Inconvenient Truth or Lies

Tonight we saw Al Gore's documentary on global warning. It seems like a surprisingly personal movie, and I can't but admire his dedication for this cause. It's not that he looks any more appealing than he did in the year 2000 when he had the misfortune of "losing" his presidential election to you-know-who, I mean, he still looks like a politician to me. But, there seems to be sincerity in his message. And anyway, how is it that the subject of global warming has been disputed so vehemently, there is just something wrong with that.

Climate conditions obey very complex models, yes, but there must be a way for scientists to lay down the facts and depict their predictions together with the assumptions they rely on. And then tackle the subject once and for all. What is there so hard about that? And why is it that some people seem to feel so strongly about the "non-veracity" of global warming that they seem to be ready to fight all the battles it takes to stop the message from reaching us? I mean, even if your profound beliefs told you the message was a hoax, is the cause of stopping measures to counter global warming *that* urgent? Where is the danger, where is the fire? What is the worst that could happen if we put some efforts into trying to stop this evolution and then found out that our concerns had been exaggerated? Would we lose a lot of money? Would *they* lose a lot of money?

I guess those are the important questions. Without the answers to that, none of his whole debate makes much sense to me. And to follow the discussions, as polarized as they are, is frankly exasperating. But that movie is worthwhile, I think. You might not think you learned much you didn't already know, but it does pretty much sum up the debate so far, and maybe put some things into context ...