6 comments

• 

  Wadard

  3 years ago

  Yea, Katrina was such a huge exaggeration.
• 

  JT

  3 years ago

  And let's not forget the Galveston Hurricane of 1900!
  
  JT
• 

  Mike Linksvayer

  3 years ago

  I haven't seen the movie yet though I did see Gore's lecture early this year.
  
  Gore's tactic is bait and switch. He sells the fact of anthropogenic global warming but tries to get you to buy imminent global catastrophe.
  
  Bailey is right about global warming skeptics having credibility problems. It pains me to see people like Arnold Kling clinging (no pun intended) to the skeptic line.
• 

  deadzone

  3 years ago

  So we have a guy that get's paid a lot of money saying there is no problem and we have a guy gettting paid a lot of money to say there is a problem? Clear as mud to me.
  
  The thing I don't understand is this: Why NOT worry about what we are doing to the planet and ourselves? Can anyone say for certain and with no reasonable doubt that we are not making changes to the earth in some way by what we do? I know I can't. How about you?
  
  Anyway, it won't be us that have to worry about whether or not this is true. We will be dead and buried and won't get to see the end of this little story anyway. I love gambling - it's exciting, and I can possibly win big too!
• 

  eee_eff

  3 years ago

  "Gore's tactic is bait and switch. He sells the fact of anthropogenic global warming but tries to get you to buy imminent global catastrophe."
  
  The catastrophe is already real--the changing habitata, the destruction of forest in British columbia, these are all happening now.
  
  Those who are arguing against policy actions to prevent global warming have just changed their arguument, saying that it really not that bad.
  
  What they ignore is that Global Warming is part of a process that will take a very long time to slow down. So it's not that bad--yet. It will be much worrse in the future.
• 

  eric

  3 years ago

  For a saner perspective, by someone who has actually been to the polar ice cap (and been writing about climate for decades, most recently in the New York Times), one might want to listen to Andrew Revkin, available as a replay from the June 14 Fresh Air with Terry Gross program, over at NPR.
  
  He believes in man-caused global warming, but thinks that Algore's presentation was more "lawyerly" than scientific. It is irresponsible to connect climate change to individual events like Katrina. That is not the way science is done. And if one actually reads the reports of the IPCC, one will find all kinds of "ifs," "maybes," "probablys" and many other fudge-words.
  
  There is a simple problem which we cannot overcome, even if we believe that man is causing global warming (and personally I believe man is responsible for only a small part of a very modest warming). That problem is bad computer climate models. None of them give accurate results if backtested. What that means is that we can't be sure that whatever corrective action we take will fix the warming "problem."
  
  Why this hubristic urge to tinker with a machine we cannot understand? We may be about to plunge into another ice age. Ice ages came and went long before man could have had anything to do with them. If we cut down carbon emissions to stop "warming" we might make the next ice age worse. Do you really want to take that risk???
  
  Without accurate knowledge of why the climate changes, which involves many factors, co-factors, and feedback loops, attempted corrective action could be as disastrous as the alleged effect we've already had. People who deny this simply do not understand chaos theory.