Global warming?

[classicman]

covering the environmental beat meant toeing the line of extremism — no inconvenient questions allowed.

consumers and businesses ~ will pay the ultimate price, ~ If alarmists like Al Gore get their way, millions of American families will watch as their dreams of a prosperous and pleasant future disappear.

Scary? Hell yeh, true or false? I dunno...

[Spexxvet]

Gonna cost more? How much are you willing to pay to possibly save your life, the lives of your family, and your property? An arborist tells you that the tree beside your house might fall, possibly falling on you and killing you, or falling on your house and destroying it. Will you not take action because it will cost you to have it cut down?

Don't sweat it - George Bush says your tree is falling from natural causes, and any action you take won't make a difference.
It was Bush's fault

[SamIam]

From the Times Online (emphasis my own):

The Government’s decision to show the film in secondary schools had come under attack from Stewart Dim-mock, a school governor in Kent and a member of political group the New Party, who accused the Government of brainwashing children.
The first mistake made by Mr Gore, said Mr Justice Burton in his written judgment, was in talking about the potential devastation wrought by a rise in sea levels caused by the melting of ice caps.
The claim that sea levels could rise by 20ft “in the near future” was dismissed as “distinctly alarmist”. Such a rise would take place “only after, and over, millennia”.
Mr Justice Burton added: “The ar-mageddon scenario he predicts, inso-far as it suggests that sea level rises of seven metres might occur in the immediate future, is not in line with the scientific consensus.”
A claim that atolls in the Pacific had already been evacuated was supported by “no evidence”, while to suggest that two graphs showing carbon dioxide levels and temperatures over the last 650,000 years were an “exact fit” overstated the case.
Mr Gore’s suggestion that the Gulf Stream, that warms up the Atlantic ocean, would shut down was contradicted by the International Panel on Climate Change’s assessment that it was “very unlikely” to happen.
The drying of Lake Chad, the loss of Mount Kilimanjaro’s snows and Hurricane Katrina were all blamed by Mr Gore on climate change but the judge said the scientific community had been unable to find evidence to prove there was a direct link.
The drying of Lake Chad, the judge said, was “far more likely to result from other factors, such as population increase and overgrazing, and regional climate variability”. The melting of snow on Mt Kilimanjaro was “mainly attributable to human-induced climate change”.
The judge also said there was no proof to support a claim that polar bears were drowning while searching for icy habitats melted by global warming. The only drowned polar bears the court was aware of were four that died following a storm.
Similarly, the judge took issue with the former Vice-President of the United States for attributing coral bleaching to climate change. Separating the direct impacts of climate change and other factors was difficult, the judgment concluded. Despite finding nine significant errors the judge said many of the claims made by the film were fully backed up by the weight of science. He identified “four main scientific hypotheses, each of which is very well supported by research published in respected, peer-reviewed journals and accords with the latest conclusions of the IPCC”.
In particular, he agreed with the main thrust of Mr Gore’s arguments: “That climate change is mainly attributable to man-made emissions of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide (‘greenhouse gases’).”
The other three main points accepted by the judge were that global temperatures are rising and are likely to continue to rise, that climate change will cause serious damage if left unchecked, and that it is entirely possible for governments and individuals to reduce its impacts. — A High Court judge since 1998, Sir Michael Burton, 60, was president of the Employment Appeal Tribunal from 2002 to 2005. He stood in local elections for Labour in Kensington and Chelsea in 1971; Stratford upon Avon in the General Election in 1974; and for the SDP in Greater London Council elections in 1981. Educated at Eton and Balliol College, Oxford, his wife died in 1992 leaving him to bring up four daughters

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/to...cle2633838.ece

I'm not sure what expertise serving as president of the Employment Appeal Tribunal gives this judge on environmental matters. He seems to be caving in to the protests of some fringe character called "Dim-Mock" who appears to be living up to his unfortunate name.

At any rate, the Judge did agree with much of the film, ESPECIALLY the danger of CO2 gases accumulating in the atmosphere. I consider $1,761/year a small price to pay to avoid what could be very serious climate impacts on the younger members of our population and our children. I am comparatively long in the tooth and have no children, so the whole argument is moot to me. I could be almost amused at the willful stupidity of the American people if the outcome was not so grim.