The War on Gore

A reader takes on Al Gore:

"... One, there is actual dispute as to whether and how much warming is going on. Two, it is not at all settled science that any warming is anthropogenic. Third, the potential cost of remedying any problem is significantly worse than the underlying problem."
And:
"Further, they don't consider how many millions will starve to death when farmers are forced to buy green equipment, reduce fossil fuels, use corn for ethanol, etc. Gore is dangerous, which is why he must be stopped!"

I agree with some of this, and it touches on an important point that forms the basis of my opinion on the topic. I understand the movement behind denying global warming. Changes to avert its problems can seriously affect how people do business and harm the bottom line. This is strong motivation to resist the growing momentum of public opinion. On the other side of the argument are hundreds of scientists from around the world claiming the problem is real. If global warming is real (and possibly man-made), what's in it for them to say so? Because there is no clear gain for scientists if it does exist, I have an easier time believing them.