WhackyNation

Hey, libbers:

Your buddy, old friend, John Edwards has built himself a great new mansion.

An aerial shows just how environmentally correct he is.

View it and weep.  He probably preaches global warming, too.

Overseas in Davos this week, Senator John Kerry called the United States a “pariah.”

A “pariah” is an outcast, someone despised and avoided.

The comment reveals the senator’s psychology. He hates this country. He is so superior. Typical Democrat.

Get your vomit bag, this is how this effete snob views his country:

If only Kerry were president, the world would like us. How delusional.

Today’s New York Sun published the following editorial:

REID’S WHITEWATER 

Voters looking for clues as to how — or, more to the point, whether — the Democrats are going to redeem their issue of honesty and integrity on Capitol Hill will be keeping an eye on the growing scandal around the majority leader in the Senate, Harry Reid. He is caught up in a corker of a controversy over a questionable land deal.

One might think that after all the legal fees and energy the Clintons spent defending Whitewater, a top Democratic politician would know better than to get into a complicated, questionable land deal. But the message doesn’t seem to have reached Mr. Reid, who is the subject of a fascinating dispatch in Sunday’s Los Angeles Times.

The Times’ dispatch, from Bullhead City, Ariz., begins, “It’s hard to buy undeveloped land in booming northern Arizona for $166 an acre. But now-Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid effectively did just that when a longtime friend decided to sell property owned by the employee pension fund that he controlled. In 2002, Reid (D-Nev.) paid $10,000 to a pension fund controlled by Clair Haycock, a Las Vegas lubricants distributor and his friend for 50 years. The payment gave the senator full control of a 160-acre parcel in Bullhead City that Reid and the pension fund had jointly owned.

“Reid’s price for the equivalent of 60 acres of undeveloped desert was less than one-tenth of the value the assessor placed on it at the time. Six months after the deal closed, Reid introduced legislation to address the plight of lubricants dealers.” And that’s not all. The newspaper reports that “since taking full control of the parcel in 2002, Reid has pushed for federal funding for a new bridge over the Colorado River a few miles from his property.”

When the Associated Press reported some of these transactions earlier, the senator’s response was to launch an attack on the wire service. It’ll be interesting to see how Mr. Reid responds to the Los Angeles Times. For our part, we understand why Mr. Reid would feel the need to speculate in real estate development. When in Washington, the senator, who is supposed to represent the party of the common man, lives in the Ritz-Carlton, where he initially tried to pay $3,000 in Christmas bonuses to employees out of his campaign funds.

It’s hard to afford the Ritz on a senator’s salary. Since Mr. Reid, unlike Senators Rockefeller or Kerry, doesn’t have an oil or ketchup fortune at his disposal, real estate seems a reasonable area on which to fall back. From the perspective of hard-pressed taxpayers, though, it’d be a better deal simply to raise the senator’s salary directly than to have to subsidize him indirectly through regulating the lubricant market or building bridges to nowhere.

Particularly in this climate. It was the Democrats, after all, who decided to try to make congressional ethics into a national issue. We didn’t — and don’t — have an objection to that; on the contrary, we’re all for a hard line in respect of honest government. But it’s been hard to take at face value the idealism the Democrats claim for themselves. And it’s going to be harder to credit the Democrats’ motives with every day that the scandal over Mr. Reid goes unresolved.

This is ruder than Nancy Pelosi exempting her home-district tuna canner from the new minimum wage in America Samoa.

The LA Times, not your everyday Dem-basher newspaper, yesterday exposed Democrat Senate leader Harry Reid for an ethics-questioning business deal for a friend he helped with legislation.

You Democrats are so corrupt, but you are so stupid that you do not realize it.

The article by Chuck Neubauer and Tom Hamburger explains:

It’s hard to buy undeveloped land in booming northern Arizona for $166 an acre. But now-Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid effectively did just that when a longtime friend decided to sell property owned by the employee pension fund that he controlled.

Huh?  Maybe the new majority leader in the senate is a whore?

In 2002, Reid (D-Nev.) paid $10,000 to a pension fund controlled by Clair Haycock, a Las Vegas lubricants distributor and his friend for 50 years. The payment gave the senator full control of a 160-acre parcel in Bullhead City that Reid and the pension fund had jointly owned. Reid’s price for the equivalent of 60 acres of undeveloped desert was less than one-tenth of the value the assessor placed on it at the time.

Six months after the deal closed, Reid introduced legislation to address the plight of lubricants dealers who had their supplies disrupted by the decisions of big oil companies. It was an issue the Haycock family had brought to Reid’s attention in 1994, according to a source familiar with the events.

That’s the LA Times reporting, you stupid Seattle liberals.

Records and interviews show that beginning in the mid-1990s, Reid tried several times to push legislation that would have protected lubricants distributors from abrupt cancellations by their suppliers. Though unsuccessful, the legislation sent a clear message to the oil firms that there was congressional interest in the matter, according to Sarah Dodge, then-legislative director for an industry group that worked on the bill.

If Reid were to sell the property for any of the various estimates of its value, his gain on the $10,000 investment could range from $50,000 to $290,000.

Must make you proud to be a Democrat.

Rush Limbaugh has caught Hillary Clinton in a boldface lie.

In fact, anyway you look at this story, Hillary has proved herself incompetent of being president.  Rush has made the ultimate check-mate on this hussy.

Over the weekend in Iowa she claimed she had been duped into voting for going to war against Iraq:

I said that we should not go to war unless we have allies. So he (Bush) took the authority that I and others gave him and he misused it, and I regret that deeply. And if we had known then what we know now, there never would have been a vote and I never would have voted to give this president that authority.

By digging into the archives, Rush discovered this lying bitch had said just the opposite in 2003:

There is a very easy way to prevent anyone from being put into harm’s way, that is for Saddam Hussein to disarm. And I have absolutely no belief that he will. I have to say that this is something I’ve followed for more than a decade. If he were serious about disarming, he would have been much more forthcoming. I ended up voting for the resolution after carefully reviewing the information, intelligence that I had available, talking with people whose opinions I trusted, tried to discount the political or other factors that I didn’t believe should be in any way a part of this decision. I would love to agree with you, but I can’t based on my own understanding and assessment of the situation.

So, on the one hand, if she was duped by Bush (the cowboy idiot) than maybe she could be duped by others?  Disqualifies her as President, in my mind, if the “dumb-ass” Bush can dupe her.  But if she’s lying here, maybe it shows the character of her and her lying husband.

You Democrats suck.

Stefan Shakansky at Sound Politics is full of shit when it comes to criticism of Sam Reed.

He’s posted an article Evidence of Fraud at the Secretary of State’s Office.

Sharkansky may not like Reed’s opinion about criminalizing per-signature payments to initiative petition circulators, but he shouldn’t condemn Reed for fraud.

Mainstream Republicans like Reed have done more to advance Republican success in this state than the ineffective losers that Sharkansky sucks up to on his blog.

Stop it, Sharkansky. You are better than that.  Next time, think before you write.

Sam Reed has spent his entire life advancing Republican principles.  God knows I haven’t agreed with him 100% … but I don’t agree with anyone 100%.  Show him some respect.  Show some maturity.

Now here’s an idea that will improve high school learning and not cost a lot of money.

This has got to be a Republican idea.

Why, it is.  State Representative Gary Alexander (ranking minority member of Appropriations) is sponsoring HB 1481 which rewards students who pass the WASL by exempting them from intermediate driver’s license restrictions:

An intermediate licensee who meets the state standards on the reading, writing, and mathematics content areas of the high school Washington assessment of student learning the first time he or she takes the assessment may drive at any hour without restrictions on the number of passengers in the vehicle.

Students who do not pass the first time will still have to comply with the passenger limitations.

Now don’t you think this might motivate a fair number of students to study harder?  Pay attention in class?  Attend school?

Of course, lifting the driver restrictions won’t motivate everybody, but the idea is worth a try.

The bill got its first reading and has been referred to transportation.

The bill’s future is in the hands of Transportation Chair Judy Clibborn, a former teacher.

I suggest we email her at clibborn.judy@leg.wa.gov and suggest she give this bill a hearing.  You might mention you heard about it on one of her constituent’s blog.

I am hoping Clibborn will live up to her reputation as someone who can work across the aisle and give a Republican bill a hearing … even a bill that is not going to cost much money to implement.

House Speaker Frank Chopp thinks our K-12 math curriculum sucks.  But he continues to suck up to the teachers’ union and solve the problem by hiring more teachers.

According to Don Jenkins of the Longview Daily News, Chopp sees the problem lies with what’s being taught.

“The math curriculum in many districts is total nonsense,” said Chopp, whose views have been influenced by his brother, who teaches math, and his daughter, who takes math.

Chopp said he tried helping his daughter with her homework, but he couldn’t recall from his school days how to do the problem. So he looked at the index and then the preceding chapters. The textbook seemed to have no logical sequence, he said.

“I’m thinking, ‘This is nuts. We’ve got to change this.’ So the curriculum is what I’m really ticked off about,” he said.

Whether Chopp didn’t understand new math taught in textbooks or he simply can’t add two-and-two is uncertain.  The one thing we do know is Chopp is hellbent to pass a state budget that will exceed state revenues.

How?  Chopp will please the unions he whores for by passing out tens of millions in new allocations to fix the math problem by hiring more union math teachers.  Even if knows the problem is the curriculum.

The cheaper solution would be fix the curriculum for a lot less money.

But he’s a Democrat.  All he knows is to spend your money.  Not his, of course.

I am amused by the pledge drive going on at Horses Ass.

It seems a liberal blogger can’t survive without the public paying his bills.

How pathetic.  Yet, how democrat.  You want others to pay your bill.

I’d shoot myself first.  I have too much pride than to beg.

Yet, the pathic liberal community has given almost $2400, according to to blogger David Goldstein.

P.T. Barnum was right.

Congratulations to Luke Esser for being elected Republican State Party Chair.

It’s a bitch of a job.

Nobody has ever done a good job of it in my memory, not even the darling Jennifer Dunn who sold the party out to the religious right.

Ken Eikenberry didn’t have the cajones to stand up to them either.

Chris Vance didn’t have the smarts.

Diane Tebelius either didn’t have the brains or cajones, and the last election was a disaster.

Luke is an interesting guy.

Mainstream Republicans almost did not endorse him for re-election as 45th district senator.  Why?  Because speaking in his district he was a gay basher.  That did not sit well with Mainstreamers.

But Luke is an interesting mix.  He might well be considered a conservative Democrat.  He is pro-union and a very big environmentalist.  But he is anti gay, anti-choice.

One thing I have to say is that you can disagree with him he will respect you.  He’ll keep talking with you.  Also … he is a hard working public servant.  So don’t write him off.  He either is going to follow the footsteps of failure … or else be the best Republican chair in a generation.

My hope is for the latter.

Oooooh.  President Bush congratulated the “Democrat” majority in Congress.  And that’s a slam to Dumbocrats because they want their party to be called the Democratic Party.

Bullshit.

They’re the Democrat party.

I spent many years in the news media during the 70’s and 80’s …. and I never once wrote copy that read “Democratic Party.”  It was always “Democrat Party.”

Forget your new spin, liberals.  There is nothing democratic about your party.  There’s actually nothing democratic about our great United States of America.  We’re a republic (under God to many) with a republican form of government.  We elect representatives who create laws for us.

You are such losers.  You must have flunked civics, if you ever took it.  Must be sad to be a Democrat.

My favorite newspaper, the Wall Street Journal, strikes again.  This time with an op-ed shedding some light on those “green” CEO’s who came out last week for carbon dioxide caps.  Turns out the “green” had more to do with making money than with saving the planet.

Here’s the article from Friday’s paper.  My liberal friends in their eagerness to be part of the politcally-correct-cool-crowd may be doing their own part in enriching America’s corporations.  Is that an irony?

Enjoy.

Potomac Watch

by Kimberly A Strassel

If the Cap Fits

January 26, 2007; WSJ Page A10

Washington this week officially welcomed the newest industry on the hunt for financial and regulatory favors. Big CarbonCap may have the same dollar-sign agenda as Big Oil or Big Pharma, but don’t expect Nancy Pelosi to admit to it.

Democrats want to flog the global warming theme through 2008 and they’ll take what help they can get, even if it means cozying up to executives whose goal is to enrich their firms. Right now, the corporate giants calling for a mandatory carbon cap serve too useful a political purpose for anyone to delve into their baser motives.

The Climate Action Partnership, a group of 10 major companies that made headlines this week with its call for a national limit on carbon dioxide emissions, would surely feign shock at such an accusation. After all, their plea was carefully timed to coincide with President Bush’s State of the Union capitulation on global warming, and it had the desired PR effect. The media dutifully declared that “even” business now recognized the climate threat. Sen. Barbara Boxer, who begins marathon hearings on warming next week, lauded the corporate angels for thinking of the “common good.”There was a time when the financial press understood that companies exist to make money. And it happens that the cap-and-trade climate program these 10 jolly green giants are now calling for is a regulatory device designed to financially reward companies that reduce CO2 emissions, and punish those that don’t.

Four of the affiliates — Duke, PG&E, FPL and PNM Resources — are utilities that have made big bets on wind, hydroelectric and nuclear power. So a Kyoto program would reward them for simply enacting their business plan, and simultaneously sock it to their competitors. Duke also owns Cinergy, which relies heavily on dirty, CO2-emitting coal plants. But Cinergy will soon have to replace those plants with cleaner equipment. Under a Kyoto, it’ll get paid for its trouble.

DuPont has been plunging into biofuels, the use of which would soar under a cap. Somebody has to cobble together all these complex trading deals, so say hello to Lehman Brothers. Caterpillar has invested heavily in new engines that generate “clean energy.” British Petroleum is mostly doing public penance for its dirty oil habit, but also gets a plug for its own biofuels venture.

Finally, there’s General Electric, whose CEO Jeffrey Immelt these days spends as much time in Washington as Connecticut. GE makes all the solar equipment and wind turbines (at $2 million a pop) that utilities would have to buy under a climate regime. GE’s revenue from environmental products long ago passed the $10 billion mark, and it doesn’t take much “ecomagination” to see why Mr. Immelt is leading the pack of climate profiteers.CEOs are quick learners, and even those who would get smacked by a carbon cap are now devising ways to make warming work to their political advantage. The “most creative” prize goes to steel giant Nucor. Steven Rowlan, the company’s environmental director, doesn’t want carbon caps in the U.S. — oh, no. The smarter answer, he explains, would be for the U.S. to impose trade restrictions on foreign firms that aren’t environmentally clean. Global warming as foil for trade protectionism: Chuck Schumer’s dream.

What makes this lobby worse than the usual K-Street crowd is that it offers no upside. At least when Big Pharma self-interestedly asks for fewer regulations, the economy benefits. There’s nothing capitalist about lobbying for a program that foists its debilitating costs on taxpayers and consumers while redistributing the wealth to a few corporate players.

This is what comes from Washington steadily backstepping energy policy into the interventionist 1970s, picking winners and losers. In ethanol, in biodiesel, in wind farms, success isn’t a function of supply or demand. The champs are the ones that coax out of Washington the best subsidies and regulations. Global warming is simply the biggest trough yet.

Both Republicans and Democrats understand this debate is increasingly about home-state economics, even as they publicly joust about environmental rights or wrongs. The softening Republican stance on a mandatory program is one result. New Mexico’s Pete Domenici appeared to undergo an epiphany about global warming in 2005, voting for a Senate resolution supporting caps. The switch might have more to do with remembering that his state is nuclear-power central, and will win big under a new program. Just ask his fellow New Mexican, Jeff Bingaman, who introduced the resolution.

Economic interests also motivate those Democrats who won’t play nice. The senators who have voted against previous bills represent those industries that will suffer most under Mr. Immelt’s agenda. Louisiana’s Mary Landrieu (oil); Montana’s Max Baucus (coal); West Virginia’s Robert Byrd (ditto). House Energy & Commerce Chair John Dingell remains a skeptic, since the last thing his Michigan auto makers need is yet another reason for people to not buy their cars.

Which is fine with Ms. Pelosi. The Democratic leadership ran out of the winner’s circle last November promising to tackle climate. And much was made this week of Madam Speaker’s decision to wrest control of the debate away from Mr. Dingell’s purview, handing it instead to a new “select” committee on climate change.

But read the fine print. The new vaunted committee will have no legislative authority, but exists solely to hold hearings and to “communicate with the American people.” Ms. Pelosi and Harry Reid want to talk about this issue . . . and talk, and talk and talk. But not necessarily anything more.

That’s because Democrats want global warming as an issue through 2008. With Al Gore getting his Oscar nod, they’ve got a “problem” that captures the public imagination, as well as an endless supply of cash from thrilled environmental groups. No need to spoil it with a solution. And a Democratic president in 2009 would be more open to any ultimate legislation.

Best yet, they’ve got the “support” of the business community, or at least the savvier elements of it. Welcome, Big CarbonCap; we’re likely to be hearing a lot from you.

One of the best journalists I ever worked with in the Northwest has just recently started his own blog.

The “Daily Voice of Reason” is the brainchild of Lou Guzzo, former PI Managing Editor and KIRO commentator (where I knew him).

Check him out.

House Bill 1071 which proposes to give medical coverage to all children in Washington (including illegal aliens) is only going to cost less than a half million dollars in fiscal year 2008.

Do you believe that?

That’s the kind of crap that the governnor’s Office of Financial Management is claiming in its fiscal note.

This is Alice in Wonderland, is it not?

UPDATE Jan 24:

HB 1071 passed out of committee today … the first step towards socialized medicine in Washington State and a completely wrecked budget.

Does House Minority Leader Richard DeBoldt have a measurable IQ?

At a time when the Dem’s have a super majority, control both houses and the governor’s mansion, this idiot posts a “BEST for Washington” agenda.  Richard, you have no say, you idiot.  You’re on the defensive.  Ever since you have led House Republicans you’re caucus has done nothing but shrink in numbers.  You’re a pathetic loser … and you’re “BEST for Washington” and you’re plan for soccer mom “BETH” makes you look just plain stupid.

I can’t believe you are a public relations professional (Day job = PR spokesman for the Centralia Coal Plant).  This “BEST” agenda besides being an eyeball glazer is totally irrelevant.  It’s high school student council rah-rah at best.

Frank Chopp and his Dem’s are controlling the game.  Too bad.  But you are a great deal to blame for losing so many seats this last election. 

As Minority Leader you need the be a clear and reasoned voice for Republicans as the Dem’s lay out their agenda.  You’re in no position to lay out a “Republican Agenda.”  I doubt you could get any bill to the floor.

Mainstream Republicans: dump this fool.  DeBoldt is clearly over his head.  Get behind Mike Armstrong or someone else with the courage to step up and stage a caucus coup.  You all are embarassing me.

“Pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty.” — JFK Innaugural speech

This thought is the single most important reason Senator Joe Lieberman entered public life, according to an interview in today’s Wall Street Journal.

Like Lieberman, JFK would have been purged by today’s cut-and-run Democrats.  Shame on them.

Hey, Chicken Littles, all of you who fear the earth is melting into hell.

Russian scientists are predicting the opposite … oops, guess that upsets the Fraud Gore’s claim to a “consensus” about “global warming.”  (Does this make you feel foolish by being used so easily?)

Inconvenient to the global warming hype are not only the articles by American atmospheric scientists cited on this blog, but also the findings by the Russian Sciences Academy Observatory.  It concludes from its data that the earth is about to cool down into a new mini ice age starting about the year 2012.

This story broke a number of months ago, but, of course, got very little notice in American media.  So, as a public service to my ignorant, liberal friends, I post a number of articles from the Russian media.

After you read them, I hope you will at least revisit your emotional claim that there’s consensus among atmospheric scientists about climate change.

Your friend,

Whacky.

From the Russian Information Agency, August 25, 2006:

ST. PETERSBURG, August 25 (RIA Novosti)- Global cooling could develop on Earth in 50 years and have serious consequences before it is replaced by a period of warming in the early 22nd century, a Russian scientist said Friday.

Environmentalists and scientists today focus on the dangers of global warming provoked by man’s detrimental effect on the planet’s climate, but global cooling - though never widely supported - is a theory postulating an overwhelming cooling of the Earth which could involve glaciation.

“On the basis of our [solar emission] research, we developed a scenario of a global cooling of the Earth’s climate by the middle of this century and the beginning of a regular 200-year-long cycle of the climate’s global warming at the start of the 22nd century,” said the head of the space research sector of the Russian Academy of Sciences’ astronomical observatory.

Khabibullo Abdusamatov said he and his colleagues had concluded that a period of global cooling similar to one seen in the late 17th century - when canals froze in the Netherlands and people had to leave their dwellings in Greenland - could start in 2012-2015 and reach its peak in 2055-2060.

He said he believed the future climate change would have very serious consequences and that authorities should start preparing for them today because “climate cooling is connected with changing temperatures, especially for northern countries.”

“The Kyoto initiatives to save the planet from the greenhouse effect should be put off until better times,” he said, referring to an international treaty on climate change targeting greenhouse gas emissions.

“The global temperature maximum has been reached on Earth, and Earth’s global temperature will decline to a climatic minimum even without the Kyoto protocol,” Abdusamatov said.

Excerpt from MosNews June 2:

Analysis of the Sun’s radiation fluctuations that influence the climate on Earth shows that the planet at the moment is on the peak of the global warming process, Absudamatov said. Now, with the decrease in the Sun’s radiation, global temperatures are going to decrease, too.

“In 20th century, the Sun’s activity could be characterized by a general increase in the amount of radiated energy, and global warming was a result of this process. Global warming is by no means an anomaly, but a normal phenomenon. Global warmings, as well as global coolings, have happened before.”

According to Absudamatov, the global cooling will start in 2012 or 2013. By 2035 the Sun’s radiation will reach its minimum, and 15 years later a deep cooling of the Earth’s climate should be expected.

UPDATE

Check Pravda article.

Apparently Al Gore, the one-time Tennessee ”journalist”, can’t take a tough interview especially from journalists he knows have done their homework.

This is a revealing story about him ducking a newspaper interview in Europe.  The following article appeared as an opinion piece in yesterday’s Wall Street Journal.  I post it here because I know our liberal friends in Seattle lack a diversity of news sources.

Enjoy.

Will Al Gore Melt?

By FLEMMING ROSE and BJORN LOMBORG

January 18, 2007; Page A16

Al Gore is traveling around the world telling us how we must fundamentally change our civilization due to the threat of global warming. Today he is in Denmark to disseminate this message. But if we are to embark on the costliest political project ever, maybe we should make sure it rests on solid ground. It should be based on the best facts, not just the convenient ones. This was the background for the biggest Danish newspaper, Jyllands-Posten, to set up an investigative interview with Mr. Gore. And for this, the paper thought it would be obvious to team up with Bjorn Lomborg, author of “The Skeptical Environmentalist,” who has provided one of the clearest counterpoints to Mr. Gore’s tune.

The interview had been scheduled for months. Mr. Gore’s agent yesterday thought Gore-meets-Lomborg would be great. Yet an hour later, he came back to tell us that Bjorn Lomborg should be excluded from the interview because he’s been very critical of Mr. Gore’s message about global warming and has questioned Mr. Gore’s evenhandedness. According to the agent, Mr. Gore only wanted to have questions about his book and documentary, and only asked by a reporter. These conditions were immediately accepted by Jyllands-Posten. Yet an hour later we received an email from the agent saying that the interview was now cancelled. What happened?

One can only speculate. But if we are to follow Mr. Gore’s suggestions of radically changing our way of life, the costs are not trivial. If we slowly change our greenhouse gas emissions over the coming century, the U.N. actually estimates that we will live in a warmer but immensely richer world. However, the U.N. Climate Panel suggests that if we follow Al Gore’s path down toward an environmentally obsessed society, it will have big consequences for the world, not least its poor. In the year 2100, Mr. Gore will have left the average person 30% poorer, and thus less able to handle many of the problems we will face, climate change or no climate change.

Clearly we need to ask hard questions. Is Mr. Gore’s world a worthwhile sacrifice? But it seems that critical questions are out of the question. It would have been great to ask him why he only talks about a sea-level rise of 20 feet. In his movie he shows scary sequences of 20-feet flooding Florida, San Francisco, New York, Holland, Calcutta, Beijing and Shanghai. But were realistic levels not dramatic enough? The U.N. climate panel expects only a foot of sea-level rise over this century. Moreover, sea levels actually climbed that much over the past 150 years. Does Mr. Gore find it balanced to exaggerate the best scientific knowledge available by a factor of 20?

Mr. Gore says that global warming will increase malaria and highlights Nairobi as his key case. According to him, Nairobi was founded right where it was too cold for malaria to occur. However, with global warming advancing, he tells us that malaria is now appearing in the city. Yet this is quite contrary to the World Health Organization’s finding. Today Nairobi is considered free of malaria, but in the 1920s and ’30s, when temperatures were lower than today, malaria epidemics occurred regularly. Mr. Gore’s is a convenient story, but isn’t it against the facts?

He considers Antarctica the canary in the mine, but again doesn’t tell the full story. He presents pictures from the 2% of Antarctica that is dramatically warming and ignores the 98% that has largely cooled over the past 35 years. The U.N. panel estimates that Antarctica will actually increase its snow mass this century. Similarly, Mr. Gore points to shrinking sea ice in the Northern Hemisphere, but don’t mention that sea ice in the Southern Hemisphere is increasing. Shouldn’t we hear those facts? Mr. Gore talks about how the higher temperatures of global warming kill people. He specifically mentions how the European heat wave of 2003 killed 35,000. But he entirely leaves out how global warming also means less cold and saves lives. Moreover, the avoided cold deaths far outweigh the number of heat deaths. For the U.K. it is estimated that 2,000 more will die from global warming. But at the same time 20,000 fewer will die of cold. Why does Mr. Gore tell only one side of the story?

Al Gore is on a mission. If he has his way, we could end up choosing a future, based on dubious claims, that could cost us, according to a U.N. estimate, $553 trillion over this century. Getting answers to hard questions is not an unreasonable expectation before we take his project seriously. It is crucial that we make the right decisions posed by the challenge of global warming. These are best achieved through open debate, and we invite him to take the time to answer our questions: We are ready to interview you any time, Mr. Gore — and anywhere.

Mr. Rose is culture editor of Jyllands-Posten, in Copenhagen. Mr. Lomborg is a professor at the Copenhagen Business School.