This is a fairly technical, but readable article about why Al Gore (and others of like minds) are trying to sell the country a bill of goods when he speaks in certainties about what the effects of global warming will be and what we must and can do about it.
Gore a few years ago made it much harder to have a rational debate about global warming when he compared those who disagreed to Holocaust deniers. Because of that -- as well as his refusal to acknowledge that global warming science isn't nearly as certain as he makes it out to be and neither are the solutions, even if he is right about the problem -- the discussion has largely devolved into an empty ideological debate, and debate maybe too generous a word. The author of the piece in the link makes a strong case about how we must first calculate the risk then decide how much risk we are willing to accept. He talks about the probability of Pakistan losing control of its nuclear arsenal sometime in the next 100 years and a nuclear war breaking out between it and India, or the possibility of a nuclear war breaking out between Israel and Iran during the next century. Both have a small chance of occurring but have to be at least as likely (probably more) than the worst-case scenario of global warming, yet we don't go all out with our military and other options to reduce that risk to zero -- because we know there will be tremendous costs if we do so, and even if we do we still won't be able to assure that those scenarios never occur.
Global warming science is uncertain -- it could be overplaying or underplaying the risk -- and our technology is not yet sophisticated enough to significantly reduce the risk even if Gore was right. Those are the facts on the ground. How should we proceed? That's the billion dollar question.
