For those of you who just can't stand Al Gore, here is some advice: Ignore him. Pretend he does not exist.

Instead, read the IPCC reports. They shared the Nobel Peace prize with the dreaded former Vice-President. They are the ones who actually do climate change science. They do the actual science that has caused concern by much of the world. Take a look at their work and then make up your mind. Step beyond your dislike of Gore and do a little honest thinking for a change.

I agree, it would be better if Al lived a lifestyle with a smaller footprint. At the very least, his large house is fodder for the anti-environment right. However, in defense of Gore, he was plenty wealthy on the day he was born, so I doubt he's financially-motivated. He's also been an environmentalist and pro-science advocate since very early in his political career. Long before "An Inconvenient Truth," there was "Earth in the Balance." He's well known among environmental scientists as being a strong supporter of environmental regulation and research funding. Like it or not, his work has converted thousands (at least) to the cause of ending global warming. Al's impact on the environment goes far beyond the size of his house, car, or bank account. What have you done for the environment lately?

"Religious protestations are now a rote formula for asserting family values and opposing moral relativism"

Gee, thanks for that bit of insightful wisdom. Are you actually employed to state the obvious or were you at a loss for something original to say about the elections?

The change-over to low sulfur diesel was made so that diesel vehicles could now be fitted with emissions controls. The days of the sooty, smelly truck exhaust will soon be over.

Unfortunately, trains (diesel-powered) will not be fitted with this technology. Additionally, no one has figured out how to limit emissions from a cargo jet. So, they will continue to pollute after the trucks are cleaned up.

This all just goes to prove the point I've been trying to make in this forum about Paglia. She has no business speaking about technological issues unless she is willing to read up on them and back up her knee-jerk opinions with some facts. Science and technology is not like art and culture. You need to do a little homework before you speak. Salon is being irresponsible when they publish these columns. This is just poor journalism.

>I think there are reputable scientists on both sides of the global warming issue.

You might think that, but it doesn't make you any less wrong.

>I remind you that we were being warned of a coming ice age in the 70s, by reputable scientists, and it even made the cover of Newsweek.

That never rose to the level of concern that global warming has today. Furthermore, the globe never actually started to cool for any real length of time! The Earth is warming, no question. Our knowledge and understanding of the global climate has increased by orders of magnitude since the 1970's.

>I do think there is indisputable evidence that there have been times of global warming in the past. Obviously we had nothing to do with that. So the hysteria gets irritating.

Its absolutely true that the climate has changed in the past and that we've had nothing to do with it. Any climate change scientist will agree with you. However, that doesn't mean that what's happening now isn't man made. Do you really think an entire world-wide committee of climate change scientists haven't considered all of the possibilities regarding the causes of our warming planet? Do you really think you've figured out something that they haven't? Do you really think that there is a world-wide conspiracy to blame global warming on humans when they actually believe that its not our fault? What exactly do you think the motives of the IPCC are?

What's irritating is when people who simply refuse to attempt learn anything about this issue spout nonsense.

Get over your dislike of Al and start learning about this issue. Just cause you don't like the guy doesn't mean he's wrong.

I understand why employing Paglia seems like a good idea to the editors at Salon.com. She gets lots of hits on her articles and they generate lots of letters. She is somewhat well known in literary circles. She is a published author and an academic. She brings clout, excitement, and readers to the website.

However, I must seriously take issue with her lack of background, depth, and thought when discussing issues related to science and technology. Her viewpoints on global warming and pollution are totally unencumbered by the facts. She works on pure gut-level instinct and a few misinformed and/or out-of-date ideas about how the planet works. This mode of thinking and writing is probably valid in art and culture criticism. However, it just doesn't cut it when talking about science. Therefore, publishing her thoughts on these issues is just plain irresponsible on the part of Salon.com.

The science issues that Paglia takes on in her column are serious topics with serious effects on the Earth and our society. Salon.com owes it to its readers to take a hard, editorial look at everything it publishes on these issues.

Science journalism is not easy. Perhaps Salon could try to take pride in doing a good job of it.