Global warming

'œHis face was puffier, his body thicker, and his hair grayer,' said Dana Milbank in The Washington Post. But when Al Gore strode into the U.S. Capitol last week, for the first time since losing the 2000 presidential race to George W. Bush, 'œit was, in many ways, a 21st-century version of the Scopes trial.' Fresh from starring in an Academy Award'“winning documentary, An Inconvenient Truth, the former vice president returned to Washington as a champion of scientific truth, to duel with conservative Republicans who doubt that global warming poses a real threat. Gore received a hero's welcome, said Faye Fiore and Richard Simon in the Los Angeles Times. To witness the 'œGoracle's' testimony before a Senate committee, overflow crowds 'œstarted lining up as early as 7

' He didn't disappoint, predicting widespread disaster unless the U.S. acts immediately to radically curb greenhouse gas emissions. 'œThis is the most dangerous crisis we have ever faced,' he told Congress. 'œThis problem is burning a hole in the top of the world.' Fellow Democrats hailed him as a prophet, but skeptical Republicans scoffed. 'œYou're not just off a little,' said Joe Barton of the House Energy and Commerce Committee. 'œYou're totally wrong.'

That's a bit harsh—Gore is mostly wrong, said Jonathan Last in The Weekly Standard. It's true, as he says, that the planet has warmed about 1 degree Fahrenheit over the last century. But such fluctuations are not at all unusual, which Gore never mentions. His biggest fallacy, though, is his apocalyptic portrayal of the potential impact of warmer temperatures, which the science emphatically does not support. Gore, for example, predicts that melting ice caps will cause the world's oceans to rise by 20 feet. The U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, though, estimates a maximum of 23 inches. Gore is no voice of reason, said Michael Barone in National Review Online. 'œHe is more like an Old Testament prophet, calling on us to bewail our wrongful conduct and to go and sin no more.'

Subscribe to The Week

Escape your echo chamber. Get the facts behind the news, plus analysis from multiple perspectives.

SUBSCRIBE & SAVE

Sign up for The Week's Free Newsletters

From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.

From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.

Sign up

Can you believe these conservatives? said Jonathan Chait in the Los Angeles Times. The evidence for global warming is overwhelming. This year, the world's leading climatologists said it's almost certain that human activities—primarily the burning of fossil fuels—are filling the atmosphere with greenhouse gases that are causing an accelerating increase in temperatures. But conservative Republicans are reacting by burying their heads in the sand. Last year, 23 percent of Republican senators and congressmen said they thought man-made climate change was occurring; this year, only 13 percent said yes. Why the decline? Simple: 'œA small number of hard-core ideologues' have recast global warming as the 'œparty dogma' of that other tribe—liberal Democrats. Conservatives know it is their duty to hate Al Gore and anyone who admires him, so they reflexively insist that global warming is a myth. 'œLike the notion that tax cuts are always good or that President Bush is a brave war leader, it's something you almost have to believe if you're an elected Republican.'

The truth lies somewhere in the middle, said Danish climate expert Bjorn Lomborg in the New York Post. 'œGlobal warming is indeed real,' and the evidence suggests a 5-degree temperature rise over the next century. But the consequences of that increase likely will be far less dire than Gore predicts, and do not warrant the $180 billion it would cost every year to implement the impractical greenhouse-gas reductions called for in the Kyoto Protocol. Here's a better idea: Have all nations commit to spending just 0.05 percent of their GDP on developing non-carbon-emitting energy technologies, such as nuclear fusion, solar, or more exotic possibilities. 'œThis approach would cost about $25 billion per year—seven times cheaper than Kyoto.'

Jonathan Rauch

Reason