Walk-About Blog

I received my electric utility bill the other day. It’s summer and we run the air conditioning at night, so as usual, I expected the bill be climb as does the tempature. I was wrong. My electric bill was out of sight. Off the charts. Unbelievable I might add. Way beyond the rise in temperature. I was charged three different times within the bill for transmission and distribution lines. Over $400 in transmission and distribution lines. The balance of the nearly $750.00 was tiered power usage charges. As you can imagine, I had made it to the top tier.

I don’t like paying exobitant utilities like everyone else, but what burns me most is the sactimonious attitude of these people as they encourage me to conserve energy. I get tired of hearing that the grid is in danger of “going down”. Most of you reading this have some understanding of business. So let’s say you are shopping at Walmart and head to checkout with a basket full of goodies. Imagine your shock and surprise if an “associate” at checkout added a surcharge for buying too many products. “On I’m sorry”, they say, “you have purchased over 15 items. We have ask you to conserve our inventory of products and haven’t done as we requested. So, 200% surcharge on your purchase.” If you pulled into McDonalds were charge extra for ordering a large fry wouldn’t you be surprised. Might not go to McDonalds again. Sounds stupid, eh?

So what is so different about the utility company. Ok, they are a monopoly. I can’t just go anywhere and buy my electricity. Unlike McDonalds and Walmart, I have no alternative. I have to buy from them. And, they are a “for profit” corporation. They make big money. If you make money in business, you would probably reinvest it, right? Wouldn’t you want to have more of what you sell, so you could sell more? No way. I don’t know what they do with their profits, other than pay an enormous salary to the CEO, but they sure don’t create more power.

These utilities are blessed with two crutches. One the environmentalist. There hasn’t been a new power plant built in California since forever. Second, federal regulations. They are required by law to charge what they charge. Great setup isn’t it.

This same argument can be applied to big oil, and big federal government.

May 31, 2007 · NASA administrator Michael Griffin defends the space agency’s programs, including plans for a permanent moon base and manned missions to Mars. He also says that while NASA studies climate change, the agency has no authorization to “take actions to affect climate change in either one way or another.”

The following are excerpts from Griffin’s conversation with Steve Inskeep, edited for clarity:

It has been mentioned that NASA is not spending as much money as it could to study climate change — global warming — from space. Are you concerned about global warming?

I’m aware that global warming exists. I understand that the bulk of scientific evidence accumulated supports the claim that we’ve had about a one degree centigrade rise in temperature over the last century to within an accuracy of 20 percent. I’m also aware of recent findings that appear to have nailed down — pretty well nailed down the conclusion that much of that is manmade. Whether that is a longterm concern or not, I can’t say.

Do you have any doubt that this is a problem that mankind has to wrestle with?

I have no doubt that … a trend of global warming exists. I am not sure that it is fair to say that it is a problem we must wrestle with. To assume that it is a problem is to assume that the state of Earth’s climate today is the optimal climate, the best climate that we could have or ever have had and that we need to take steps to make sure that it doesn’t change. First of all, I don’t think it’s within the power of human beings to assure that the climate does not change, as millions of years of history have shown. And second of all, I guess I would ask which human beings — where and when — are to be accorded the privilege of deciding that this particular climate that we have right here today, right now is the best climate for all other human beings. I think that’s a rather arrogant position for people to take.

Is that thinking that informs you as you put together the budget? That something is happening, that it’s worth studying, but you’re not sure that you want to be battling it as an army might battle an enemy?

Nowhere in NASA’s authorization, which of course governs what we do, is there anything at all telling us that we should take actions to affect climate change in either one way or another. We study global climate change, that is in our authorization, we think we do it rather well. I’m proud of that, but NASA is not an agency chartered to, quote, battle climate change.

Global Warming is not due to human contribution of Carbon Dioxide
Global Warming: The Cold, Hard Facts?
By Timothy Ball

Monday, February 5, 2007

Global Warming, as we think we know it, doesn’t exist. And I am not the only one trying to make people open up their eyes and see the truth. But few listen, despite the fact that I was the first Canadian Ph.D. in Climatology and I have an extensive background in climatology, especially the reconstruction of past climates and the impact of climate change on human history and the human condition. Few listen, even though I have a Ph.D, (Doctor of Science) from the University of London, England and was a climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg. For some reason (actually for many), the World is not listening. Here is why.

What would happen if tomorrow we were told that, after all, the Earth is flat? It would probably be the most important piece of news in the media and would generate a lot of debate. So why is it that when scientists who have studied the Global Warming phenomenon for years say that humans are not the cause nobody listens? Why does no one acknowledge that the Emperor has no clothes on?

Believe it or not, Global Warming is not due to human contribution of Carbon Dioxide (CO2). This in fact is the greatest deception in the history of science. We are wasting time, energy and trillions of dollars while creating unnecessary fear and consternation over an issue with no scientific justification. For example, Environment Canada brags about spending $3.7 billion in the last five years dealing with climate change almost all on propaganda trying to defend an indefensible scientific position while at the same time closing weather stations and failing to meet legislated pollution targets.

No sensible person seeks conflict, especially with governments, but if we don’t pursue the truth, we are lost as individuals and as a society. That is why I insist on saying that there is no evidence that we are, or could ever cause global climate change. And, recently, Yuri A. Izrael, Vice President of the United Nations sponsored Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) confirmed this statement. So how has the world come to believe that something is wrong?

Maybe for the same reason we believed, 30 years ago, that global cooling was the biggest threat: a matter of faith. “It is a cold fact: the Global Cooling presents humankind with the most important social, political, and adaptive challenge we have had to deal with for ten thousand years. Your stake in the decisions we make concerning it is of ultimate importance; the survival of ourselves, our children, our species,” wrote Lowell Ponte in 1976.

I was as opposed to the threats of impending doom global cooling engendered as I am to the threats made about Global Warming. Let me stress I am not denying the phenomenon has occurred. The world has warmed since 1680, the nadir of a cool period called the Little Ice Age (LIA) that has generally continued to the present. These climate changes are well within natural variability and explained quite easily by changes in the sun. But there is nothing unusual going on.

Since I obtained my doctorate in climatology from the University of London, Queen Mary College, England my career has spanned two climate cycles. Temperatures declined from 1940 to 1980 and in the early 1970’s global cooling became the consensus. This proves that consensus is not a scientific fact. By the 1990’s temperatures appeared to have reversed and Global Warming became the consensus. It appears I’ll witness another cycle before retiring, as the major mechanisms and the global temperature trends now indicate a cooling.

No doubt passive acceptance yields less stress, fewer personal attacks and makes career progress easier. What I have experienced in my personal life during the last years makes me understand why most people choose not to speak out; job security and fear of reprisals. Even in University, where free speech and challenge to prevailing wisdoms are supposedly encouraged, academics remain silent.

I once received a three page letter that my lawyer defined as libellous, from an academic colleague, saying I had no right to say what I was saying, especially in public lectures. Sadly, my experience is that universities are the most dogmatic and oppressive places in our society. This becomes progressively worse as they receive more and more funding from governments that demand a particular viewpoint.

In another instance, I was accused by Canadian environmentalist David Suzuki of being paid by oil companies. That is a lie. Apparently he thinks if the fossil fuel companies pay you have an agenda. So if Greenpeace, Sierra Club or governments pay there is no agenda and only truth and enlightenment?

Personal attacks are difficult and shouldn’t occur in a debate in a civilized society. I can only consider them from what they imply. They usually indicate a person or group is losing the debate. In this case, they also indicate how political the entire Global Warming debate has become. Both underline the lack of or even contradictory nature of the evidence.

I am not alone in this journey against the prevalent myth. Several well-known names have also raised their voices. Michael Crichton, the scientist, writer and filmmaker is one of them. In his latest book, “State of Fear” he takes time to explain, often in surprising detail, the flawed science behind Global Warming and other imagined environmental crises.

Another cry in the wildenerness is Richard Lindzen’s. He is an atmospheric physicist and a professor of meteorology at MIT, renowned for his research in dynamic meteorology - especially atmospheric waves. He is also a member of the National Academy of Sciences and has held positions at the University of Chicago, Harvard University and MIT. Linzen frequently speaks out against the notion that significant Global Warming is caused by humans. Yet nobody seems to listen.

I think it may be because most people don’t understand the scientific method which Thomas Kuhn so skilfully and briefly set out in his book “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.” A scientist makes certain assumptions and then produces a theory which is only as valid as the assumptions. The theory of Global Warming assumes that CO2 is an atmospheric greenhouse gas and as it increases temperatures rise. It was then theorized that since humans were producing more CO2 than before, the temperature would inevitably rise. The theory was accepted before testing had started, and effectively became a law.

As Lindzen said many years ago: “the consensus was reached before the research had even begun.” Now, any scientist who dares to question the prevailing wisdom is marginalized and called a sceptic, when in fact they are simply being good scientists. This has reached frightening levels with these scientists now being called climate change denier with all the holocaust connotations of that word. The normal scientific method is effectively being thwarted.

Meanwhile, politicians are being listened to, even though most of them have no knowledge or understanding of science, especially the science of climate and climate change. Hence, they are in no position to question a policy on climate change when it threatens the entire planet. Moreover, using fear and creating hysteria makes it very difficult to make calm rational decisions about issues needing attention.

Until you have challenged the prevailing wisdom you have no idea how nasty people can be. Until you have re-examined any issue in an attempt to find out all the information, you cannot know how much misinformation exists in the supposed age of information.

I was greatly influenced several years ago by Aaron Wildavsky’s book “Yes, but is it true?” The author taught political science at a New York University and realized how science was being influenced by and apparently misused by politics. He gave his graduate students an assignment to pursue the science behind a policy generated by a highly publicised environmental concern. To his and their surprise they found there was little scientific evidence, consensus and justification for the policy. You only realize the extent to which Wildavsky’s findings occur when you ask the question he posed. Wildavsky’s students did it in the safety of academia and with the excuse that it was an assignment. I have learned it is a difficult question to ask in the real world, however I firmly believe it is the most important question to ask if we are to advance in the right direction.

Dr. Tim Ball, Chairman of the Natural Resources Stewardship Project (www.nrsp.com), is a Victoria-based environmental consultant and former climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg. He can be reached at letters@canadafreepress.com

Everything we do in life makes a statement about who we are.

• When you dress, your make a statement about who you are.
• When you speak, your make a statement about who you are.
• When you hurt a child or an animal, you make a statement about who you are.
• When you turn a blind eye to injustice, you make a statement about who you are.

I’m sure that George Washington was your best guess. After all, no one else comes to mind. But think back to your history books - The United States Declared its independence in 1776, yet Washington did not take Office until April 30, 1789. So who was running the country during these initial years of this young country? It was the first eight U. S. Presidents.

In fact, the first President of the United States was one John Hanson. I can hear you now - John who? John Hanson, the first President of the United States. Don’t go checking the encyclopedia for this guy’s name - he is one of those great men that are lost to history. If you’re extremely lucky, you may actually find a brief mention of his name.

The new country was actually formed on March 1, 1781 with the adoption of The Articles of Confederation. This document was actually proposed on June 11, 1776, but not agreed upon by Congress until November 15, 1777. Maryland refused to sign this document until Virginia and New York ceded their western lands ( Maryland was afraid that these states would gain too much power in the new government from such large amounts of land). Once the signing took place in 1781, a President was needed to run the country. John Hanson was chosen unanimously by Congress (which included George Washington). In fact, all the other potential candidates refused to run against him, as he was a major player in the revolution and an extremely influential member of Congress.

As the first President, Hanson had quite the shoes to fill. No one had ever been President and the role was poorly defined. His actions in office would set precedent for all future Presidents. He took office just as the Revolutionary War ended. Almost immediately, the troops demanded to be paid. As would be expected after any long war, there were no funds to meet the salaries. As a result, the soldiers threatened to overthrow the new government and put Washington on the throne as a monarch. All the members of Congress ran for their lives, leaving Hanson as the only guy left running the government. He somehow managed to calm the troops down and hold the country together. If he had failed, the government would have fallen almost immediately and everyone would have been bowing to King Washington.

Hanson, as President, ordered all foreign troops off American soil, as well as the removal of all foreign flags. This was quite the feat, considering the fact that so many European countries had a stake in the United States since the days following Columbus. Hanson established the Great Seal of the United States , which all Presidents have since been required to use on all official documents. President Hanson also established the first Treasury Department, the first Secretary of War, and the first Foreign Affairs Department. Lastly, he declared that the fourth Thursday of every November was to be Thanksgiving Day, which is still true today. The Articles of Confederation only allowed a President to serve a one year term during any three year period, so Hanson actually accomplished quite a bit in such little time.

Seven other presidents were elected after him -
1. Elias Boudinot (1782-83)
2. Thomas Mifflin (1783-84)
3. Richard Henry Lee (1784-85)
4. John Hancock (1785-86)
5. Nathan Gorman (1786-87)
6. Arthur St. Clair (1787-88)
7. Cyrus Griffin (1788-89)
…..all prior to Washington taking office.

So what happened? Why don’t we hear about the first eight presidents? It’s quite simple - The Articles of Confederation didn’t work well. The individual states had too much power and nothing could be agreed upon. A new doctrine needed to be written - something we know as the Constitution. And that leads us to the end of our story. George Washington was definitely not the first President of the United States . He was the first President of the United States under the Constitution we follow today.

And the first eight Presidents are forgotten in history.

In conclusion, it took 8 years for us to establish a successful government. You might just remember this when you hear that so little progress has been made during these last 3 years in establishing a Government in Iraq.

For more on John Hanson visit The Marshall Hall Foundation

OK, let’s talk dreams

by Barry Saunders, Staff Writer
Some of you came down pretty hard on me last year for writing that I was tired of hearing Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s “I Have a Dream” speech over and over each Jan. 15.
Sorry. What I meant to say was I am sick and tired of hearing his “I Have a Dream” speech over and over each Jan. 15.

First of all, that wasn’t even the most eloquent speech he ever gave, and it was nowhere near the most revolutionary. His anti-war speeches were way more incendiary and drew the wrath of allies, the government and the news media.

That, perhaps, is why TV stations automatically roll out his comfortingly Disney-fied dream of a world in which his children will be judged by the content of their character rather than — ah, heck, you know what he said.

On television this week was a man who travels the country reciting the “I Have a Dream” speech for churches because he sounds so much like Dr. King.

Well, whoop-de-doggone-doo.

Someone asked me what’s the difference between that and Elvis impersonators who make a living singing “Hound Dog.”

The most obvious difference is that Elvis was an entertainer while Dr. King was a visionary.

Do those people think Dr. King would be giving that same speech today, or would he update it to address the realities of a new society?

Here’s my updated vision for a better world:

I have a dream that BET — Black Entertainment Television — will one day discover that featuring toilet-mouthed rappers, half-nekkid women and “The Wayans Bros.” reruns all day is not black entertainment.

I have a dream that one day the great-grandsons of former slaves and the great-grandsons of former slave owners will pull their pants up over their butts.

I have a dream that one day Sweet Thang and I can go see “Dreamgirls” and not hear late-arriving people yapping on phones or, as I heard recently, yelling, “HEY, KEISHA. WHERE YOU AT, GIRL? WHY YOU SITTING ALL THE WAY UP THERE? WE GOT SEATS DOWN HERE.”

I have a dream that the Cary Police Department will one day use the same resources it used to nab an old man suspected of swiping $20 from a church collection plate to investigate serious crimes.

I have a dream that people who jam a Bluetooth cell phone in their ear as a fashion statement will one day be unable to get it out.

I have a dream that one day I’ll be able to buy eggnog in July.

I have a dream that one day black women under the age of 21 will be required to consult with one over 40 before naming their babies.

Finally, I have a dream that one day we’ll live in a world in which we honor Dr. King’s memory by the way we live every day rather than by going, each Jan. 15, to listen to some dude who sounds like him.

To a far greater extent than when Dr. King gave his speech, we live in a country in which people are judged by the content of their character more than the color of their skin.

Character, though, is the last thing on which some of us should want to be judged.

NewsObserver, Raleigh, NC January, 16, 2007

While reading the paper the other morning I can across a quote from a local fire captain reflecting on the conditions surrounding a nearby town savaged by a tornado. “It looks like a war zone”, he said.
I have heard that phrase intoned on everything from a riot in Los Angeles to a hurricane in New Orleans, from an explosion at a chemical plant to crashing of an airplane. Most of the people using this phrase have never seen a war zone except in a movie. They know that it would be a terrible sight of mayhem and destruction, so when they see mayhem and destruction, it must look like a war zone. Isn’t the destruction from a tornado bad enough to be described as “Looks like a tornado struck here”.

You almost never hear the phrase used by the military when discussing a battlefield. Is it because it is so obvious as to what it is that further amplification isn’t necessary? I have no idea.

I am looking forward to the first time I see a newscast and the reporter, with a battlefield still fresh in the background, says “It looks like a tornado struck here, Katie”.

I have a question that begs to be asked.

To begin with, I don’t believe in global warming, (the man made kind that is), as is clear if you have read any of my other “points of view”. But, just for a moment let us say that I do, and that I agree completely with the liberals who promote this theory. Let us say that I believe that it is inevitable and that man has sealed his doom with his wastefulness, or just existing, and that the icecaps will melt, the oceans will rise, and the normal temperature in January will resemble the normal temperature in July. The question I would be asking is, “What are you people doing to protect us from the rising water, rising heat, less crops, (or more crops depending on who you listen to), and the death of our oceans?”.

Have you contacted all the air conditioning manufacturers to pool their resources to build massive numbers of air conditioning units to help save us from the increased heat? We need extra units especially for the poor who don’t have it or can’t afford. Have you a plan to move those near the coast to higher ground and condemn their ocean front lots which are soon to be underwater? Are we stockpiling fish for us to eat when the oceans no longer support sea life? This is important stuff. When will you guys get it in gear? We need you to save us.

Now, being only slightly suspicious of you lefties, I must ask another question. Have you been investing in AC manufacturing companies? Are you disposing of your ocean front real estate, Ted? And, have you purchased ocean front property in Greenland?

I can’t believe that if all the global warming talk is for real that you guys aren’t doing more survival planning.

But then again, when did you ever get anything right.

Scientists respond to Gore’s warnings of climate catastrophe
“The Inconvenient Truth” is indeed inconvenient to alarmists
By Tom Harris
Monday, June 12, 2006

“Scientists have an independent obligation to respect and present the truth as they see it,” Al Gore sensibly asserts in his film “An Inconvenient Truth”, showing at Cumberland 4 Cinemas in Toronto since Jun 2. With that outlook in mind, what do world climate experts actually think about the science of his movie?

Professor Bob Carter of the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University, in Australia gives what, for many Canadians, is a surprising assessment: “Gore’s circumstantial arguments are so weak that they are pathetic. It is simply incredible that they, and his film, are commanding public attention.”

But surely Carter is merely part of what most people regard as a tiny cadre of “climate change skeptics” who disagree with the “vast majority of scientists” Gore cites?

No; Carter is one of hundreds of highly qualified non-governmental, non-industry, non-lobby group climate experts who contest the hypothesis that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are causing significant global climate change. “Climate experts” is the operative term here. Why? Because what Gore’s “majority of scientists” think is immaterial when only a very small fraction of them actually work in the climate field.

Even among that fraction, many focus their studies on the impacts of climate change; biologists, for example, who study everything from insects to polar bears to poison ivy. “While many are highly skilled researchers, they generally do not have special knowledge about the causes of global climate change,” explains former University of Winnipeg climatology professor Dr. Tim Ball. “They usually can tell us only about the effects of changes in the local environment where they conduct their studies.”

This is highly valuable knowledge, but doesn’t make them climate change cause experts, only climate impact experts.

So we have a smaller fraction.

But it becomes smaller still. Among experts who actually examine the causes of change on a global scale, many concentrate their research on designing and enhancing computer models of hypothetical futures. “These models have been consistently wrong in all their scenarios,” asserts Ball. “Since modelers concede computer outputs are not “predictions” but are in fact merely scenarios, they are negligent in letting policy-makers and the public think they are actually making forecasts.”

We should listen most to scientists who use real data to try to understand what nature is actually telling us about the causes and extent of global climate change. In this relatively small community, there is no consensus, despite what Gore and others would suggest.

Here is a small sample of the side of the debate we almost never hear:

Appearing before the Commons Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development last year, Carleton University paleoclimatologist Professor Tim Patterson testified, “There is no meaningful correlation between CO2 levels and Earth’s temperature over this [geologic] time frame. In fact, when CO2 levels were over ten times higher than they are now, about 450 million years ago, the planet was in the depths of the absolute coldest period in the last half billion years.” Patterson asked the committee, “On the basis of this evidence, how could anyone still believe that the recent relatively small increase in CO2 levels would be the major cause of the past century’s modest warming?”

Patterson concluded his testimony by explaining what his research and “hundreds of other studies” reveal: on all time scales, there is very good correlation between Earth’s temperature and natural celestial phenomena such changes in the brightness of the Sun.

Dr. Boris Winterhalter, former marine researcher at the Geological Survey of Finland and professor in marine geology, University of Helsinki, takes apart Gore’s dramatic display of Antarctic glaciers collapsing into the sea. “The breaking glacier wall is a normally occurring phenomenon which is due to the normal advance of a glacier,” says Winterhalter. “In Antarctica the temperature is low enough to prohibit melting of the ice front, so if the ice is grounded, it has to break off in beautiful ice cascades. If the water is deep enough icebergs will form.”

Dr. Wibjörn Karlén, emeritus professor, Dept. of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology, Stockholm University, Sweden, admits, “Some small areas in the Antarctic Peninsula have broken up recently, just like it has done back in time. The temperature in this part of Antarctica has increased recently, probably because of a small change in the position of the low pressure systems.”

But Karlén clarifies that the ‘mass balance’ of Antarctica is positive - more snow is accumulating than melting off. As a result, Ball explains, there is an increase in the ‘calving’ of icebergs as the ice dome of Antarctica is growing and flowing to the oceans. When Greenland and Antarctica are assessed together, “their mass balance is considered to possibly increase the sea level by 0.03 mm/year - not much of an effect,” Karlén concludes.

The Antarctica has survived warm and cold events over millions of years. A meltdown is simply not a realistic scenario in the foreseeable future.

Gore tells us in the film, “Starting in 1970, there was a precipitous drop-off in the amount and extent and thickness of the Arctic ice cap.” This is misleading, according to Ball: “The survey that Gore cites was a single transect across one part of the Arctic basin in the month of October during the 1960s when we were in the middle of the cooling period. The 1990 runs were done in the warmer month of September, using a wholly different technology.”

Karlén explains that a paper published in 2003 by University of Alaska professor Igor Polyakov shows that, the region of the Arctic where rising temperature is supposedly endangering polar bears showed fluctuations since 1940 but no overall temperature rise. “For several published records it is a decrease for the last 50 years,” says Karlén

Dr. Dick Morgan, former advisor to the World Meteorological Organization and climatology researcher at University of Exeter, U.K. gives the details, “There has been some decrease in ice thickness in the Canadian Arctic over the past 30 years but no melt down. The Canadian Ice Service records show that from 1971-1981 there was average, to above average, ice thickness. From 1981-1982 there was a sharp decrease of 15% but there was a quick recovery to average, to slightly above average, values from 1983-1995. A sharp drop of 30% occurred again 1996-1998 and since then there has been a steady increase to reach near normal conditions since 2001.”

Concerning Gore’s beliefs about worldwide warming, Morgan points out that, in addition to the cooling in the NW Atlantic, massive areas of cooling are found in the North and South Pacific Ocean; the whole of the Amazon Valley; the north coast of South America and the Caribbean; the eastern Mediterranean, Black Sea, Caucasus and Red Sea; New Zealand and even the Ganges Valley in India. Morgan explains, “Had the IPCC used the standard parameter for climate change (the 30 year average) and used an equal area projection, instead of the Mercator (which doubled the area of warming in Alaska, Siberia and the Antarctic Ocean) warming and cooling would have been almost in balance.”

Gore’s point that 200 cities and towns in the American West set all time high temperature records is also misleading according to Dr. Roy Spencer, Principal Research Scientist at The University of Alabama in Huntsville. “It is not unusual for some locations, out of the thousands of cities and towns in the U.S., to set all-time records,” he says. “The actual data shows that overall, recent temperatures in the U.S. were not unusual.”

Carter does not pull his punches about Gore’s activism, “The man is an embarrassment to US science and its many fine practitioners, a lot of whom know (but feel unable to state publicly) that his propaganda crusade is mostly based on junk science.”

In April sixty of the world’s leading experts in the field asked Prime Minister Harper to order a thorough public review of the science of climate change, something that has never happened in Canada. Considering what’s at stake - either the end of civilization, if you believe Gore, or a waste of billions of dollars, if you believe his opponents - it seems like a reasonable request.

Tom Harris is mechanical engineer and Ottawa Director of High Park Group, a public affairs and public policy company.

Nobody believes the official spokesman… but everybody trusts an unidentified source.
- Ron Nesen