But we don’t have 40 years left to make
enough changes on this issue one by one – so that’s the reason for these
mass events like Live Earth worldwide, to speed up that process.
“There’s an old African proverb that says ‘If you want to go quickly, go
alone. But if you want to go far, go together’. We have to go far – quickly.
And this is just the beginning of a three-year massive campaign.”
Gore doesn’t like to call himself an eco-warrior (“it sounds a bit hubristic
and militaristic, doesn’t it?”) but he is gathering forces – Al’s army – in
his battle to save the planet. He has already trained 1,300 people to give
his slide show, attended by 200 people at an event in Cambridge University
(including, rather surprisingly, Sir Alex Ferguson). Then there’s Australia,
and India at the end of the year, China next, and Africa – “whatever it
takes to persuade enough people to reach that critical mass, that’s what we
have to do. So let’s get on with it, that’s my feeling.”
Our time is almost up. I have one final question. Gore has said that he has
learnt a lot in the past six years. “Having been through some of the
experiences I’ve been through, I can confirm the old cliché that we often
learn the most from [a little, rueful laugh] the most painful experiences.”
Could you be more specific? “It’s hard to be. But letting go of . . . Kris
Kristofferson wrote a line that Janis Joplin sang: ‘Freedom’s just another
word for nothing left to lose . . .’” Yes, I think I see. So do you feel
free now? “Yes,” Al Gore says. “I do.”
It rests its head on your shoulders and whispers in your ear
An inconvenient truth. If you want St Al to speak before your group, this is what you need to do. Cough up $100,000 for speaking. Private jet or 1st class for him and his staff/security. Luxury Hotel-ALL expenses paid. Good news,St Al does not want an SUV, a sedan will do. Do I hear the word ' hypocrite '.?
Desmond Taylor, Houston, Tx USA
It's time that more publicity is given to the misrepresentations of important facts provided in the recent Channel 4 programme whose thesis was that man-made pollution by CO2 was far outweighed by that produced by volcanic activities. The reverse is true.
The producer, a man by the name of Durkin, needs to be put up against the wall and spread out as pickings for the crows. Polemics is one thing, downright lies via the media, is another. Shame on Channel 4 for helping to perpetrate the lies and misrepresentations. I was taken in untiI I took the trouble, thanks to an academic friend, to check out the data relating to anthropogenic CO2 generation as against volcanic activities.
Durkin should be barred from ever having access to media documentaries, not only for the downright mis-representation of key facts, but also because some of the scientists involved in the programme claim to have been quoted out of context.
Edward Willhoft, Epsom,
To PB and DD,
I am a scientist: a geologist in fact. And I'm under 30. I know my science, I went to University. Be careful what we read on the internet, I can't believe you think 'googling' is a good method of research. IT is not fact. 'Can't possibly' is a dubious statement.
Isn't this a matter of credentials? If I argued with an economist about finance, I'd probably know less. Even if I read the Wall Street Journal every day. But with this topic, every man and his dog slogs a punch in defiance.
This science is overwhelmingly political: if one does not believe global warming is caused primarily by anthropogenic activity then they kill fur seals for sport and pick their teeth with old growth forests.
The question is, if the earth keeps getting hotter, you'll blame inaction. If it gets colder, we can thank Al Gore?
Johnny Mondeo, Sydney, NSW
it doesn't take a modicum of common sense to realize that human activity is causing climate change. if 95% of scientists can agree on it, what makes you think you are smarter? if we spew mega tons of pollution into our atmosphere on an hourly basis, it is bound to have an effect. if you don't believe it try staying in your garage with the car running for an hour. if you don't believe it is happening, come to america and listen to our weather reports.
beyond that, what the sam hill do you people have against clean air????
Ann Lewis, brenham, tx
The whole problem starts by reading something positive about world unity concerning global warming and it' s turned negatively by Europeans. Here is an American trying to do good and is insulted for it, specially by German commentators that dispise America. Gore is a great man that is following his passion to the the right thing. Germans keep insulting Americans for their mistake and won't give Americans slack. They must have forgotten their past mistake that has commited the worst crime in our planet's history.Iraq doesn't come close than Nazi Germay and we forgave and started anew. Americans did'nt go running around hating on the Germans. This is not a perfect world and America is not perfect, but we try hard to do the right thing. We are a young nation compared to Europe why not allow us to learn by our mistakes and give us a chance to become wiser and try to fix our horrible mistake. Imagine, if their was world unity and all the great minds working together,wow, what a dream!
Mary Esther Salinas, Corpus Christi, Texas
Response to "Com menter, Los Angeles, CA - USA"
It is those who think (or more likely, don't think at all) similar to you - that are causing world crises of all sorts in the first place.
Why don't you just just shut up - especially about things you don't know - listen, learn...and do something to help?
By the way, what HAVE you done to help?
Criticizing someone who has devoted his life to this cause is certainly not helpful.
Cole Powers, Brentwood, TN USA
The mere, inconvenient truth that reporter Ginny Dougray found Gore so "attractive" and that he does more "feeling" rather than "thinking" in itself tell me all I need to know.
Toowong Foo, Seattle,
As phony and pretentious as the "global warming" premise it is based on. No people were fed, no lives changed, no opinions changed -- with the net proceeds apparently going into Al Gore's pocket to be used to raise awareness of his non-candidacy for the President of the United States.
com menter, Los Angeles, California - USA
O thank you Mr Gore! Thank you, thank you, thank you!
Everyone from Cmabridge to Ofxfrod an' the Royal wotsit sez you are fab!
Really, reaaly cool! Fandabbydozeee!!!
Mark Lyndon, London, UK
I wonder just how much pollution shall be caused by the concerts themselves. Transportaton, lighting, chemicals, etc., etc. Or those things only count when inductires do it?
Why not write up a list of everything each of us must do to save the world; walk 150 yards rather than ride in a limo, decrease electrical consumption, build smaller houses, not drive SUV - ups, sorry Al - forgot you are above all that. Have your concert and lecture us peasants on how to live.
Patty, Jersey City, New Jrsey, USA
Damn fine article...witty and well researched...it has often been said that Dylan wrote "My back pages" after getting boo'd off the stage at the Monterey Pop Festival (I believe that's correct ) for his (at the time seen as) unorthodox use of electric instruments in his performance that day. Somehow I see a connection in that long ago event and the international series of concerts which The Goracle has helped orchestrate. Al has shucked the weight of mainstream politics for a less binding and ultimately more rewarding gig as a man of action rather than reaction. Anyway... Why can't I buy the Times in San Francisco? Thank you for the on-line service.
paul root, Healdsburg, USA CA
I find it funny reading these comments. The obvious right-wingers parroting Ann, Rush, Sean et al is a HOOT. What kills me is they would rather believe bought and paid for pundits who have the collective IQ of a gnat then literally HUNDREDS of scientists.
The near unanimous consensus of some of the smartest people in the world vs Sean Hannity...and they will choose the junior college drop-out's opinion. Hilarious!
Less funny is that so many corporations and consumers are more concerned with the bottom line than the future of the planet.
That is just plain horrifying.
Matthew Bailey, Boise, Idaho
Ask yourself two questions
1) Do you trust Politicians ?
2) Will it rain as predicted tomorrow?
I rest my case.
philip, Ipswich,
I think another point is that all the planets in the solar system show signs of warming. So unless NASA has been driving SUV's on all the planets, something else possibly is going on!
I just find it odd also that the solutions that they want to use are all within a very narrow type. They all require radically effecting the economies of the industrial nations.
Yet other ideas have been suggested, such as geoengineering, but these same people who say that global warming is the greatest crisis to confront mankind, suddenly do not want to look at those ideas.
The only ideas they will consider are ones that redistribute global wealth and put major controls on the economies of the industrial nations. If it is truly such a huge problem, you would think all solutions would be on the table.
Heather, Lowell, Ma
What a disgraceful piece of green wash. 56 pc of people aren't unaware that global warming exists, more a large slice of them believe that while climate change exists it is NOT man made. Gore got several key facts wrong in An Inconvenient Truth, but the media now has completely fallen for it which this unquestioning stance as adopted in this limp article.
And Martin, there is NOT a consensus and there are plenty of scientists from MIT to Oxford who do not see CO2 as being entirely manmade - volcanoes and the oceans produce far more. Many of the experts on the IPCC were NOT in agreement, but the UN refused to take their names from the report unless they sued. You shouldtake time to find out more before you swallow Mr Gore's 'truth'.
jonathan , London, London
If the carbon-reducing measures will mitigate the problem, it doesn't matter if the cause is mainly anthropogenic. We want to reduce the damage, as quickly as possible. Energy alternatives and conservation as well as carbon-reduction will all produce new industries as well as reduce pollution of all sorts. It's a win-win.
The obsessive focus on whether the blame is correctly put on human activity is entirely misplaced. We want to reduce the damage done. Don't these critics have children?
Wayne, Chicago, U.S.A/Illinois
You should have asked him a few difficult questions, such as:
How come the Antarctic is getting cooler and is gaining ice?
How can he explain that CO2 increases have come AFTER temperature rises in the past?
Why is Greenland still frozen today, when it was settled and cultivated in the middle ages?
What is his explanation for the Little Ice Age, when the Thames was frozen over for months in the 1600's?
He is pedaling a political message based on flawed science. His film is full of exaggeration and distortion. He will soon be exposed as such.
DEREK TIPP, New Forest, England
I would suggest many of the above commentors, go to grad school and study environmental science, or do some good research from peer-reviewed scientific journals rather than the popular press. This global warming consensus is built on imperical data collected trough the scientific method over decades and in some cases over centuries. It is not just some idea.
Just because you don't want to believe it (or it is inconvenient) doesn't mean it is not so.
Kirk Goolsby, Warrenton, Virginia, USA
What I find disturbing is the computer models. They run these models for the future and tells us what the temperature will be.
But those same models can not be run backwards and recreate what we KNOW the temperature was!
If the model is accurate it should be able to do that!
Also, the earth was much warmer in the past, long before humans had any industry. If warming is caused by humans then what caused the warming in the past that we know occured?
Heather, Lowell, Ma
Thank you Mr Gore, thank you, thank you, thank you!
Everyone from Cmabridge to Ofxfrod and the Royal wotsit says you are really! really cool!!! Super, samshing, fandabbydozeeee!!!
Mark Lyndon, London, UK
I do wish "exacerbate" would be substituted for "cause".
Human activity exacerbates global warming.
DanO, Mt. Vernon, USA
But will those alternatives persuade the US that THEY need Gore? Arnie, a republican, is doing the right thing and WE certainly need Gore.
Keith Winter, Noosa, Australia
If Al Bore wants to save the planet I would suggest he, Blair,Bono,the climate change nutters ,etc all take the next one way rocket trip to Mars.
We would all heave a sigh of relief that our wallets would not then be emptied on a puerile non cause promoted by self interested global political wannabes eager to cash in on an end of the world is nigh campaign. I would probably take them more seriously if they stood on a street corner with a message board to that effect but its already been done and is equally as plausible - not!
philip, Ipswich,
The single most hilarious thing I,ve read in weeks; why can,t American reporters be this funny?
Dan Plecha, Streetsboro, Ohio/US
What an incredible man. It is irresponsible for those who do not believe in man made science to not watch his film and investigate the reality. And if you ever find someone saying its not true in the media, find out where they are from and google them with Exxon and see what comes up.
After all, everyone now from Stephen Hawking and David Attenborough to Nasa, Harvard, Yale, Oxford, Cmabridge, the Royal Society, The American Academy of Science, the combined science academies of the G8 nation and indeed every major scientific academy in the western world agrees with the science. But thats not what the media reports. Take the time to find out the truth people. We have one chance to solve this now.
Thankyou Mr Gore.
Martin, London,
I wonder how he feels about his son making better choices.
Betty Tolsma, Schertz, Texas, Guadelupe/Texas
One of the problems with the debate, is that sceptics clothe themselves with robes of false wisdom, pointing to historical analogies, and requiring us to seek "perspective" by considering ancient examples of climate change or aberration.
However, in each case, the sceptic deliberately chooses to emphasise the significance of the lone voice, as though the lone voice had credibility merely by its determination to retain uniqueness.
Those scientists who now sing unanimously from the hymn sheet of carbon doom, are the inheritors of a science which started decades ago and, at that time, represented the maverick postion. Only as evidence has mounted, and the carbon count increased, have the scientific community at large arrived at the same conclusion: the activity of mankind since the outset of the industrial revolution is likely to have permanent and catastrophic impact on the environment, and upon mankind's ability to survive and thrive in the world.
John Pownall, Bridport, England
Johnny, I assume that you haven't yet watched an inconvenient truth?
An 'Old codger trying to be cool' is the last thing it is about. Instead it is a rational look (admittedly slightly-theatrical) at some basic statistics relating to the state of the atmospheric composition today in comparison to that going back through history. Some simple googling afterwards will help to confirm most of what it contains, and the conclusions are unavoidable.
On an aside not related to warming per-se, but clear evidence of the effects we are having on the planet's eco-systems look up the Algalite Marine Research Foundation, and be appalled by their findings on the role plastic is taking in the oceans. Our behaviour simply has to stop before we all (not even our children) reap the rewards.
Happy research,
Damian Dingwall, Cape Town, South Africa
Methinks and believe that the obvious fact of the global warming phenomenon is being exploited by Gore for a number of reasons, including allegedly having a financial interest in International tgrading in carbon allocations! My cynical perceptions on Gore are based on:
1. Yes, the world is getting warmer, quite probably from greenhouse gases carbon dioxide and methane. However, the contribution by man is very small compared to natural, uncontrollable mechanisms of generating these gases such as by volcanic action.
2. Yes, we need to reduce man-generated pollution for reasons of health and conservation of natural resources for future generations. That distinction gets conveniently ignored by Al Gore!
3. If it is true that Gore has financial interests in carbon-footprint trading then his credibility is blown out of the water. Pity that issue was not raised in the eulolgy of Al Gore!
Edward Willhoft, Epsom, UK
I wonder how he feels about his son making better choices.
Betty Tolsma, Schertz, Texas, Guadelupe/Texas
Al Gore is hot? He's also rich and very fit. He must be, to jump on all those bandwagons.
This hoo-hah is all about (another) attempt at the White House.
Forget it Al. Go home and put the lights out.
michael john murphy, brightlingsea, england
Oh Mr Mondeo,
Perhaps you may like to take a peak at the article in the recent edition of "Nature" (without doubt the leading scientific journal of our time): "No solar hiding place for greenhouse sceptics". The sun's energy output peaked in the mid-1980s, and it can't possibly account for the last two decades worth or warming, let alone the previous 100 years. So, before spouting off these discredited alternative hypotheses, please go and read up the scientific literature. You'll save us all a great deal of time.
Sincerely,
Philip Brydon, Stuttgart, Germany
What I find fascinating is that weekly forecasts can be so wrong, and yet for some amazing reason perfectly intelligent human beings believe that a bunch of scientific models with human data input are somehow accurate about life in the future on this planet. ????? Is water vapor a greenhouse gas, Al Gore, or is it o.k. to instead delete the largest greenhouse contributor and instead make carbon the lone cause of global warming.
Kricki Kachmar, Mondovi,
Battle to save the planet?
Old codgers trying to be cool. They'll all be part of the carbon cycle by the time the world ends. Global warming has celestial causes as much as it has human causes. We simply don't have enough facts.
But who cares about facts eh? Scientists agree don't they? Remember when that theory about the sun being the centre of the universe got you hung? Oh, this is 2007, aren't we so clever now... I bet they thought that too. Fight for science!
Johnny Mondeo, Sydney, NSW