Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Ilaine who wrote (21402)	6/19/2006 12:47:38 PM
From: epicure	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 541946

I disagree with you about that. I saw the movie. I don't think he gives that impression.

To: Ilaine who wrote (21402)	6/19/2006 1:03:42 PM
From: thames_sider	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 541946

I think you bolded the wrong section. Gore has won the global warming debate—the world is warming as a consequence of human activity, chiefly the loading up of the atmosphere with carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels. ... On balance Gore gets it more right than wrong on the science (we'll leave the policy stuff to another time), but he undercuts his message by becoming the opposite of a global warming denier. He's a global warming exaggerator. In other words, he's right on the science but he's exaggerating or picking the most extreme likely effects. Seems the most important point. Of course, no other campaigner ever exaggerates so this completely invalidates Gore's message </irony>.

To: Ilaine who wrote (21402)	6/19/2006 3:23:45 PM
From: JohnM	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 541946

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.