And the bad science of the global warming fear-mongers continues to come to light

I am delighted to conserve resources, to recycle, to "Keep America Beautiful." I have studied and attempted to incorporate as many energy-saving ideas as possible in any architectural projects I've been involved in. (I sponsored a geo-thermal study for our commercial building, for example, when we built it nine years ago. Sadly, even under the most optimistic conditions (i.e., the most pessimistic energy pricing calculations) we could come up with, the added expense wouldn't break-even for over 20 years. And under less optimistic conditions (i.e., conditions where energy prices didn't go up quite so fast), we figured it might take 50 years to get a payback on our investment.)

So I'm concerned.

But I'm really concerned about politicized environmentalism, where the elites--Al Gore comes to mind!--tell all of us common people what we must do . . . while they, the elites, continue to fly high.

So, once more, I am upset by Mr. Gore's latest speech . . . and by further revelations from an honest environmentalist.

I appreciate the environmentalist's quote from John Maynard Keynes: "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?"

Yes, indeed! What will the radical environmentalists do as real science progressively destroys the rational basis for their wild-eyed worldview?

PS: I, too, have heard of the item that Jeff, in comment #13 beneath Gore's speech, brings to the fore:

Why do they call Greenland “GREENland” and not “Frozen White Ice Cold Land”? I understand that from the years 800 to 1300, Greenland enjoyed a mild climate. Wasn’t that BEFORE the industrial revolution? Therefore, if glaciers had retreated when there was no manmade carbon-producing industry, variations in climate must be caused by natural factors. So what is Gore’s evidence that today’s climate variation is NOT natural, organic, and part of Mother Earth’s normal behavior?