In all due respect and thanks to Ray, Bookworm posted a response which satisfied my appearance on this blog. I acknowledged that Bookworm made no pretense on her position about warming. I’d love to discuss the issue but it had nothing to do with my query.

Somewhat ironic and worth future consideration is Bookworm’s nod to Ray: “The only reason I got up off the sidelines is that Pastor Ray, with a rather backhanded compliment, seems perplexed about my intent in writing this post”

Kudos to Ray . . . he got the point across. I did not, and endured a heckuva slew of nonsense in return.

I’d be more than happy to offer my significant and substantive comments on this topic as many others . . . but perhaps in a forum more conducive to actual contemplation, consideration, and pursuit of greater understanding.

I was not critiquing the movies in the review, since I don’t really care about either of them. They both sound rather dull, to be honest. I’ve also stated that I’m just ignorant and perplexed about global warming, although I do believe that we Americans can do little in the face of India’s and China’s increasingly rapid and polluting industrialization.

My real point, and I thought it was clear from the post’s title, was to point out that these movie review, which really ought to have limited themselves to whether the movies were good or bad, appear to represent a large political paradigm shift from Hillary to Al. That’s all. And I got to be snarky while I did it.

“…Unless, of course one, takes an existentialist view that, under the right circumstances, one flap of a butterfly wing can start a tidal wave.. ”

One of the problems with using computers to evaluate climate change is that it isn’t possible for computers to do that. They can’t and will never be able to account for the human factor, that stray Joe Six-pack who squashes the butterfly whose wings flap and…

Don’t pat yourself on the back too hard . . . wouldn’t want you to cough up a lung.

Your analysis will remain only presumptious, at best. My clearly noted issue with the article however, remains largely unaddressed.

Having read the exchanges here, I remain as perplexed as ever, as to why Book would write such ignorant nonsense. She’s smarter than what her commentary implies. Frankly, I believe she deploys partisanship as her weapon-of-choice against forces that are personal and private, rather than common.