I love to laugh at those global warming hypocrites. You know the ones I mean: those idiots you read about in the news or see on TV preaching about global warming, only to then head off stage into their waiting private jet.

The most famous one is probably Al Gore, who came out with a whole pseudo-documentary to try to convince people to change their evil carbon-emitting ways—and had the sheer audacity to actually ask people (via the camera): “Are you ready to change the way you live?”—when the blathering moron flies around in a private jet and lives in a mansion that sucks up power like Good Humor on a hot day, complete with an indoor swimming pool that costs $500 a month to heat. I guess that’s one hypocrite just not yet ready to change the way he lives.

Well, the London Times put together a great list of these hypocrites (probably the most comprehensive such list I’ve seen so far), including John Travolta; Oprah Winfrey; Sting’s wife, Dame Trudie Styler; Tom Cruise; Sheryl Crow; Jennifer Aniston; Coldplay’s Chris Martin; and others.

If only this sort of public ridicule would get these people to finally shut up.

Al Gore recently held a Q&A at a meeting of the Society of Environmental Journalists in Madison, Wisconsin, during which he was pressed about the British court that found An Inconvenient Truth to be “a political film” riddled with scientific errors. The judge in that case also held that requiring the film to be shown in schools (which was the crux of the lawsuit filed by an upset school parent) would be a violation of law, unless accompanied by “guidance” pointing out its errors.

John Fund comments on the story in todays WSJ:

For a public figure, Mr. Gore has been strangely reluctant to answer questions or debate the more controversial parts of his work. But over the weekend, he deigned to take a few questions during a meeting of the Society of Environmental Journalists in Madison, Wisconsin.

Irish documentary filmmaker Phelim McAleer was in the line. A former Financial Times journalist, his new film, “Not Evil, Just Wrong,” is a direct refutation of Mr. Gore’s thesis and warns that rushing to judgment in combating climate change would threaten the world’s poor. When his turn came, Mr. McAleer asked Mr. Gore about a court case in Britain in which a parent had objected to “An Inconvenient Truth” being shown to British schoolchildren because it was largely propaganda, not science.

Mr. Gore swatted away the question by claiming the judge had found in favor of his film. He also briefly addressed one of the objections to his film by scoffing at claims that polar bears weren’t an endangered species. Mr. McAleer tried to follow up by pointing out that polar bear populations were increasing, but his microphone was quickly cut off. Organizers insisted that several other people were waiting with questions and they had to move on.

In fact, Mr. Gore didn’t answer Mr. McAleer’s question and was wrong on the facts. The British court found that An Inconvenient Truth “is a political film” riddled with scientific errors. The judge also held that requiring the film to be shown in schools would be a violation of law, unless accompanied by “guidance” pointing out its errors. The judge concluded that the claimant who objected to the film “substantially won this case by virtue of my finding that, but for the new guidance note, the film would have been distributed in breach of sections 406 and 407 of the 1996 Education Act.”

As for polar bears, Mr. McAleer was correct: Surveys show their numbers are increasing.

Mr. McAleer, whose film premiers this weekend, says he’s more disappointed in the environmental journalists who give Mr. Gore cover than in the former vice president. Mr. Gore is simply doing what any propagandist with a weak case would do — avoiding serious debate or exchange. To quote the late William F. Buckley, “There is a reason that baloney rejects the grinder.”

It has taken many years, but it looks like it’s finally happening! I’m talking about the voice of reason being heard in the whole global warming hysteria.

Al Gore has been viciously beating his tired old drum for years now and pushing ridiculous taxes and ridiculous policies (I’m not even going to get into his hypocrisy in all this), and, in the process, has been very careful to use all his power and the power of his cronies to silence all critics.

Watch his ridiculous fictional documentary and you’ll see that he wants everyone to believe that his bizarre notion that we’re screwing up the earth’s climate is practically a scientific consensus out there, that there is no sound opposition to this.

Up until recently, he and his cronies have done a very good job of marginalizing and ridiculing any scientist opposing them. But, as Kimberley A. Strassel writes in a hope-inspiring opinion piece in today’s Wall Street Journal, the tide is finally turning and people (and governments) are starting to see the hype in it all and are starting to give real scientists the audience they deserve.

Some key excerpts of her piece:

Among the many reasons President Barack Obama and the Democratic majority are so intent on quickly jamming a cap-and-trade system through Congress is because the global warming tide is again shifting. It turns out Al Gore and the United Nations (with an assist from the media), did a little too vociferous a job smearing anyone who disagreed with them as “deniers.” The backlash has brought the scientific debate roaring back to life in Australia, Europe, Japan and even, if less reported, the U.S. . .

The number of skeptics, far from shrinking, is swelling. Oklahoma Sen. Jim Inhofe now counts more than 700 scientists who disagree with the U.N. — 13 times the number who authored the U.N.’s 2007 climate summary for policymakers. . .

The collapse of the “consensus” has been driven by reality. The inconvenient truth is that the earth’s temperatures have flat-lined since 2001, despite growing concentrations of C02. Peer-reviewed research has debunked doomsday scenarios about the polar ice caps, hurricanes, malaria, extinctions, rising oceans. . .

Republicans in the U.S. have, in recent years, turned ever more to the cost arguments against climate legislation. That’s made sense in light of the economic crisis. If Speaker Nancy Pelosi fails to push through her bill, it will be because rural and Blue Dog Democrats fret about the economic ramifications. Yet if the rest of the world is any indication, now might be the time for U.S. politicians to re-engage on the science. One thing for sure: They won’t be alone.