- "Al Gore" with "Fred Singer"
- "green" with "conventional"
- "wind" with "coal"
almost anyone would be suspicious, and has been in the past. So I can certainly understand why skeptics and those who aren't convinced would look upon Gore's advocacy with suspicion. He has scientific legitimacy on his side, but it's still a tight rope to walk, it seems to me.
If coal and AGW were Singer's only activism, I'd see the parallel, but Singer has also denied ozone destruction and second-hand smoke effect, and has (I think) benefited financially from that. Doing this across a wide range of fields provides a distinction from Gore, above and beyond the ethical screen of acting in a way that's consistent with the science.
Post a Comment