The point is fundamental. Whether warming or cooling is beneficial depends largely on where you live. Federal control of climate is therefore inappropriate. International control, even worse. Climate democracy requires local control. If the political discussion remains national during this election season, the candidates should – at the very least – choose vice presidential running mates who favor warming: at least acknowledging that the north matters.
Local climate control: how can it be done? – the facts are these. To say that climate engineering is in a pre-early stage of development is a vast understatement. There is no such thing. Governments can no more control climate globally than they can locally. We have a long, long way to go technologically before any such thing as climate democracy can become reality. Wake up and smell the crap – it’s a scam! They want to raise taxes and increase government control over earthly endeavors and you won’t get anything for it in return.
I’ve never been one to disparage a glacier, but that doesn’t obscure my recognition of the manipulation in Mr. Gore’s message when he attempts to convince us that we have no choice. Balderdash! If government can control the earth’s temperature, then it can be forced in either direction. More importantly, if politicians are going to assume the authority to manipulate climate, voters should decide which way it goes.
Mr. Gore lives in the southern United States where I can well understand that a few degrees of cooling seems like a good thing. Try walking around Baton Rouge, Louisiana on a hot, humid summer day. Given a democratic choice, the south will likely rise in favor of cooling. But put yourself in the middle of a snowstorm in northern Minnesota and your perspective will change dramatically. Several degrees warmer would be a relief. Make it colder and Minnesota will suffer physically and economically.