Flat-Earth-Think

In all fairness, from what little I have seen of him, I think Al Gore is probably a good guy. I think he is caught up in his notoriety like any of the rest of us would be and I find no fault with that other than he is letting it inflate his ego a bit much. But considering his fame I have to hand it to him for first being able to pack it in like that and secondly for letting someone photograph him doing it.

I do think he is a bit goofy but I write that off as being just a regular guy placed in situations where his internal self-image is frightened of doing something that will expose how ordinary he really is. He is awkward. A good example of this was when Clinton spoke after the impeachment trial. Gore stood in the background with this goofy look on his face as he stood by his man. Another example is his attempt to look in charge during the 2000 debates by stalking Bush on the stage. This is a guy that will step up and play the parts he is instructed to play though his delivery is less than convincing.

Do I think Gore is an exceptionally bright man ? You be the judge from the photo.

Yesterday he made a statement equating those who do not believe that human activity is the cause of global warming to those in the past who believed the Earth to be flat. He has it backwards and here's why.

The line of thinking of the flat-earth concept comes from a static view of the universe and the human's Divine position in it. The Sun and Moon orbited the Earth, the stars were set in place so we would have a way of knowing where we are in the dark. However, as time went by and knowledge increased this view became absurd.

So it is with global warming being caused by human activity. It is that same arrogance that somehow everything that happens on the planet is a direct result of a frail little creature with an ego. It is a static view that comes to the conclusion that there exists some optimal temperature the planet should be. For who or what ? Where's the thermostat to set this? Does the Earth really need us to determine it natural cycles? They tend to ignore questions like; what influence may that huge nuclear furnace we orbit have to do with temperature or what influence do those vast flowing oceans have on temperature ?

To ignore that the Earth is a dynamic place that operates within the bounds of physical principles, such as conservation of energy, and indifferent to what we think the temperature ought to be is not much different from the mindset the flat-Earth thinkers. "The world is flat because we say it is and the selective science we have proves it." However, their narrative falls apart if asked what is on the other side of this flat planet?

So it is with the advocates of man-made global warming. They will tell you the science is settled despite a huge amount of historical data that indicates that the Sun, the ocean, the planetary orbital cycles probably have the greatest say in the matter.

So who has the more static view of Earth's climate?