Dismantling Gorezilla

Jonathan Last lets Al "Gorezilla" Gore off the hook far too lightly for his hypocrisy about energy. I happen to think it is a very big deal that he uses gargantuan quantities of energy while preaching that other folks have to cut back. He uses the modern equivalent of medieval indulgences to offset his carbon sins, which is yet another problem. Nonetheless, Last systematically dismantles Gore's four main, mutually dependent, assertions. He does so quite logically, which will, of course, place him on the enemies list being compiled by the true believers from the First Church of the Presumptuous Assumption of Global Warming®.

The post-Oscar attacks on Al Gore for living in a mansion that consumes 20 times as much energy as the average American house were enjoyable, but unfair.

Gore's consumption of fossil fuels has nothing to do with the arguments he has been advancing about climate change. After all, his thesis is empirical, not subjective.

It doesn't matter a lick whether Al Gore is a hypocrite. What matters is whether or not he is right.

Gore proposes essentially four assertions, which build conditionally:

(1) Earth's climate is getting warmer; (2) man is responsible in substantial part for this change;

(3) this change will result in net harm; and (4) this change can be reversed by man.

Let's take them in order.

Here is what we know for certain about climate change: In the last 100 years, the average temperature on Earth has risen 1 degree Fahrenheit.

This is not unprecedented. Throughout history, the planet has gone through temperature cycles. There have been "warm periods" and ice ages.

To take just one example, Swiss climatologists believe that the glaciers in the Alps have melted into near nothingness 10 times in the last 10,000 years.

Read the whole thing. It is very well put together and strongly refutes the four assertions Gorezilla's take relies on. The one thing that is extremely bothersome about this entire brouhaha is that the true believers are arguing essentially for a completely static climate. This has never been the case on this planet. The climate has varied wildly over and over and over. Man certainly had nothing to do with all those other swings. There is a certain grandiose hubris on full display from those who say all these climate changes are the fault of man's activities. Now, if we want to address the cessation of burning fossil fuels for energy, that is a worthwhile discussion. But the answer probably is going to involve nuclear power - something the ecologically-driven fringe blocked for decades. With an astonishingly similar campaign to what is being used right now by the warming enthusiasts, mind you.