I happened to catch a clip of Mellisa Etheridge at the "Live Earth" concert for Global Warming last weekend. She had just finished her song when Al Gore came on stage to recite the seven tenets of the newest religion created. I'm keeping a personally tally sheet of monies collected for both Scientology and Global Warming to see who wins.

Since when did science need the help of political figures and celebrities to boost it's awareness? Many people have already pointed out how much carbon this whole shebang is emitting, so unless there's a Gulfstream V who's engines are "green" I'm betting the Live Earth concert tour around the seven continents will leave quite the carbon footprint. But this is permissible because the tour is basically saying, "Hey, see the mess we just made getting around the world to promote awareness for being "green"? Yeah, that crap is bad." Like the person that shoots a man just to show how bad it is.

Is this a mistake in reasoning? Or can we call it stupid?

Also perhaps we shouldn’t talk about all the heaters they’re going to use for the concert in Antarctica (One of the seven continents remember?) We may see an increase in ocean levels after all that ice melts.

My favorite part of the whole Live Earth thing is that it’s purpose is to promote awareness of Global warming. Well thank you Al Gore, see I’ve been living under a rock for several years. And I’ve just been waiting for a group of musicians (Historically the experts on political issues, oh wait, this is a scientific issue.) to come along and increase my awareness.

Lets review, Al Gores mansion takes enough power to service Darfur. And yet this is ok because the “credits” he is earning by his promotion of Global Warming Awareness. And this is done by flying jets around the world (With Energy Star compliant jet engines that burn corn oil right?) Does this mean that I can take money from poor people if I start an anti-poverty concert tour?

According to scientists, scientific theories are never proved absolutely true. This is because theories are based off of our own observations of the world around us. These observations are subjective to our own individual way of interpreting what we see and experience. So when Scientists in the 70s looked at their thermometers around the world and saw a decrease in the global temperature, they predicted the next Ice Age. So, the earths temperature that has been changing for millions of years has gone from on the brink of the next ice age to the brink of over warming the planet in just thirty short years.

This is truly incredible.

The planet that has taken millions and millions of years to achieve a temperate climate has gone from a predicted cooling trend to a predicted warming based on the current temperature trends. But this is swallowable only because the Foo Fighters dedicated their song to Al Gore and his cause. Let’s apply this current theory to the stock market and make a killing. If you take a snapshot of wall street in a given day, week, or month, the given trend may be going up or going down. Looking at a snapshot of the market as it’s going up and predicting a continued “up” trend is foolish. Many factors affect the complex model of the market, as do many factors affecting the complex model of Global Climate.

The best part is that we all need to believe that scientists, who are admittedly only "almost certain but not all the way sure" are to lead the way in "saving" our planet. We know that temperatures are rising on the planet. When did this become a bad thing? Scientists claim that global warming will increase the occurrence of storms and El Nino type weather patterns. Great El Nino did more economic good than harm. Bring it on.

Bush Causes Global Warming.

I recently entitled an argumentative essay for a philosophy class: "An argumentative essay concerning the validity of legalizing euthanasia and abortions if and only if this action may reduce future carbon dioxide emissions and prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that President Bush is the cause for any problem: past, present, and future."

Warning: the following rhetoric may not appear to follow the title of this blog.

Of course, my essay had nothing to do with the legalizing euthanasia or abortions. It spoke nothing of carbon dioxide emissions. And never once alluded to the war in Iraq, President Bush or even his conspiratorial prior knowledge of 9/11. If I did, I would most certainly get an "A".

Welcome to The University of Liberalism where blaming our current president is a prerequisite for registration.

Perhaps the IPCC can figure out a way to channel the energy created by the endless doggy-in-the-dash-board nodding that happens in college classrooms today, then we might not only reduce the effects of "Global Warming" but push our world to the next ice age in a over-zealous game of playing God Al Gore. Or we could all decide to jump at the same time to knock the earths orbit a few miles farther from the sun to make our climate better. Maybe if we have a designated time during the day in which we all open our refrigerators, the days of leaving the back door open and having dad yell, "we are not air conditioning the whole planet" could come to an end.

If it were not sad, it would be impressive how young impressionable minds are encouraged to link any conceivable problem in this world to one of three things:

1.) How bad and evil Bush and Cheney are and how they are to blame for everything.
2.) Its Global Warming's fault.
3.) And if by some reason 1 and 2 are too much of a stretch even for liberals, a blanket blame on anyone conservative will suffice.

Wait, wasn't I in a Logic Class? I am literally the only person out of 36 kids who does not blame Bush for my late homework. Extra credit points are given for making a quasi-logical leap from things like the plight of the spotted owl to the inner workings of the Oval Office.

If three hours of pleading with people that the shadows on the cave wall are fake wasn't maddening enough, the four hours of "environmental science" environmental religion are enough to make even Ann Coulter bang her head on the wall. I know I do; the professor asks me to stop so the other classmates have the opportunity to vomit snippets of An Inconvenient Truth they heard from an online blog recited on CNN. After a student demonstrates enough disgust at being a consuming American and verbally denounces the idea of having running water in their homes, (I swear this is true) the professor leaps from her chair and runs to the student and gives them a high five.

Every once in a while, just for fun, I'll throw a negative comment about how Bush is killing the planet. I now have four, "high-fives."

This isn't learning. This is people pleasing. The students in both of my classes are terrified of not fitting into the deep set liberal grain of the college faculty. I was called stupid and accused of having a "low IQ" because I asked some hard questions about the Theory of Global Warming. Being accused of having a low IQ by a scientist because I was utilizing the Scentific Method was an unusual experience. I was sitting in a world that Huxley and Orwell would be proud of. Don't forget that scientists were in agreement that Eugenics was a pretty swell idea in it's time.

It was then I realized that college professors don't teach, they deal out soma.

My cries of, "but daddy, he's not wearing any clothes" not only fall on deaf ears, but label me stupid and behind the times.

All in all though, I am enjoying my classroom experiences. Getting gang-mugged by liberal faculty and students provides a excellent forum for being cross grain and stir up trouble, much like a wrench that is tossed into the gears of Big Ben.

-Vaughn Boomsma