Hey Al, why do you talk that way?

You would think after beclowning himself with a profanity-laced tirade a few weeks ago, Al Gore would want to keep a low profile for the time being. Unfortunately, that is not the case. In another tirade equally obnoxious, if not quite so profane, the former vice president turned climate change profiteer is now comparing "climate change skeptics" with racists who opposed the civil rights movement in the 1960's.

“I remember, again going back to my early years in the South, when the Civil Rights revolution was unfolding, there were two things that really made an impression on me,” Gore said. “My generation watched Bull Connor turning the hose on civil rights demonstrators and we went, ‘Whoa! How gross and evil is that?’ My generation asked old people, ‘Explain to me again why it is okay to discriminate against people because their skin color is different?’ And when they couldn’t really answer that question with integrity, the change really started.”

The former vice president recalled how society succeeded in marginalizing racists and said climate change skeptics must be defeated in the same manner.

“Secondly, back to this phrase ‘win the conversation,’” he continued. “There came a time when friends or people you work with or people you were in clubs with — you’re much younger than me so you didn’t have to go through this personally — but there came a time when racist comments would come up in the course of the conversation and in years past they were just natural. Then there came a time when people would say, ‘Hey, man why do you talk that way, I mean that is wrong. I don’t go for that so don’t talk that way around me. I just don’t believe that.’ That happened in millions of conversations and slowly the conversation was won.”

“We have to win the conversation on climate,” Gore added.

When Bogusky [sic] questioned the analogy, asking if the scientific reasoning behind climate change skeptics might throw a wrench into the good and evil comparison with racism, Gore did not back down.

“I think it’s the same where the moral component is concerned and where the facts are concerned I think it is important to get that out there, absolutely,” Gore said.

It should be noted that Gore's father, Sen. Albert Gore Sr., not only voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964 but also "attempted to send the Act to the Senate Judiciary Committee with an amendment to say 'in defiance of a court desegregation order, federal funds could not be held from any school districts.'" The younger Gore's memory of his late father's voting record, however, has always been a little fuzzy.

What is most amusing about Little Al's latest rant is that everything he says should happen to the "skeptics" is, in fact, happening to the people on his side of the argument. The alarmists are the ones who are finding themselves unable to answer the skeptics' questions with integrity. When Gore so nonchalantly equates the skeptics with racists or angrily calls their arguments bovine excrement, a normal, decent person can only say, "Hey, man why do you talk that way, I mean that is wrong. I don’t go for that so don’t talk that way around me. I just don’t believe that."

It is Gore who is being marginalized, and rightly so. His rhetoric of late only serves to prove it.

Meade: Al Gore is full of hot air

Walter Russell Meade eviscerates the blowhard hypocrite Al Gore in the first of a two-part series which ought to consign the former vice president to the dust bin of history.

Gore has the Midas touch in reverse; objects of great value (Nobel prizes, Oscars) turn dull and leaden at his touch. Few celebrity cause leaders have had more or better publicity than Gore has had for his climate advocacy. Hailed by the world press, lionized by the entertainment community and the Global Assemblage of the Great and the Good as incarnated in the Nobel Peace Prize committee, he has nevertheless seen the movement he led flounder from one inglorious defeat to the next. The most recent, failed global climate meeting passed almost unnoticed last week in Bonn; the world has turned its eyes away from the expiring anguish of the Copenhagen agenda.

The state of the global green movement is shambolic. The Kyoto Protocol is withering on the vine; it will almost certainly die with no successor in place. There is no chance of cap and trade legislation in the US under Obama, and even the EPA’s regulatory authority over carbon dioxide is under threat. Brazil is debating a forestry law that critics charge will open the floodgates to a new round of deforestation in the Amazon. China is taking the green lobby head on, suspending a multibillion dollar Airbus order to protest EU carbon cutting plans.

It is hard to think of any recent failure in international politics this comprehensive, this swift, this humiliating. Two years ago almost every head of state in the world was engaged with Al Gore’s issue; today the abolition of nuclear weapons looks like a more hopeful cause than the drafting of an effective international treaty that will curb carbon emissions even a little bit.

The plunge from the brink of victory to the pit of defeat must be as unpleasant as it is familiar to the winner of the 2000 popular vote; in his latest essay in Rolling Stone he gives his own best analysis of why he keeps losing. Few American politicians could write an essay this eloquent or this clear. Few people in the world can command this kind of attention for their thoughts. Even so, the results of all this talent and effort are exactly the opposite of what the former vice president would wish; the essay illuminates his shortcomings more than his strengths and makes crystal clear that if global climate policy is going to change, then Al Gore must get out of the way.

Let us begin with a basic question of judgment. The former vice president has failed to grasp the basic nature of the kind of leadership the global green cause requires. Vice President Gore, like all who aspire to lead great causes, must reconcile his advocacy with his conduct — that is, he must conduct himself in a way that is consistent with the great cause he seeks to promote.

Not all character flaws are inconsistent with positions of great dignity. General Grant’s fondness for whiskey did not make him unfit for command. Other statesmen have combined great public achievement with failure in their personal lives. Franklin Roosevelt was neither a good father nor a good husband; Edward VII was a better monarch than man.

But while some forms of inconsistency or even hypocrisy can be combined with public leadership, others cannot be. A television preacher can eat too many french fries, watch too much cheesy TV and neglect his kids in the quest for global fame. But he cannot indulge in drug fueled trysts with male prostitutes while preaching conservative Christian doctrine. The head of Mothers Against Drunk Driving cannot be convicted of driving while under the influence. The head of the IRS cannot be a tax cheat. The most visible leader of the world’s green movement cannot live a life of conspicuous consumption, spewing far more carbon into the atmosphere than almost all of those he castigates for their wasteful ways. Mr. Top Green can’t also be a carbon pig.

You can be a leading environmentalist and fail to pay all of your taxes. You can be a leading environmentalist and be unkind to your aged mother. You can be a leading environmentalist and squeeze the toothpaste tube from the middle, park in the handicapped spots at the mall or scribble angry marginal notes in library books.

But you cannot be a leading environmentalist who hopes to lead the general public into a long and difficult struggle for sacrifice and fundamental change if your own conduct is so flagrantly inconsistent with the green gospel you profess. If the heart of your message is that the peril of climate change is so imminent and so overwhelming that the entire political and social system of the world must change, now, you cannot fly on private jets. You cannot own multiple mansions. You cannot even become enormously rich investing in companies that will profit if the policies you advocate are put into place.

It is not enough to buy carbon offsets (aka “indulgences”) with your vast wealth, not enough to power your luxurious mansions with exotic low impact energy sources the average person could not afford, not enough to argue that you only needed the jet so that you could promote your earth-saving film.

You are asking billions of people, the overwhelming majority of whom lack many of the basic life amenities you take for granted, people who can’t afford Whole Foods environmentalism, to slash their meager living standards. You may well be right, and those changes may be necessary — the more shame on you that with your superior insight and knowledge you refuse to live a modest life. There’s a gospel hymn some people in Tennessee still sing that makes the point: “You can’t be a beacon if your light don’t shine.”

St. Francis of Assisi understood the point well. Taken by the Pope on a tour to see the treasures of the Vatican, St. Francis was notably unimpressed. “Peter can no longer say, ‘silver and gold have I none,’” smiled the Pontiff, referring to the story in the Book of Acts that recounts what St. Peter said to a crippled beggar asking him for alms.

“Neither can he say, ‘rise up and walk.’” replied St. Francis — quoting what St. Peter said as he miraculously cured the beggar of his affliction.

You can sit on ivory chairs with kings in their halls of gold, participating in the world of politics as usual, or you can live with the prophets and visionaries in the wilderness, voices of a greater truth and higher meaning that challenge the smug certainties and false assumptions of the comfortable, business as usual elites. You cannot do both.

Al Gore cannot say “silver and gold have I none and no excess carbon do I spew,” and neither can he say to the paralyzed global green movement “rise up and walk.” He speaks, he writes, he speaks again, and the movement lies on the ground, crippled and inert.

A fawning establishment press spares the former vice president the vitriol and schadenfreude it pours over the preachers and priests whose personal conduct compromised the core tenets of their mission; Gore is not mocked as others have been. This gentle treatment hurts both Gore and the greens; he does not know just how disabling, how crippling the gap between conduct and message truly is. The greens do not know that his presence as the visible head of the movement helps ensure its political failure.

Consider how Gore looks to the skeptics. The peril is imminent, he says. It is desperate. The hands of the clock point to twelve. The seas rise, the coral dies, the fires burn and the great droughts have already begun. The hounds of Hell have slipped the huntsman’s leash and even now they rush upon us, mouths agape and fangs afoam.

But grave as that danger is, Al Gore can consume more carbon than whole villages in the developing world. He can consume more electricity than most African schools, incur more carbon debt with one trip in a private plane than most of the earth’s toiling billions will pile up in a lifetime — and he doesn’t worry. A father of four, he can lecture the world on the perils of overpopulation. Surely, skeptics reason, if the peril were as great as he says and he cares about it as much as he claims, Gore’s sense of civic duty would call him to set an example of conspicuous non-consumption. This general sleeps in a mansion, and lectures the soldiers because they want tents.

What this tells the skeptics is that Vice President Gore doesn’t really believe the gospel he proclaims. That profits from his environmental advocacy enable his affluent lifestyle only deepens their skepticism of the messenger and therefore of the message. And when they see that the rest of the environmental movement accepts this flagrant contradiction, they conclude, naturally enough, that the other green leaders aren’t as worried as they claim to be. Al Gore’s lifestyle is a test case for the credibility of his gospel — and it fails. The tolerance of Al Gore’s lifestyle by the environmental leadership is a further test — and that test, too, the greens fail.

On one point, I have to disagree with Meade. Rather than move forward without Al Gore, the whole phony "green movement" needs to follow its failed leader off the stage, never to bore us again with its concocted crises and pseudo-science masquerading as environmental stewardship.

From the "He thinks somebody's still listening to him" department . . .

Much like his buddy Prince Charles, Al Gore is a delusional dreamer with too much time on his hands. Apparently undaunted by recent allegations of sexual assault and revelations about the fraudulent "research" of leading climate "scientists," the former vice president continues to channel his inner Chicken Little, summoning his dwindling ranks to battle in the name of saving the planet.

Former Vice President Gore is calling for major rallies to protest congressional inaction on climate change.

In a post on his personal blog headlined “The Movement We Need,” Gore linked to and quoted from an Australian wire service report that “tens of thousands of protesters … have taken to the streets across Australia to urge the major political parties to take action on climate change.”

“Across the world, when politicians fail to take action to solve the climate crisis, people are taking action,” Gore wrote.
He added after excerpting the news report: “It is my hope we see activism like this here in the United States.”

Gore noted he trained activists in Australia to deliver the slideshow that formed the basis for the documentary film that won him an Academy Award. A representative of Gore’s Alliance for Climate Protection addressed the rally in Sydney.

Gore has in recent weeks stepped up his criticism of the Senate for its inability to pass a comprehensive energy and climate bill that would put a price on carbon. In a conference call with environmental activists last week, he reportedly said “the United States government in its entirety, largely because of the opposition in the United States Senate to taking action on clean energy and a solution to the climate crisis, has failed us.”

You can keep talking, Al. We always enjoy a good laugh. But if you think anyone is still listening to you, then you've become a bigger joke than anyone could have ever imagined.

Debunking Gore: So Simple, a Child Can Do It

As Al Gore runs for cover amid a growing backlash against the bio-fuels he helped subsidize while vice president, debunking his alarmist claims about global warming is becoming child's play. The winners were recently announced in a video/essay contest designed to expose the lies and misrepresentations being inflicted upon the nation's schoolchildren by Gore and his climate change cabal. Ask the winning essayist, Russell Young, and he will tell you that Gore's shenanigans are strictly for "The Birds."

If Al Gore’s film "An Inconvenient Truth," is suitable for teaching about climatology, then Alfred Hitchcock’s film the "The Birds," is a good candidate for teaching ornithology.

"Wait a moment," you say. What does a horror film which has been characterized as "extremely disturbing," where hoards of normally skittish, but peaceable birds, inexplicably attack and terrorize humans, have to teach our children about science? The answer, of course is that it could be used to anesthetize them to the frightening scenarios presented in Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth."

It's hard to decide which would be worse: frightening young students with scripted terror from a horror master, or frightening students with scripted propaganda from an environmental hypocrite. But think of the box office draw potential by making a double header out of these two movies. Plus, each film is steeped with enough gut wrenching scenes to keep even the most jaded students interested, making them a perfect antidote to typically boring science fare.

In "The Birds," one scene shows children helplessly driven to terrified flight as birds relentlessly descend upon them. A particularly graphic moment depicts a bird tearing at the face of a screaming boy of about 8 or 9 years of age. Such viewing should make an indelible impression upon the minds of our youth as to the importance of not interfering with nature.

In Gore's film we are treated to equally stomach turning cinematography as the director treats us to numerous close-ups of Gore, thus making it clear how serious minded he is about the environment. We know he is the man who can make a change because of the repeated shots showing adoring masses who seemingly follow him around the globe. Let's just hope they don’t all do it on their own personal jets.

All of this, however, got me to thinking. Maybe schools could begin to utilize more Hollywood offerings. Think about it. For only the cost of a Blockbuster rental our students minds could be opened up to myriad realms.

Here are just a few other films schools might use for their teaching curriculums. "The Polar Express" could be used for instruction on transportation systems. "Borat" is a perfect teaching tool for understanding how the Democratic Party uses focus groups. "Alien," could be used to teach students about anatomy and homeland security, all at the same time.

"Far fetched," you say. Maybe, but "Moby Dick" taught me all I ever needed to know about whales, and I'm a marine biologist.

Meanwhile, fellow global warming nut case Nancy Pelosi has been caught misquoting Scripture in support of radical environmental causes.

In her April 22 Earth Day news release, Pelosi said, "The Bible tells us in the Old Testament, 'To minister to the needs of God's creation is an act of worship. To ignore those needs is to dishonor the God who made us.' On this Earth Day, and every day, let us pledge to our children, and our children's children, that they will have clean air to breathe, clean water to drink, and the opportunity to experience the wonders of nature."

Cybercast News Service repeatedly queried the speaker's office for two days to determine where the alleged Bible quote is found. Thus far, no one has responded.

Distinguished biblical scholars, however, cast doubt on the existence of the passage.

John J. Collins, the Holmes professor of Old Testament criticism and interpretation at Yale Divinity School, said he is totally unfamiliar with Pelosi's quotation.

"(It's) not one that I recognize," Collins told Cybercast News Service. "I assume that she means this is a paraphrase. But it wouldn't be a close paraphrase to anything I know of."

Claude Mariottini, a professor of Old Testament at Northern Baptist Theological Seminary, told Cybercast News Service the passage not only doesn't exist - it's "fictional."

"It is not in the Bible," Mariottini said. "There is nothing that even approximates that."

Other scholars agree that nothing remotely resembling it can be found in any version of the Scriptures - Old Testament or New Testament.

"The quote does not exist in the Old Testament, neither in the New Testament," said the Rev. Andreas Hock, a doctor of Scripture who teaches in the Roman Catholic archdiocese of Denver's St. John Vianney Seminary.

"Even in pieces or bits, (it) cannot be found in the Old Testament," he added.

Interestingly, Pelosi has mentioned the quote before, Mariottini noted.
"In truth, (she) has used this 'passage' in many different ways, and all of those usages have nothing to do with the Bible whatsoever," he said.
Indeed, Cybercast News Service has learned that Pelosi has repeatedly used the quote:

-- In December 2005, in a Christmas message to the U.S. House of Representatives, Pelosi said: "Mr. Speaker, as we leave for this Christmas recess, let us say, 'God bless you' to the American people by voting against this Republican budget and statement of injustice and immorality, and let us not let the special interest goose get fat at the expense of America's children.

"The gentleman from Washington [state], Mr. McDermott, quoted the prophet Isaiah. And as the Bible teaches us, to minister to the needs of God's creation is an act of worship, to ignore those needs is to dishonor the God who made us. Let us vote no on this budget as an act of worship and for America's children."

-- On Feb. 8, 2007, in remarks before the U.S. House Science and Technology Committee, when it held hearings on global warming, she used the same quote, verbatim, as in her Earth Day release.

-- On April 6, 2007, in congressional remarks before the Easter recess: "In this Holy Week, we are reminded of these words in the Old Testament: 'To minister to the needs of God's creation is an act of worship. To ignore those needs is to dishonor the God who made us.' We must move quickly to honor God's creation by reducing greenhouse gas pollution in the United States and around the world."

-- On April 25, 2007, in a speech to the League of Conservation Voters in Washington, D.C.: "We are now charging ahead to tackle one of humanity's greatest challenges yet - global warming. We will do this because we hold our children's future in our hands - not our grandchildren, or great-grandchildren, but our own children. "As it says in the Old Testament, 'To minister to the needs of God's creation is an act of worship. To ignore those needs is to dishonor the God who made us.'"

-- On Oct. 22, 2007, in a television interview with PBS host Tavis Smiley, she used it in discussion of her roots, attributing the quote to the book of Isaiah: "I'm raised in a family in Baltimore, Maryland, my father was the mayor. He was in Congress when I was born. And we were devoutly Catholic, very patriotic. We love America. Devoutly Catholic, deeply patriotic, proud of our Italian American heritage, and in our case, staunchly Democratic.

"And that faith was related to our Democratic values. That is to say, the gospel of Matthew: 'When I was hungry, you gave me to eat.' You know, the least of our brethren. So that's an inspiration in the New Testament. In the Old Testament, Isaiah says, 'To minister to the needs of God's creation is an act of worship. To ignore those needs is to dishonor the god who made us.'"

"Distinguished biblical scholars" can be very adept at denying the authenticity of many biblical passages. In this case, however, their skepticism appears justified.

Goodbye Global Warming: Gore in Panic Mode

Al Gore is now in panic mode, according to a former British government official. Statistics on global climate trends over the last ten years do not support the alarmist contention turned conventional wisdom that the planet faces an ecological crisis because of rising temperatures.

British environmental analyst Christopher Monckton says Al Gore's latest attack on global warming skeptics shows the former vice president and other climate alarmists are "panicking."

On Sunday, CBS News correspondent Leslie Stahl asked Al Gore on the television show 60 Minutes what he thinks of people like Vice President Dick Cheney who doubt that global warming is caused by human activity.

"I think that those people are in such a tiny, tiny minority now with their point of view, they're almost like the ones who still believe that the moon landing was staged in a movie lot in Arizona, and those who believe the earth is flat," replied Gore. "That demeans them a little bit, but it's not that far off."

However, Lord Christopher Monckton, a policy advisor for former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher during the 1980s, says the former vice president can enjoy his "flat earth fantasies" for a few months, but in the end, the world will be laughing at him.

"The alarmists are alarmed, the panic mongers are panicking, the scare mongers are scared; the Gores are gored. Why? Because global warming stopped ten years ago; it hasn't got warmer since 1998," he points out. "And in fact in the last seven years, there has been a downturn in global temperatures equivalent on average to about [or] very close to one degree Fahrenheit per decade. We're actually in a period ... of global cooling."

I wouldn't fret for Al, though. In addition to being the number one "global warming profiteer" (his Nobel Prize accountin for only a small percentage of his vast fortune) he looks to have a very promising future as a comedian.

Pope To Global Warming Hucksters: Cool It!

Providing a much needed voice of sanity in the midst of growing hysteria, Pope Benedict pours some cold water on the doomsday prophets of "global warming."

"Humanity today is rightly concerned about the ecological balance of tomorrow.

"It is important for assessments in this regard to be carried out prudently, in dialogue with experts and people of wisdom, uninhibited by ideological pressure to draw hasty conclusions, and above all with the aim of reaching agreement on a model of sustainable development capable of ensuring the well-being of all while respecting environmental balances.

"If the protection of the environment involves costs, they should be justly distributed, taking due account of the different levels of development of various countries and the need for solidarity with future generations.

"Prudence does not mean failing to accept responsibilities and postponing decisions; it means being committed to making joint decisions after pondering responsibly the road to be taken."

Al Gore, please take note.

Salvation by Carbon Offsets: The Great Evangelical Sellout

When it comes to selling out to politically correct conventional wisdom, there is no issue on which evangelicals have been more zealous for compromise in recent years than that of "climate change," popularly known as "global warming." The temperature of the earth rises and falls, warms and cools as part of a very natural cycle over thousands of years. But the apparent trend toward warmer temperatures over the last few decades has become a cause for concern among agenda-driven leftists who are determined to blame human beings, particularly those who live in Western, industrialized, and democratic countries, for the upward trend on the planetary thermometer.

Confusing the biblical mandate for stewardship of creation with blindly accepting the dubious "research" of "leading scientists" and the alarmist rhetoric of former Vice President Al Gore, a group of evangelicals launched the Evangelical Climate Network in 2002 with a clever but highly deceptive marketing campaign in which they asked the question, "What Would Jesus Drive?" The effort intensified in February 2006 with the release of the Evangelical Climate Initiative, a statement signed by a Who's Who of evangelical leaders. Despite being clothed in biblical and theological rhetoric, the statement did little more than restate the priorities of the secular alarmists. But, to make matters worse, it cast the conversation, at least within the evangelical community, in terms which left little room for dissent for fear of being accused of not being obedient to the biblical mandate to care for God's creation. Jay W. Richards of the Acton Institute takes the signatories of the statement to task for failing to consider deeper issues of prudential judgment and for creating a false dilemma.

With respect to the environment, the theological principles are uncontroversial: human beings, as image bearers of God, are placed as stewards over the created order. We bear a responsibility for how we treat and use it. We are part of the creation, as well as its crowning achievement. God intends for us to use and transform the natural world around us for good purposes. Proper use is not misuse. But as fallen creatures, we can mess things up. No serious Evangelical thinker questions these basic principles.

Prudential judgments are another thing entirely. When it comes to global warming, for instance, there are at least four separate questions.

(1) Is the planet warming?

(2) If the planet is warming, is human activity (like CO2 emissions) causing it?

(3) If the planet is warming, is it bad overall?

(4) If the planet is warming, we’re causing it, and it’s bad, would the policies commonly advocated (e.g., the Kyoto Protocol, legislative restrictions on CO2 emissions) make any difference and, if so, would their cost exceed their benefit?

Tough questions all, and theology doesn’t provide much help in answering them. To answer (1) and (2), one must consider a wide range of scientific evidence, theorizing, and speculation, drawing on disciplines as diverse as meteorology, astrophysics, geology, and probability theory. And the very nature of the questions and the evidence means answers will always be tentative and uncertain.

To answer (3) and (4), one must do careful economic reasoning. As a result, Evangelicals who agree that we are stewards of our environment (the principle) can easily disagree on how to answer these questions (the application).

The problem with the chief defenders of the Evangelical Climate Initiative is that they haven’t thought through these four questions, at least not publicly. What they have done is label their position as the authentically Evangelical one. Other Evangelicals need to call them on this tactic, exposing the false dilemma for the piece of cheap rhetoric it is.

The rhetoric is not the only thing that is cheap about this "initiative." As if the "What Would Jesus Drive?" campaign were not cheesy enough, the ECI web site is now offering "carbon offsets" which guilt-ridden evangelicals can purchase for just $99.00 a year. Iain Murray points out what should be, for any astute observer of church history, the obvious (and amusing) irony of this fund-raising sham.

Are you a carbon-using Christian? Feeling guilty about all that carbon dioxide (CO2) you pump into the atmosphere by such awful things as breathing, heating and cooling your home, lighting your work or study space, or driving to church? Now, like traditional sinners whose only mistake was breaking the Ten Commandments, you can atone for your carbon sins by buying carbon offsets from the Evangelical Climate Initiative -- though I thought it was pre-Reformation Roman Catholicism, not Protestant evangelicalism, that endorsed indulgences.

The ECI now offers to help you expiate your carbon sins quickly and easily, online. (But wait; to go online, you must use your computer, which uses electricity, which probably is generated by burning coal or oil, which puts more carbon into the air. Might it be better to stay off the Web and pray instead?)

It's a simple, two-step process.

First, you go through a page that helps you "Do What You Can" by selecting simple actions you can promise to take now to reduce your carbon emissions in transportation, home, and society. There's no telling, of course, just by how much you'll reduce your emissions, because none of these actions is quantified. For example, you might volunteer to change your driving habits by accelerating and stopping more gradually, thus saving fuel. But how much more gradually? Five percent? Twenty? Thirty? Each will yield a different emission reduction -- and it'll be impossible to know how much emission reduction you've achieved. Keep this in mind for later. As it happens, I already do two of the big things that will set me along the right path. Am I without sin? It doesn't appear so, as we'll find out.

Secondly, you come to a page that offers you the opportunity to "Offset the Rest." Here's where the Evangelical Climate Initiative becomes the Medieval Catholic Indulgence Initiative.

So, this is the rallying cry of the "Evangelicals" in the latter part of the first decade of the twenty-first century: salvation by emission reduction through purchase of carbon offsets.

To paraphrase that great theologian Chuck Berry, "Roll over Martin Luther, tell Melanchton the news!"

I Didn't Know Hybrids Could Go This Fast

Al Gore III, son of the former vice president turned global warming alarmist, has been arrested in California for driving 100 mph in his environmentally friendly Toyota Prius. Marijuana and prescription drugs were found in the car. He’s being held in Santa Ana on $20,000 bail.

I don’t think this is the kind of fireworks his dad would have wanted on the Fourth of July!