Global climate truths, convenient or not

It was rather startling that when scientists moved the minute hand on the Doomsday Clock a few days ago, they cited the dual menace of nuclear war and global warming as dangerous enough to move up the inevitable end of time. I wondered at the time why global warming was considered a threat as immediate as nuclear war.

Seems the topic is generating a huge amount of global attention, and fear. But where’s the reasoned debate, the intellectual and scientific examination of the facts? That’s what some responsible journalists in Denmark are asking.

Al Gore is traveling around the world telling us how we must fundamentally change our civilization due to the threat of global warming. Today he is in Denmark to disseminate this message. But if we are to embark on the costliest political project ever, maybe we should make sure it rests on solid ground. It should be based on the best facts, not just the convenient ones. This was the background for the biggest Danish newspaper, Jyllands-Posten, to set up an investigative interview with Mr. Gore. And for this, the paper thought it would be obvious to team up with Bjorn Lomborg, author of “The Skeptical Environmentalist,” who has provided one of the clearest counterpoints to Mr. Gore’s tune.

Now that’s a great idea. Conduct a point/counterpoint debate over one of the hottest issues (sorry) of our time. We can all learn a lot from that, since we are largely uninformed about global warming, beyond the hype and propaganda. But we also learn a lot by seeing who wants that debate, and who does not.

The interview had been scheduled for months. Mr. Gore’s agent yesterday thought Gore-meets-Lomborg would be great. Yet an hour later, he came back to tell us that Bjorn Lomborg should be excluded from the interview because he’s been very critical of Mr. Gore’s message about global warming and has questioned Mr. Gore’s evenhandedness. According to the agent, Mr. Gore only wanted to have questions about his book and documentary, and only asked by a reporter. These conditions were immediately accepted by Jyllands-Posten. Yet an hour later we received an email from the agent saying that the interview was now cancelled. What happened?

One can only speculate. But if we are to follow Mr. Gore’s suggestions of radically changing our way of life, the costs are not trivial. If we slowly change our greenhouse gas emissions over the coming century, the U.N. actually estimates that we will live in a warmer but immensely richer world. However, the U.N. Climate Panel suggests that if we follow Al Gore’s path down toward an environmentally obsessed society, it will have big consequences for the world, not least its poor. In the year 2100, Mr. Gore will have left the average person 30% poorer, and thus less able to handle many of the problems we will face, climate change or no climate change.

Clearly we need to ask hard questions.

So why is Al Gore dodging them? For a past vice-president, a presidential candidate who understands the need for reasoned debate (doesn’t he…?), it’s startling to see him ditch the interview. And unprofessional of him to set up interview terms that were so controlled and narrow, they didn’t allow for debate with a professional who questions his even-handedness. If he is even-handed, what’s he afraid of, anyway?

Apparently, of not controlling his immediate environment, along with the global one.

Al Gore is on a mission. If he has his way, we could end up choosing a future, based on dubious claims, that could cost us, according to a U.N. estimate, $553 trillion over this century. Getting answers to hard questions is not an unreasonable expectation before we take his project seriously. It is crucial that we make the right decisions posed by the challenge of global warming. These are best achieved through open debate, and we invite him to take the time to answer our questions: We are ready to interview you any time, Mr. Gore — and anywhere.

That is an eminently reasonable, fair request. And it’s far more responsible than making dramatic claims without substantiating them for challengers. So who is the truth most inconvenient for, after all?

While Mr. Gore is dodging these questions in Denmark, lawmakers and corporate decision-makers in Washington have engaged the issue of global warming by necessity or demand. Maybe the result will finally be less heat, and more light.