Sorry to have broken the streak, boyz; I voted "deserved."
I'm not a particular fan of Al, and maybe it's like the blind squirrel stumbling on the acorn, but people don't win Nobel Prizes by blowing smoke. We may not like it but that doesn't make the award a mistake.
Like it or not, the science is in, the polar icecaps are melting and the rate at which we're adding CO2 to the atmosphere has far overtaken the atmosphere's ability to absorb it.
I guess that makes me the only true hypocrite here, as I burn my rice in my girlie stoker furnace. But, in my defense, I've been saying for years that we should be generating electricity with coal and nukes, not oil and gas. Now it looks like the "nukular" industry may make a comeback. And, as we take these coal plants offline, we can use the coal for our houses.
Oh, and coal is a national security issue for me: less imported oil!
But, let's face it: like the proverbial fruit flies, we humans are using the planet's food and fuel, increasing our population, and generating quantities of waste that ultimately will make the environment too toxic to survive in. Anybody miss that experiment in 10th grade biology?
The question is whether we'll use our considerable ingenuity to mitigate or to accelerate the problem. We can hope but, as long as it's either easier or cheaper to be dirty, somebody will be doing it. Like me. Or the Chinese.
As Kurt Vonnegut told Jon Stewart before he died last year, "Humans are a terrible species and we can hardly blame the earth's immune system for trying to rid itself of us."
Whether or not we agree with Al, we need to get serious about this issue. I don't yet see that as meaning that we have to stop burning coal; maybe getting rid of gas guzzlers we don't need and getting some nukes online will be a win on both carbon and national security.
But our kids and -- if we're lucky -- theirs need us to square up to this and make some long-term plans that don't involve sticking our heads in the, um, coal bin.