Q & A

First question: Please elaborate on the money-saving, productivity-boosting potential of strongly addressing climate change.

First answer: Uh oh... trigonometry? Ok, well recovered. And he's acknowledged that in some spheres there are costs to attacking the problem. AND he's pointing out to Republicans that, in England, the Tories and Labor are fighting--to come up with the best solutions. "The debate on the science is over!"

But he was meandering and not as persuasive as he should have been.

Update:

Second question: Barton, attacking An Inconvenient Truth, is disingenuously suggesting that warming drives carbon levels and not the other way around, that Gore's estimates on sea-level rises are wrong, and that malaria is not a warm-weather disease (they have it in Siberia after all), and that Kyoto-like policies will raise electricity prices with little concomitant benefit to the environment. After all that, the question is whether the CAFE standards that Gore supports are closer to Japan's (45 mpg) or China's (30 mpg).

Second Answer: Gore trying pretty valiantly to address all of Barton's misdirection, but Barton is interrupting, asking for an answer to the very narrow actual question about CAFE standards. That's some sleazy questioning. (Sir, you are known to me to be a liar and a fraud and many suggest that you've even harbored illicit fantasies about your mother. My question: Do you like the Yankees this year?)

Ultimately I think that went better for Gore than for Barton. But come on!