It does seem the epidemic of the far left to inflate themselves so much that they forget the issue. Al Gore’s repeated and deliberate ignorance of science and Michael Moore’s twisting facts are certainly an interesting parallel.

What seems central to the strategy is these character’s demonization of their audience. Convince Americans that they provide the worst health care for each other, or convince them that they are destroying the planet, and they will be motivated to change. Or perhaps what Moore and Gore are more interested in, they will be motivated to give up their change (with a few larger bills, perhaps) to someone bigger and smarter who can figure out ordinary peoples’ lives for them.

No thanks, I’ll stick with freedom.

There is a major problem when media and politics get involved in scientific arenas. Broad assumptions are made on incomplete data that are used to push personal agendas. Global warming is just a buzzword that people are throwing around without any understanding.

I’m still unsure why this is a debatable subject. The world is warming up; is it man made or natural? If it’s natural, then we are just along for the ride. If it’s man-made then we should take action to correct the problem. Like Brandon said above, it will only encourage innovation. At the very worst, we figure out a way to do less harm to our environment, we are able to conserve non-renewable resources, and we eliminate our dependency on foreign oil. Who wouldn’t want those things? Even if global warming turns out to be natural, then at least we’ve improved our quality of life.

I like to think that trying to reduce green house gases that are caused by man would help propel technological advances and move man further into the future than simply standing by and continuing to doing things as they have always been done. I’m always a fan of events that can be used as a catalyst for technological achievement because those types of events move society forward.

Reducing our dependence on oil and other fossil fuels forces us to come up with better more efficient ways of doing things. When we are all driving hydrogen powered cars at least you won’t be choking on someone else’s car exhaust. If that helps to reduce green house gases too then all the better. Not developing these types of technologies causes us to become complacent. For me, if the global warming issue is what moves us forward technologically, I’m fine with that regardless of which political party proposes the solutions.

Documentaries on the other hand, are something I’m usually not a fan of. Many times people take what they hear and see in a documentary as factual content when in reality it is all the view of the director and is filmed to support his or her own personal agenda. I’m especially not fond of Michael Moore films. Bowling for Columbine comes to mind as a good example of where he stretches the situations filmed to support his own agendas. Situations exist like this in many documentaries and I’m sure are prevalent in “An Inconvenient Truth” as well. In general I would suggest that documentaries should not be used in school discussions unless they are represented as what they are and not presented as fact.

Global warming stands to be one of those political topics, like abortion, that every candidate has to take a stand on and could possible influence the public’s voting decision, but is something that in reality the candidate can or will do little about. But for me the benefits of forcing us all to think outside the box and come up with new approaches to old technologies is well worth the global warming argument taking place.

Your comments are timely and appropriate as the concepts of “Stewardship” (of the Earth’s resources) and “Entitlement” (to Healthcare or otherwise) are high-jacked by the left. History proves them to be intellectually dishonest at best, and fraudulent in their arguments at worst.