Michael Moore has near zero credibility. He is a liberal version of Glenn Beck with "documentaries" instead of a chalkboard. Even a broken clock has the right time twice a day. To cite another post here, "Figures don't lie but liars always use figures.".
It's interesting that as I did a Google search for the link I am going to give here that all the results at the top of the search --for pages--dated back to 2007 and 2009...and all of them(with the exception of the "extreme deniers conspiracy posts") were from sources advocating drastic and immediate action to reduce human carbon emissions--which all of those articles listed cited as "the" reason for climate change and "the" need for immediate and drastic action...regardless of the short term damage to global and national economies and to particular people groups. Those almost unanimous search results line right up with the politically correct views of those hawking this effort to stop man from destroying the planet.
I don't doubt climate change is happening--nor do I doubt that human activity has had a great role in the speed and degree of it occurring. What this statement doesn't address (and neither do the statements of the "stop all man-made CO2 emissions" activists')--is whether or not there is anything significant we can do, how much of it can be affected by man and what amount of human resources need to be expended to do so.
So in this Google search, all the views were, "It's man's fault and we must now do everything humanly possible" views (sprinkled with a few "It's a hoax" views). What was missing was an actual scientific estimate and measure of exactly what can be done. Suggested measures to control climate change have included restricting farming and livestock activities, controlling food production and distribution, population control, de-industrialization, conversions of entire economies--all to "go green".
Now imagine if I burst into your house and told you a horror story about how bad things were going to happen but then went on to explain a "nightmare beyond imagination" was coming, showed little qualified and measurable degrees of what exactly "nightmare" meant and then went on to say, "To stop it, I need money from you right now!". When I answered, "How much?" your response would be, "How much do you have?".
My next questions would be, "Wait...what do you need? How will my money actually help? What do you mean by "nightmare"? I would not just "hand you my checkbook".
This is what many advocate--a global level of authority that can dictate to any nation exactly what economic commitments and sacrifices they will be required to make--regardless of the impact on their nation. They also demand a central authority that can decide what power generation and industrial activities will be allowed to be started by emerging nations and third world economies as well as determining what existing industrial and power production can continue in developed nations.
That's a lot to ask for and only justify it with, "It's really bad and it's going to get worse and you have to give us everything and we'll try to figure it out as we go.".
So in all those search results only articles advocating "drastic and immediate actions" were displayed. No real measure of exactly how much of the problem is genuinely man-made and absolutely no measure at all of what affect various man-made actions would have on changing things. Just the urgent cry, "The sky is falling now!".
So here is the one report I have seen that even begins to try to really pinpoint what man might be able to do. It doesn't advocate a particular action or inaction--it does what science should and simply presents findings. Ironically, it's hard to find such things now even with Goggle since climate change activism has gone from being a mere viewpoint to passionately defended meme.:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/01/110128095044.htm
http://earthweb.ess.washington.edu/roe/GerardWeb/Publications_files/ArmourRoe_committed.pdf
I am all for human effort that has a good chance of improving things in a significant way. I am not all for indiscriminate, unmeasured responses at "any cost". It isn't uncaring about the environment or denying climate change to want this. It's a rational way to assess what can be done.
The biased hype is the problem now. The willingness of many (including some scientists) to oversell or even misrepresent facts and science because they are "so sure" they are right--based on the "fact" that they are "so sure".
This is Missouri--show me.
