Submitted by Dr. M. A. Urban, Mar 27, 2007 05:55

The idea that Gore is a cartoon character that overstates his cases for dramatic effect is nothing new (remember the "I invented the internet" comment?). He is an easy target who may or may not understand the science behind the ideas he describes in his movie.

But there is a logical leap from that assertion to the arguments that: a) he represents a secular form of scientism that is attractive to baby-boomers because of their revulsion of organized religion; b) this global climate change business is a bunch of hooey and; c) even if it is happening, there is nothing that we can do about it that will not lead to the rise of fascism around the world.

There is undoubtedly something to the idea that the stigma associated with organized religion among American baby-boomers has led to this particular group of people yearning for sources of spirituality elsewhere in the secular realm. Yet, I don't buy the author's argument that Al Gore and the popular acceptance of global climate change is predicated on this. If that were the case, we would expect his most impassioned supporters to be of that generation, which I'm not sure is the case.

Accepting Mr. Gore on faith has less to do with the publics' yearning for sources of spirituality than the simple fact that they don't understand the science and are swayed by his arguments. Because most people don't have the background or training to understand global climate change, they rely on people calling themselves experts to tell them what is happening.

Barone also conflates what Gore is doing with the science underwriting climate assessments and climate predictions. I don't know if he is doing this because he himself does not understand the science, or if he is simply using this as a means to attack Mr. Gore. It seems to me that Mr. Gore quite rightly understands that public policy is not, and never has been, solely a function of science. It is primarily a function of public will and political action, informed by science. Public policy is a different animal than primary scientific research. Many scientists are uncomfortable with some of the things Mr. Gore says because he does sometimes offer Hollywood visions of what will happen to environmental systems if existing conditions do not change.

But the thing that disturbs me the most about the article is that it seems to suggest that there is consensus in the scientific community that global climate change as we are witnessing it now is mundane and not to be worried about. Gore might have some of the details wrong, but he is not understating the concern the exists in the scientific community or the conviction of many that we are traveling down an uncharted road which will lead to irreversible changes in the physical world as we know it, especially in highly sensitive ecosystems and physical landscapes. Last year a report produced by scientists around the world entitled the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment provided a sober and typically conservative estimate of the impact people have had on environments around the world for the past century and the potential for future change in these systems. It is not as sexy or overstated as the stuff that Al Gore presents, but it is no less disturbing.

It is irresponsible for Mr. Barone to dismiss the science of climate change and the effects humans are having on physical environments around the world as a baby-boomer fantasy. It is naïve for Mr. Barone to assert that there are "worse things than a rise of 1 or 2 degrees Centigrade" when he clearly doesn't understand the implications of this phrase on global issues of poverty, migration, drought, political tension and social unrest.

(I am an Assistant Professor of Geography at the University of Missouri and a Fulbright Scholar currently in Shenyang, China.)

Note: Comments are screened, and in some cases edited, before posting. We reserve the right to reject anything we find objectionable.