So what is your take on the article I posted? Since apparently you believe that you have an ounce of intellectual curiousity.
I believe that scientists are divided on the issue, which means keep an open mind, and be aware of the consequences if the scientists who are suggesting global warming is a threat are correct. For me it boils down to risk. What is riskier? Pretending nothing is wrong until it is too late, or being prudent and taking cautionary steps to ensure the well being of our planet?
Okay good. Now let me ask you one other thing. Is Al Gore's movie the only way to learn about the theory that global warming is an imminent threat? I call it a theory not to demean the message. At this point the jury is out, so it remains a theory.
In a two hour period, I can't imagine Bush reading a book to get the same point of view. Sorry, but the Bush family just ain't too bright, and are used to watching rather than reading... Yes, it is a theory, but a theory that has much greater potential for danger than terrorism, communism, etc. If it were only a couple of mad scientists, fine. However, there are sufficient scientists who are concerned that any reasonable thinking person should be as well.... That said, Bush is still a moron who selectively practice Catholicism, carries around worry beads, and goes to see movies about mutants.
The problem with your approach is you have no real idea if global warming is caused by human activity, if any increase in Atlantic Ocean temps are caused by global warming, if any increases in Atlantic Ocean temps cause more or worse hurricanes and if there is anything we could do about any of it even if the answer to all these murky questions was yes. Proponents of global warming scare theories like Al Gore like to sweep all these difficult scientific questions under the rug and pretend that there is a global consensus of scientists on each issue, when in fact there is anything but. Obviously in Gore's case it is his personal political hobby horse that he hopes to ride into the White house. Others in the environmental community hope to use it to limit economic activity, which they regard as inherently harmful. Others want to use it to transfer resources to the less developed world by handicapping the western industrialized countries. ZZZ's central point, that the science may be murky but why take the chance, cannot pass elementary cost/benefit analysis. The cure that Gore and others want, something on the line of Kyoto, would cripple our economy and cause far more damage than the wildest global warming fantasies. Why would we want to inflict that on ourselves when we have no way of knowing if there is any real danger or if our remedy would have the slightest beneficial effect? Because it "might" prevent harm? Using that reasoning we should move to caves because a meteor "might" hit earth. Why take the risk? Having said all that, I do believe it makes sense to limit coastal development, particularly in idiotic areas like New Orleans. Rebuilding slums that are below sea level in a vast wetland that suffers repeated hurricanes is just a waste of money, but I don't hear Al Gore or any other Democrats objecting to it.
So in other words, it has nothing to do with the fact that he isn't seeing the movie. It has only to do with you taking an opportunity to call Bush a moron. Very intellectual of you.
Because Bush is a moron, he isn't seeing the movie.... As I have said, any reasonable leader who has an open mind would want to get both sides of the story, and a movie is an easy way to get the story, especially for someone of the intellectual level that goes to see movies about mutants....
Gore continually bashes his brother, so why would he even support Al Gore by seeing his movie? He can get the same information elsewhere without supporting someone who bashes his brother.
In two hours, Bush can't get the info elsewhere, he doesn't have the reading comprehension.... Face it, the Bush boys are morons. They favor loyalty over what is right. We see that in the cronyism that has fucked up our government. I feel sorry that you have to try to defend them, I really do....
You are taking an all or nothing argument, which is par for the course. My point is that the right wing is in full denial of even the possibility that man is contributing to global warming....yes, scientists nearly universally agree that the planet is warming. It is normal, and sadly the way things work, that when the party in power is so steeped in denial, that the other party has to go to extremes in hopes of bringing the issue back to center. There is no reasonable conclusion except to have an open mind about this, but do we see this from the right wing pundits? Not at all....they are in full on denial. Does this make the left wing right? Not at all....they are in zeal mode. However, an open minded person is concerned about the possibility, and will not dismiss either side. Cleaner air, less pollution, fish that you could eat and not die from....how can any of this be a bad thing?