1. Senator
   
2. Vice President
   
3. Author
   
4. Pundit
   
5. Diatribe
   
6. Filmmaker
   
7. Talk Show Guest
   
8. Speaker at Upper Eastside YMCA

Also, not especially related, the Upper East Side zipcodes contribute more to political campaigns and parties than any other place in the country.

As for Al Gore with David Letterman, yes indeed, that went very well, and it was great that that bit about the limited CO2-absorbing capacity of the water around Antarctica was allowed to go on.  Letterman pressed Gore on advice, towards the end, and Gore answered well, but not brilliantly.  And he seems to have muffed the "frozen waffle" question.


Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.

Anything to do with Bush is mocked.  They have never presented his hydrogen program in its entirely.   They never say anything true about fuel cells or hydrogen but will re-spew agitprop from Al Gore's mouth with aplumb.

But, if you want to be taken seriously (and maybe you're just an ass)...

*--Don't refer to someone's argument as "agitprop."  Not only is it not propaganda to believe something and espouse it, but use of the arcane term "agitprop" makes you look obsessed with Soviets and like something of a John Bircher.  That's soooooooo 1964.

*--Going on Letterman is a sign of decline?  Mean like when George Bush wiped his glasses on Letterman's assistant's skirt when he was running for president?  Does the YMCA rate higher or lower than the elementary school class in which Dubya read "My Pet Goat" while the Twin Towers burned?  Or, are you arguing that significant public figures with a message they want to get across remain separated from their intended audience?  And, how exactly does one get a job as a diatribe?

*--If there's a bias involved in advocating solutions for global warming, it's a bias among contrarians.  Science isn't political, and if you think of global warming as a liberal/conservative issue (and you must if you think this site, which regularly discusses global warming, has a liberal bias), then you not only misunderstand science but you've helped politicize it.  This probably also helps to explain why you've lost the debate on global warming but don't yet understand why.

*--The President?  Fuel cells?  Hydrogen?  Yes, the president has an undeserved reputation for not taking global warming seriously (or, the environment in general, for that matter).  I mean, his administration is the most ethically sound -- scientifically speaking -- and wouldn't ever dream of appointing people who'd try to manipulate what scientists reporters can talk to, how reports are written, or insisting that international policy papers are watered down to highlight doubt and cover up scientific strengths.

*--If you think this site is full of jerks, you're happily invited to stop reading it.  The marketplace of ideas is your friend in this respect.  It never ceases to amaze me when you free market types wander into a room owned and operated by someone else and complain that -- despite the fact that you contribute not one red penny for its operation and upkeep -- it doesn't suit your tastes.