Steven Landsberg's "Six Hard Questions" piece is a perfect example of what's happened to our education system over the past couple of decades - we've awarded advanced degrees to thousands of folks who now believe they know something about the human condition and that it's their duty to explain to the rest of us how to interpret events and process information. The trouble is, they know how to "solve" the example problems presented in the textbook, but have no clue how to translate and apply the real points of the exercise to a real-world situation. And, perhaps most dangerously, many of them are now professors themselves.

From the opening proposition that greed is somehow different from weighing our "right" to our current standard of living against that of future generations (re: Gordon Gekko - "Greed is good") to the patent nonsense of proclaiming that when a future worker is earning "a million dollars a day" it somehow won't be in an economy where it also costs $40,000 to buy a loaf of bread and a root canal will be $7,000,000 (did his textbook mention Chile's 84% inflation rate in the 50's, and how it doesn't help to have a wheelbarrow full of money if it's still not enough to buy a pair of shoes?) he uses sophomoric economic analysis and a good vocabulary to deceive readers into thinking he's not a manipulative, shallow thinker who's trying to impress with what should be dismissed as transparent sophistry.

The whole article is a delusion and it's shameful for him to suggest readers should take any part of it seriously as a contribution to what is a necessary and very critical international dialog.

If you don't think greed will play a huge factor in the critical international dialog on climate change then you are delusional. Hell greed is the only reason Al Gore made his movie to begin with.

But, greed doesn't cause climate change. Sunspots do.

Having not interviewed Al Gore, I don't know exactly what proportion of his motivation to allocate to which personal trait - greed, altruism, ego, concern, political exposure, desire to associate with movie types, etc.; unless you have, I suggest you not blithely dismiss it as greed, especially since there seem to be thousands of scientists who agree with his basic claims and who do not stand to gain much monetarily from doing so.

I don't blithely dismiss it. Al Gore formed an asset management firm in 2004 which invests in green technologies. He then made a movie which stirs up public concern over these issues with some alarmist views. Now he is on his way to being a billionaire so the cynic in me says that Al Gore is a scumbag who couldn't care less about the enviroment he just wants to get paid. At least if he had made the simple effort to put a solar panel or 2 on his house I could at least believe that these things mattered to him but he hasn't even in the face of all the criticism he's received over it.

I assume that's a tongue-in-cheek response. ;-)

Previous response directed to Ford, not Sir.

To Sir - the source notwithstanding, here's a piece among many on Gore's personal use of energy: <link>

As I said, I can't speak for motives, only the enormous agreement voiced by scientists all over the world. I don't really pay a lot of attention to what politicians say in their politician role. Gore's work to raise awareness is laudable. I just hope our response as a nation will be regarded similarly by future generations.

I guess all doctors are greedy too. Is it better to become wealthy through means which help, or educate others, or become rich by hurting others. In the end listen to the message and forget the messenger.

Anyway, if Gore was as greedy he'd have much easier ways to make money than this. Would he donate his noble prize money?

This is the only time I'll draw an absolute in any argument I make. Politicians are lying, cheating, uneducated, greedy, manipulative, two faced, back stabbing, abusive, power mongers whose only objective is push, pry, squash, destroy any other member of their breed in order to latch on to the largest societal teat they can find to suck the life from their host. The same can be said of bureaucrats.