What an excellent example of why even the above average person who is educated and literate can seem so incredibly dumb... if they think, like Andrew Leonard, that if they take an obvious bit of rhetoric and apply literal meaning to it, they are somehow smarter, or wiser or perceptive even old E.O.Wilson...ha ha ha.

Mr Leonard, please stop trying to make hay out of nothing. It's clear to anyone with genuine understanding and knowledge what Wilson meant and his point should be regarded for the wisdom it contains instead of trying to point out that you, sir, don't understand how to use language, or rather that you, sir, are not below impugning a truly great contributor to our world's understanding of nature's incredible legacy, in order to look just a bit smarter (by half, I'd say).

I's say get a job but apparently your editor thinks you're one smart thinkin' feller, but I'd guess that neither of you have read his work nor comprehend the premise of his work and its implications.

Of course we can expect a lot of other really great minds now to align behind you, Mr Leonard, as they all realize what a dolt E.O.Wilson is in comparison to you...ha ha ah...that's so rich and so very arch...did you go to writers camp to learn it?

Not too long ago, I would have been all in favor of Al Gore being in a pivotal position regarding climate but I'm not so sure any more. He's done an great service in bringing our attention to the matter but I'm afraid he has created a political monster that finds any and all alternative postions to be "wrong" in the political sense. His allusion to those who disagree with the IPCC favored model of global warming as being like people who don't believe in the helio-centric model of the solar system is a good example. He fails to continue with the metphore in which the IPCC model would have us believe that the orbits of the planets are nice smooth circles and are therefore predictable when in fact people like Freeman Dyson and many others whom I find highly credible realize that the orbits are actually eliptical and subject to quite a few perturbations from other massive bodies we don't quite understand or fully know in regards to their positions...so, the allusion that Gore uses is a kind of ruse to get us to all get along instead of addressing the real problem. For instance...global warming will harm people with increased malaria, so let's put a bunch of money into buying carbon offsets? Hey..we already have a lot of malaria and if we had that money to buy mosquito netting and work to give people basic evnironmental health we'd take care of a lot of malaria...Oh, and the polar bears? Well, those 300+ coal fired energy plants in China...and the many others in the other so-called "underdeveloped" world will spew out tons of mercury an dother toxics that is definitely causing the polar bears and a lot of other apex predators to bioaccumulate toxic heavy metals, disrupting their reproduction..so, what about that? See...I love the planet as much as the next guy and I don't see where Al Gore or any of the other IPCC proponents are doing what science should do; being transparent and foreward with evidence so we get to the real truth, not just the "truth" that the IPCC thinks will do us all a lot of good and create a gigantic organization that does what giant organizatons do..survive above and beyond their initial creation. Let's work to alleviate human impacts, including that portion of warming that is no doubt a result of CO2...but the total fixation and alarm will only result in a stop-gap solution that will consume the resources we do have for addressing the many needs that a developing world wants and will get even if it means unsustainingly eating its remaining natural resources.

BabyGrampus hit the nail on the head.

It may be true that she attracts the attention of a lot of "girly men" unlike that pious hair-do, teeth and expensive suite combo, Mitt Romney, that you declared "our next president" not too long ago Camille. I suggest you consider that assessment before any analysis of presidential qualifications in the future if you wish to maintain any credibility on the subject.