For example, when Gore tells you that there is a scientific consensus that humans are contributing to global warming, he suggests, without actually saying, that there is a scientific consensus that the scientific community agrees with his doomsday scenario.
One of the several reasons I think this Ronald Bailey piece, which I've read elsewhere, pretends to a level of authority it never reaches, is this exaggeration on his part. In the film, Gore doesn't do that.
He wants you to believe that if we don't do something about it, the consequences are ugly. And he wants you to believe that he believes that and you should believe it because the scientific sources he consults are top notch on this topic.
All of which is perfectly reasonable.
The talk of scientific consensus is clearly brought in to play, and he underlines it, when he is talking about the two notions: global warming and human contributions to it.
For the rest of it, there is a disagreement, not hypocrisy. It would be interesting to see a debate between Gore and Bailey. |
